A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Glycaemic load versus carbohydrate counting for insulin bolus calculation in patients with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump. | LitMetric

Aims: To evaluate feasibility and effectiveness on short-term blood glucose control of using glycaemic load counting (GLC) versus carbohydrate counting (CC) for prandial insulin dosing in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

Methods: Nine T1D patients on insulin pump, aged 26-58 years, HbA1c 7.7 ± 0.8 % (61 ± 8.7 mmol/mol), participated in this real-life setting study. By a crossover design, patients were randomised to calculate their pre-meal insulin dose based on the insulin/glycaemic load ratio (GLC period) or the insulin/carbohydrate ratio (CC period) for 1 week, shifting to the alternate method for the next week, when participants duplicated their first week food plan. Over either week, a blind subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring was performed, and a 7-day food record was filled in.

Results: Total daily insulin doses (45 ± 10 vs. 44 ± 9 I.U.; M ± SD, p = 0.386) and basal infusion (26 ± 7 vs. 26 ± 8 I.U., p = 0.516) were not different during GLC and CC periods, respectively. However, the range of insulin doses (difference between highest and lowest insulin dose) was wider during GLC, with statistical significance at dinner (8.4 ± 6.2 vs. 6.0 ± 3.9 I.U., p = 0.041). Blood glucose iAUC after lunch was lower, albeit not significantly, during GLC than CC period (0.6 ± 8.6 vs. 3.4 ± 8.2 mmol/l∙3 h, p = 0.059). Postprandial glucose variability, evaluated as the maximal amplitude after meal (highest minus lowest glucose value), was significantly lower during GLC than CC period at lunch (4.22 ± 0.28 vs. 5.47 ± 0.39 mmol/l, p = 0.002) and dinner (3.89 ± 0.33 vs. 4.89 ± 0.33, p = 0.026).

Conclusions: Calculating prandial insulin bolus based on glycaemic load counting is feasible in a real-life setting and may improve postprandial glucose control in people with T1D.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00592-015-0716-1DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

glycaemic load
12
glc period
12
insulin
9
versus carbohydrate
8
carbohydrate counting
8
insulin bolus
8
patients type
8
type diabetes
8
insulin pump
8
blood glucose
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!