BACKGROUND: The standard formula (SF) used in bolus calculators (BCs) determines meal insulin bolus using "static" measurement of blood glucose concentration (BG) obtained by self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) fingerprick device. Some methods have been proposed to improve efficacy of SF using "dynamic" information provided by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and, in particular, glucose rate of change (ROC). This article compares, in silico and in an ideal framework limiting the exposition to possibly confounding factors (such as CGM noise), the performance of three popular techniques devised for such a scope, that is, the methods of Buckingham et al (BU), Scheiner (SC), and Pettus and Edelman (PE). METHOD: Using the UVa/Padova Type 1 diabetes simulator we generated data of 100 virtual subjects in noise-free, single-meal scenarios having different preprandial BG and ROC values. Meal insulin bolus was computed using SF, BU, SC, and PE. Performance was assessed with the blood glucose risk index (BGRI) on the 9 hours after meal. RESULTS: On average, BU, SC, and PE improve BGRI compared to SF. When BG is rapidly decreasing, PE obtains the best performance. In the other ROC scenarios, none of the considered methods prevails in all the preprandial BG conditions tested. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that, at least in the considered ideal framework, none of the methods to correct SF according to ROC is globally better than the others. Critical analysis of the results also suggests that further investigations are needed to develop more effective formulas to account for ROC information in BCs.
BACKGROUND: The standard formula (SF) used in bolus calculators (BCs) determines meal insulin bolus using "static" measurement of blood glucose concentration (BG) obtained by self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) fingerprick device. Some methods have been proposed to improve efficacy of SF using "dynamic" information provided by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and, in particular, glucose rate of change (ROC). This article compares, in silico and in an ideal framework limiting the exposition to possibly confounding factors (such as CGM noise), the performance of three popular techniques devised for such a scope, that is, the methods of Buckingham et al (BU), Scheiner (SC), and Pettus and Edelman (PE). METHOD: Using the UVa/Padova Type 1 diabetes simulator we generated data of 100 virtual subjects in noise-free, single-meal scenarios having different preprandial BG and ROC values. Meal insulin bolus was computed using SF, BU, SC, and PE. Performance was assessed with the blood glucose risk index (BGRI) on the 9 hours after meal. RESULTS: On average, BU, SC, and PE improve BGRI compared to SF. When BG is rapidly decreasing, PE obtains the best performance. In the other ROC scenarios, none of the considered methods prevails in all the preprandial BG conditions tested. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that, at least in the considered ideal framework, none of the methods to correct SF according to ROC is globally better than the others. Critical analysis of the results also suggests that further investigations are needed to develop more effective formulas to account for ROC information in BCs.
Entities:
Keywords:
bolus calculator; carbohydrate-to-insulin ratio; nonadjunctive use; rate of change; type 1 diabetes
Authors: William V Tamborlane; Roy W Beck; Bruce W Bode; Bruce Buckingham; H Peter Chase; Robert Clemons; Rosanna Fiallo-Scharer; Larry A Fox; Lisa K Gilliam; Irl B Hirsch; Elbert S Huang; Craig Kollman; Aaron J Kowalski; Lori Laffel; Jean M Lawrence; Joyce Lee; Nelly Mauras; Michael O'Grady; Katrina J Ruedy; Michael Tansey; Eva Tsalikian; Stuart Weinzimer; Darrell M Wilson; Howard Wolpert; Tim Wysocki; Dongyuan Xing Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Grazia Aleppo; Lori M Laffel; Andrew J Ahmann; Irl B Hirsch; Davida F Kruger; Anne Peters; Ruth S Weinstock; Dennis R Harris Journal: J Endocr Soc Date: 2017-11-20
Authors: Basak Ozaslan; Sue A Brown; Jennifer Pinnata; Charlotte L Barnett; Kelly Carr; Christian A Wakeman; Mary Clancy-Oliveri; Marc D Breton Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2021-04-01
Authors: Minh Nguyen; Ivana Jankovic; Laurynas Kalesinskas; Michael Baiocchi; Jonathan H Chen Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-09-18 Impact factor: 4.497