HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: dc07-2137v1 dc07-2137v2 dc07-2137v3 31/7/1305    most recent Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Bergenstal, R. M. Articles by Rendell, M. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bergenstal, R. M. Articles by Rendell, M. Related Collections Related Article Social Bookmarking                What's this?

Adjust to Target in Type 2 Diabetes

Comparison of a simple algorithm with carbohydrate counting for adjustment of mealtime insulin glulisine

¹ International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, Minnesota
² Cotton-O'Neil Clinic, Topeka, Kansas
³ sanofi-aventis US, Bridgewater, New Jersey
⁴ Baylor Endocrine Center, Dallas Texas
⁵ Creighton Diabetes Center, Omaha, Nebraska

Corresponding author: Richard M. Bergenstal, richard.bergenstal{at}parknicollet.com

OBJECTIVE—Carbohydrate counting is an effective approach to mealtime insulin adjustment in type 1 diabetes but has not been rigorously assessed in type 2 diabetes. We sought to compare an insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio with a simple algorithm for adjusting the dose of prandial insulin glusiline.

RESEARCH AND DESIGN METHODS—This 24-week, multicenter, randomized, controlled study compared two algorithms for adjusting mealtime (glulisine) insulin along with a standard algorithm for adjusting background (glargine) insulin in 273 intent-to-treat patients with type 2 diabetes. Glulisine and glargine were adjusted weekly in both groups based on self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) results from the previous week. The simple algorithm group was provided set doses of glulisine to take before each meal. The carbohydrate counting (carb count) group was provided an insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio to use for each meal and adjusted their glulisine dose based on the amount of carbohydrate consumed.

RESULTS—A1C levels at week 24 were 6.70% (simple algorithm) and 6.54% (carb count). The respective mean A1C changes from baseline to 24 weeks were –1.46 and –1.59% (P = 0.24). A1C <7.0% was achieved by 73.2% (simple algorithm) and 69.2% (carb count) (P = 0.70) of subjects; respective values for A1C <6.5% were 44.3 and 49.5% (P = 0.28). The total daily dose of insulin was lower, and there was a trend toward less weight gain in carb count group patients. Severe hypoglycemia rates were low and equal in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS—Weekly basal-bolus insulin adjustments based on premeal and bedtime glucose patterns resulted in significant reductions in A1C. Having two effective approaches to delivering and adjusting rapid-acting mealtime insulin may increase physicians' and patients' willingness to advance therapy to a basal-bolus insulin regimen.

CiteULike    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Article:

Death to Carbohydrate Counting?

Nichola J. Davis and Judith Wylie-Rosett
Diabetes Care 2008 31: 1467-1468. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. J. Davis and J. Wylie-Rosett Death to Carbohydrate Counting? Diabetes Care, July 1, 2008; 31(7): 1467 - 1468. [Full Text] [PDF]