Exploring the Burden of Mealtime Insulin Dosing in Adults and Children With Type 1 Diabetes

Timely and accurate mealtime insulin dosing can be an ongoing challenge for people with type 1 diabetes. This multinational, online study aimed to explore attitudes and behaviors around mealtime insulin dosing and the impact of mealtime dose timing, particularly with regard to premeal dosing (15–20 minutes before a meal). Although the majority of surveyed participants (96%) recognized the importance of accurate mealtime bolus insulin dosing, only a small proportion (35%) reported being “very confident” in accurate bolus insulin estimation. Given the choice, the majority of participants would prefer to administer insulin immediately before or after a meal, as this timing would improve their quality of life.<b></b>

Exploring the Burden of Mealtime Insulin Dosing in Adults and Children With Type 1 Diabetes

Timely and accurate mealtime insulin dosing can be an ongoing challenge for people with type 1 diabetes. This multinational, online study aimed to explore attitudes and behaviors around mealtime insulin dosing and the impact of mealtime dose timing, particularly with regard to premeal dosing (15–20 minutes before a meal). Although the majority of surveyed participants (96%) recognized the importance of accurate mealtime bolus insulin dosing, only a small proportion (35%) reported being “very confident” in accurate bolus insulin estimation. Given the choice, the majority of participants would prefer to administer insulin immediately before or after a meal, as this timing would improve their quality of life.<b></b>

Comparing Patch vs Pen Bolus Insulin Delivery in Type 2 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics and Profiles

Objective: CeQur Simplicity™ (CeQur, Marlborough, MA) is a 3-day insulin delivery patch designed to meet mealtime insulin requirements. A recently reported 48-week, randomized, multicenter, interventional trial compared efficacy, safety and self-reported outcomes in 278 adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin therapy who initiated and managed mealtime insulin therapy with a patch pump versus insulin pen. We assessed changes in key glycemic metrics among a subset of patients who wore a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device. Methods: Study participants (patch, n = 49; pen, n = 48) wore a CGM device in masked setting during the baseline period and prior to week 24. Glycemic control was assessed using international consensus guidelines for percentage of Time In Range (%TIR: >70% at 70-180 mg/dL), Time Below Range (%TBR: <4% at <70 mg/dL; <1% at <54 mg/dL), and Time Above Range (%TAR: <25% at >180 mg/dL; <5% at >250 mg/dL). Results: Both the patch and pen groups achieved recommended targets in %TIR (74.1% ± 18.7%, 75.2 ± 16.1%, respectively) and marked reductions in %TAR >180 mg/dL (21.1% ± 19.9%, 19.7% ± 17.5%, respectively) but with increased %TBR <70 mg/dL (4.7% ± 5.2%, 5.1 ± 5.8, respectively), all P < .0001. No significant between-group differences in glycemic improvements or adverse events were observed. Conclusions: CGM confirmed that the patch or pen can be used to safely initiate and optimize basal-bolus therapy using a simple insulin adjustment algorithm with SMBG. Preference data suggest that use of the patch vs pen may enhance treatment adherence.

Safety and Feasibility Evaluation of Step Count Informed Meal Boluses in Type 1 Diabetes: A Pilot Study

Background: Physical activity can cause glucose fluctuations both during and after it is performed, leading to hurdles in optimal insulin dosing in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). We conducted a pilot clinical trial assessing the safety and feasibility of a physical activity-informed mealtime insulin bolus advisor that adjusts the meal bolus according to previous physical activity, based on step count data collected through an off-the-shelf physical activity tracker. Methods: Fifteen adults with T1D, each using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and an insulin pump with carbohydrate counting, completed two randomized crossover daily visits. Participants performed a 30 to 45-minute brisk walk before lunch and lunchtime insulin boluses were calculated based on either their standard therapy (ST) or the physical activity-informed bolus method. Post-lunch glycemic excursions were assessed using CGM readings. Results: There was no significant difference between visits in the time spent in hypoglycemia in the post-lunch period (median [IQR] standard: 0 [0]% vs physical activity-informed: 0 [0]%, P = NS). Standard therapy bolus yielded a higher time spent in 70 to 180 mg/dL target range (mean ± standard: 77% ± 27% vs physical activity-informed: 59% ± 31%, P = .03) yet, it was associated with a steeper negative slope in the early postprandial phase ( P = .032). Conclusions: Use of step count to adjust mealtime insulin following a walking bout has proved to be safe and feasible in a cohort of 15 T1D subjects. Physical activity-informed insulin dosing of meals eaten soon after a walking bout has a potential of mitigating physical activity related glucose reduction in the early postprandial phase.