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]