Siân Rilstone1, Monika Reddy2, Nick Oliver3. 1. Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK. 2. Diabetes and Endocrinology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK. 3. Imperial College London, Hammersmith Campus, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Initiation of continuous subcutaneous insulin therapy (CSII) in type 1 diabetes requires conversion of a basal insulin dose into a continuous infusion regimen. There are limited data to guide the optimal insulin profile to rapidly achieve target glucose and minimize healthcare professional input. The aim of this pilot study was to compare circadian and flat insulin infusion rates in CSII naïve adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes commencing CSII were recruited. Participants were randomized to circadian or flat basal profile calculated from the total daily dose. Basal rate testing was undertaken on days 7, 14 and 28 and basal rates were adjusted. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in absolute change in insulin basal rate over 24 hours following three rounds of basal testing. Secondary outcomes included the number of basal rate changes and the time blocks. RESULTS: Seventeen participants (mean age 33.3 (SD 8.6) years) were recruited. There was no significant difference in absolute change in insulin basal rates between groups (P = .85). The circadian group experienced significant variation in the number of changes made with the most changes in the morning and evening (P = .005). The circadian group received a greater reduction in total insulin (-14.1 (interquartile range (IQR) -22.5-12.95) units) than the flat group (-7.48 (IQR -11.90-1.23) units) (P = .021). CONCLUSION: The initial insulin profile does not impact on the magnitude of basal rate changes during optimization. The circadian profile requires changes at specific time points. Further development of the circadian profile may be the optimal strategy.
BACKGROUND: Initiation of continuous subcutaneous insulin therapy (CSII) in type 1 diabetes requires conversion of a basal insulin dose into a continuous infusion regimen. There are limited data to guide the optimal insulin profile to rapidly achieve target glucose and minimize healthcare professional input. The aim of this pilot study was to compare circadian and flat insulin infusion rates in CSII naïve adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes commencing CSII were recruited. Participants were randomized to circadian or flat basal profile calculated from the total daily dose. Basal rate testing was undertaken on days 7, 14 and 28 and basal rates were adjusted. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in absolute change in insulin basal rate over 24 hours following three rounds of basal testing. Secondary outcomes included the number of basal rate changes and the time blocks. RESULTS: Seventeen participants (mean age 33.3 (SD 8.6) years) were recruited. There was no significant difference in absolute change in insulin basal rates between groups (P = .85). The circadian group experienced significant variation in the number of changes made with the most changes in the morning and evening (P = .005). The circadian group received a greater reduction in total insulin (-14.1 (interquartile range (IQR) -22.5-12.95) units) than the flat group (-7.48 (IQR -11.90-1.23) units) (P = .021). CONCLUSION: The initial insulin profile does not impact on the magnitude of basal rate changes during optimization. The circadian profile requires changes at specific time points. Further development of the circadian profile may be the optimal strategy.
Entities:
Keywords:
basal insulin; continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; type 1 diabetes
Authors: Roman Hovorka; Daniela Elleri; Hood Thabit; Janet M Allen; Lalantha Leelarathna; Ranna El-Khairi; Kavita Kumareswaran; Karen Caldwell; Peter Calhoun; Craig Kollman; Helen R Murphy; Carlo L Acerini; Malgorzata E Wilinska; Marianna Nodale; David B Dunger Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2014 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: D A Revicki; A M Rentz; D Dubois; P Kahrilas; V Stanghellini; N J Talley; J Tack Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 8.171