Search

Aims To evaluate safety, efficacy and glucose turnover during closed-loop with meal announcement using reduced prandial insulin boluses in adolescents with type 1 diabetes ( T1D). Methods We conducted a randomized crossover study comparing closed-loop therapy with standard prandial insulin boluses versus closed-loop therapy with prandial boluses reduced by 25%. Eight adolescents with T1D [3 males; mean (standard deviation) age 15.9 (1.5) years, glycated haemoglobin 74 (17) mmol/mol; median (interquartile range) total daily dose 0.9 (0.7, 1.1) IU/kg/day] were studied on two 36-h-long visits. In random order, subjects received closed-loop therapy with either standard or reduced insulin boluses administered with main meals (50-80 g carbohydrates) but not with snacks (15-30 g carbohydrates). Stable-label tracer dilution methodology measured total glucose appearance ( Ra_total) and glucose disposal ( Rd). Results The median (interquartile range) time spent in target (3.9-10 mmol/l) was similar between the two interventions [74 (66, 84)% vs 80 (65, 96)%; p = 0.87] as was time spent above 10 mmol/l [21.8 (16.3, 33.5)% vs 18.0 (4.1, 34.2)%; p = 0.87] and below 3.9 mmol/l [0 (0, 1.5)% vs 0 (0, 1.8)%; p = 0.88]. Mean plasma glucose was identical during the two interventions [8.4 (0.9) mmol/l; p = 0.98]. Hypoglycaemia occurred once 1.5 h post-meal during closed-loop therapy with standard bolus. Overall insulin delivery was lower with reduced prandial boluses [61.9 (55.2, 75.0) vs 72.5 (63.6, 80.3) IU; p = 0.01] and resulted in lower mean plasma insulin concentration [186 (171, 260) vs 252 (198, 336) pmol/l; p = 0.002]. Lower plasma insulin was also documented overnight [160 (136, 192) vs 191 (133, 252) pmol/l; p = 0.01, pooled nights]. Ra_total was similar [26.3 (21.9, 28.0) vs 25.4 (21.0, 29.2) µmol/kg/min; p = 0.19] during the two interventions as was Rd [25.8 (21.0, 26.9) vs 25.2 (21.2, 28.8) µmol/kg/min; p = 0.46]. Conclusions A 25% reduction in prandial boluses during closed-loop therapy maintains similar glucose control in adolescents with T1D whilst lowering overall plasma insulin levels. It remains unclear whether closed-loop therapy with a 25% reduction in prandial boluses would prevent postprandial hypoglycaemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SUMMARY Aims It has previously been shown that intravenous and subcutaneous administration of glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 concomitant with intravenous glucose results in reactive hypoglycaemia in healthy subjects. Since GLP-1 is also effective in Type 2 diabetic patients and is presently being evaluated as a therapeutic agent in this disease, it is important to investigate whether GLP-1 can cause hypoglycaemia in such patients. Methods Eight Type 2 diabetic patients (age 54 (49–67) years; body mass index 31 (27–38) kg/m2; HbA1c 9.4 (7.0–12.5)%) and seven matched non-diabetic subjects (HbA1c 5.5 (5.2–5.8)%, fasting plasma glucose 5.4 (5.0–5.7) mmol/l) were given a subcutaneous injection of 1.5 nmol GLP-1/kg body weight (maximally tolerated dose), and 15 min later, plasma glucose (PG) was raised to 15 mmol/l with an intravenous glucose bolus. Results Hypoglycaemia with a PG at or below 2.5 mmol/l was seen in five of the seven healthy subjects after 60–70 min, but PG spontaneously increased again, reaching 3.7 (3.3–4.0) mmol/l at 90 min. In the patients, PG fell slowly and stabilized at 8.6 (4.2–12.1) mmol/l after 80 min. In both groups, glucagon levels initially decreased, but later increased, exceeding basal levels in healthy subjects, in spite of persistent, high concentrations of GLP-1 (P < 0.02). Conclusions Subcutaneous GLP-1 plus intravenous glucose induced reactive hypoglycaemia in healthy subjects, but not in Type 2 diabetic patients. Therefore, a GLP-1-based therapy would not be expected to be associated with an increased risk of hypoglycaemia in Type 2 diabetes mellitus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bariatric surgery may lead to symptomatic postprandial hypoglycaemia as a major side effect without established therapy so far. We aimed to develop an evidence-based study design of a clinical trial that tests treatment options and can provide useful patient-relevant evidence.Methods: We searched systematically for guidance of core outcome sets to determine the most relevant types of outcomes and duration of such a trial. Our search comprised literature databases, a database of core outcome sets and self-help organizations. We then developed a simple online questionnaire based on interviews with German-speaking patients with postprandial hypoglycaemia after bariatric surgery. We recruited participants by reaching out to all German speaking endocrinologists in Switzerland and large Swiss bariatric centres. We asked for preferences regarding outcome types and acceptable duration of being included in a corresponding clinical trial.Results: The literature search did not identify evidence-based guidance for informing our study design. Experience of clinical and research routine as well as patient interviews helped in identifying potential outcomes and the design of an online questionnaire. Therein, a total of 29 persons started the questionnaire and 22 answered questions related to the primary outcome. Of these, 17 (77.3%) deemed quality of life more relevant as primary outcome than the rate of hypoglycaemic episodes. A trial length of four weeks or longer was regarded as acceptable for 19 of 21 respondents to this question (91.4%) and of six months or longer for 12 respondents (56%).Conclusions: In situations with no other guidance, a simple questionnaire may help to inform trial design decisions. This study identifies a patient preference for "quality of life" as a primary outcome and supports the evidence-based conception of a patient-centred clinical trial in postbariatric hypoglycaemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]