Expert study: A bolus calculator improves glycemic control and quality of life of type 1 diabetic patients (T1DM) (preliminary results)

Aims: To evaluate the impact on glycemic control and quality of life of a bolus calculator. Methods: Multicentre randomized prospective crosssectional study. Patients were randomized to control phase (3 months; calculation of prandial insulin according to insulinto-carbohydrate ratio and insulin sensitivity factor using a single strip meter) or intervention phase (3 months; calculation of prandial insulin with a bolus advisor), with a washout period (3 months). Patients wore a continuous glucosensor (7 days) and answered a quality of life questionnaire at the beginning and at the end of each phase. A questionnaire of satisfaction was obtained at the end of both phases. Inclusion criteria: Adults; T1DM> 1 year, HbA1c > 7.5%, basal-bolus therapy with insulin analogs, experience with carbohydrate Results: Data from the first 32 subjects with at least 1 ended phase (27 females, age 38 – 11 years, diabetes duration 16.8 – 7.5 years). Basal characteristics were comparable independently of the starting phase. No differences were found between phases in terms of mean blood glucose, standard deviation (from meter neither from sensor) and satisfaction. Conclusions: The use of a bolus calculator improves glycemic control and quality of life of T1DM subjects.

Lack of correlation between the optimal glycaemic control and coronary micro vascular dysfunction in patients with diabetes mellitus: a cross sectional study.

Background Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is associated with cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Optimal glycaemic control does not always preclude future events. We sought to assess the effect of the current target of HBA1c level on the coronary microcirculatory function and identify predictive factors for CMD in T2DM patients. Methods We studied 100 patients with T2DM and 214 patients without T2DM. All of them with a history of chest pain, non-obstructive angiograms and a direct assessment of coronary blood flow increase in response to adenosine and acetylcholine coronary infusion, for evaluation of endothelial independent and dependent CMD. Patients with T2DM were categorized as having optimal (HbA1c < 7 %) vs. suboptimal (HbA1c ≥ 7 %) glycaemic control at the time of catheterization. Results Baseline characteristics and coronary endothelial function parameters differed significantly between T2DM patients and control group. The prevalence of endothelial independent CMD (29.8 vs. 39.6 %, p = 0.40) and dependent CMD (61.7 vs. 62.2 %, p = 1.00) were similar in patients with optimal vs. suboptimal glycaemic control. Age (OR 1.10; CI 95 % 1.04–1.18; p < 0.001) and female gender (OR 3.87; CI 95 % 1.45–11.4; p < 0.01) were significantly associated with endothelial independent CMD whereas glomerular filtrate (OR 0.97; CI 95 % 0.95–0.99; p < 0.05) was significantly associated with endothelial dependent CMD. The optimal glycaemic control was not associated with endothelial independent (OR 0.60, CI 95 % 0.23–1.46; p 0.26) or dependent CMD (OR 0.99, CI 95 % 0.43–2.24; p = 0.98). Conclusions The current target of HBA1c level does not predict a better coronary microcirculatory function in T2DM patients. The appropriate strategy for prevention of CMD in T2DM patients remains to be addressed. Keywords: Endothelial dysfunction; Diabetes mellitus; Coronary microcirculation