Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012 Nov;14(11):1043-52. doi: 10.1089/dia.2012.0145. Epub 2012 Sep 24.

Evaluation of a novel continuous glucose monitoring-based method for mealtime insulin dosing--the iBolus--in subjects with type 1 diabetes using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy: a randomized controlled trial.

Author information

  • 1University Institute of Control Systems and Industrial Computing, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. prossetti73@gmail.com

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

Prandial insulin dosing is an empirical practice associated frequently with poor reproducibility in postprandial glucose response. Based on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), a method for prandial insulin administration (iBolus) is presented and evaluated for people with type 1 diabetes using CSII therapy.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS:

An individual patient's model for a 5-h postprandial period was obtained from 6-day ambulatory CGM and used for iBolus calculation in 12 patients with type 1 diabetes. In a double-blind, crossover study each patient underwent four meal tests with 40 g or 100 g of carbohydrates (CHOs), both on two occasions. For each meal, the iBolus or the traditional bolus (tBolus) was given before mealtime (t(0)) in a randomized order. We measured the postprandial glycemic response as the area under the curve of plasma glucose (AUC-PG(0-5h)) and variability as the individual coefficient of variation (CV) of AUC-PG(0-5h). The contribution of the insulin-to-CHO ratio, CHO, plasma glucose at t(0) (PG(t0)), and insulin dose to AUC-PG(0-5h) and its CV was also investigated.

RESULTS:

AUC-PG(0-5h) was similar with either bolus for 40-g (iBolus vs. tBolus, 585.5±127.5 vs. 689.2±180.7 mg/dL·h) or 100-g (752.1±237.7 vs. 760.0±263.2 mg/dL·h) CHO meals. A multiple regression analysis revealed a significant model only for the tBolus, with PG(t0) being the best predictor of AUC-PG(0-5h) explaining approximately 50% of the glycemic response. Observed variability was greater with the iBolus (CV, 16.7±15.3% vs. 10.1±12.5%) but independent of the factors studied.

CONCLUSIONS:

A CGM-based algorithm for calculation of prandial insulin is feasible, although it does not reduce unpredictability of individual glycemic responses. Causes of variability need to be identified and analyzed for further optimization of postprandial glycemic control.

PMID:
23003329
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMCID:
PMC3482847
Free PMC Article

Images from this publication.See all images (4)Free text

FIG. 1.
FIG. 2.
FIG. 3.
FIG. 4.
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Icon for Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk