IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i5p3945-d1077500.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Head-to-Head Comparison of Two Algorithms for Adjusting Mealtime Insulin Doses Based on CGM Trend Arrows in Adult Patients with Type 1 Diabetes: Results from an Exploratory Study

Author

Listed:
  • Martina Parise

    (Department of Health Science, University Magna Graecia, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Sergio Di Molfetta

    (Section of Internal Medicine, Endocrinology, Andrology, and Metabolic Diseases, Department of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area, University of Bari, 70121 Bari, Italy
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Roberta Teresa Graziano

    (Medical School, University Magna Graecia, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy)

  • Raffaella Fiorentino

    (Diabetes Care Center, University Hospital Mater Domini, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy)

  • Antonio Cutruzzolà

    (Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University Magna Graecia, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy)

  • Agostino Gnasso

    (Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University Magna Graecia, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy)

  • Concetta Irace

    (Department of Health Science, University Magna Graecia, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy)

Abstract

Background: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) users are encouraged to consider trend arrows before injecting a meal bolus. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of two different algorithms for trend-informed bolus adjustments, the Diabetes Research in Children Network/Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (DirectNet/JDRF) and the Ziegler algorithm, in type 1 diabetes. Methods: We conducted a cross-over study of type 1 diabetes patients using Dexcom G6. Participants were randomly assigned to either the DirectNet/JDRF or the Ziegler algorithm for two weeks. After a 7-day wash-out period with no trend-informed bolus adjustments, they crossed to the alternative algorithm. Results: Twenty patients, with an average age of 36 ± 10 years, completed this study. Compared to the baseline and the DirectNet/JDRF algorithm, the Ziegler algorithm was associated with a significantly higher time in range (TIR) and lower time above range and mean glucose. A separate analysis of patients on CSII and MDI revealed that the Ziegler algorithm provides better glucose control and variability than DirectNet/JDRF in CSII-treated patients. The two algorithms were equally effective in increasing TIR in MDI-treated patients. No severe hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic episode occurred during the study. Conclusions: The Ziegler algorithm is safe and may provide better glucose control and variability than the DirectNet/JDRF over a two-week period, especially in patients treated with CSII.

Suggested Citation

  • Martina Parise & Sergio Di Molfetta & Roberta Teresa Graziano & Raffaella Fiorentino & Antonio Cutruzzolà & Agostino Gnasso & Concetta Irace, 2023. "A Head-to-Head Comparison of Two Algorithms for Adjusting Mealtime Insulin Doses Based on CGM Trend Arrows in Adult Patients with Type 1 Diabetes: Results from an Exploratory Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-9, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:5:p:3945-:d:1077500
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/5/3945/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/5/3945/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:5:p:3945-:d:1077500. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.