The effect of an education programme (HyPOS) to treat hypoglycaemia problems in patients with type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND: In a randomized, prospective multi-centre trial, the effect of a specific training programme (HyPOS) for patients with hypoglycaemia problems was compared with a control group (CG), receiving a standardized education programme aiming at avoidance of hypoglycaemia by optimization of insulin therapy. METHODS: A total of 164 type 1 diabetes patients (age 46.0 +/- 12.5 yrs, HbA(1c) 7.3 +/- 1.0%, 50% male) were randomized. Hypoglycaemia awareness was measured by the hypoglycaemia awareness questionnaire (HAQ) and by a visual analogue scale (VAS). There were no baseline differences. RESULTS: After a 6-month follow-up, hypoglycaemia awareness significantly improved in HyPOS compared to that in the CG (Delta HAQ 0.7 [95% CL 0.1-1.2], p = 0.024, Delta VAS 0.8 [95% CL 0.2 - 1.2], p = 0.015). In HyPOS, the threshold for detection of low blood glucose (Delta 0.2 mmol/L [95% CL 0.03 - 0.04], p = 0.02) and the treatment of low blood glucose (Delta 4.6 g [95% CL 1.6 - 7.6], p = 0.03) increased significantly. The number of undetected hypogylcaemic episodes (Delta - 1.4 episodes per week [95% CL 0.4-2.5], p = 0.01) and the rate of mild hypoglycaemia dropped significantly in HyPOS (Delta 2.1% [95% CL 0.5-5.3], p = 0.015). The numbers of severe (Delta 0.3 events per patient per year [95% CL - 0.04-1.0], p = 0.037) and very severe hypoglycaemic episodes (Delta 0.3 events per patient per year [95% CL - 0.1-0.7], p = 0.09) were lower in HyPOS, but these differences were not significant. CONCLUSION: Compared to the CG, HyPOS demonstrates additional benefits in terms of improving impaired hypoglycaemia awareness, reducing mild hypoglycaemia, detecting low blood glucose, and treating low blood glucose.     

Frequency and predictors of hypoglycaemia in Type 1 and insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes: a population-based study.

AIMS: To ascertain the frequency and identify predictors of self-reported hypoglycaemia in Type 1 and insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A random sample of 267 people with insulin-treated diabetes were recruited from a population-based diabetes register in Tayside, Scotland. Each subject prospectively recorded the number of mild and severe hypoglycaemic episodes experienced over a 1-month period. Ordinal logistic regression was performed to identify potential predictors of hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: Five hundred and seventy-two hypoglycaemic events were reported by 155 patients. The participants with Type 1 diabetes had a total of 336 hypoglycaemic events with a rate of 42.89 events per patient per year. Of these, nine were severe hypoglycaemic events, with a rate of 1.15 events per patient per year. Participants with insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes experienced a total of 236 hypoglycaemic events with a rate of 16.37 events per patient per year. Of these, five were severe hypoglycaemic events, which would be equivalent to 0.35 events per patient per year. Predictors of hypoglycaemia in Type 1 diabetes were a history of previous hypoglycaemia (P = 0.006) and co-prescribing of any oral drug (P = 0.048). In patients with insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes, a history of previous hypoglycaemia (P < 0.0001) and duration of insulin treatment (P = 0.014) were significant predictors. CONCLUSION: The incidence of self-reported severe hypoglycaemia in insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes is lower than in Type 1 diabetes but does occur more often than previously reported and with sufficient frequency to cause significant morbidity. Duration of insulin treatment is a key predictor of hypoglycaemia in insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes.     

Neurophysiological changes during insulin-induced hypoglycaemia and in the recovery period following glucose infusion in Type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus and in normal man

Summary Hypoglycaemia (median venous blood glucose 1.8 mmol/l; range 1.6–2.3) was induced by an intravenous infusion of regular insulin in eight patients with Type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus (age 28.0±7.4 years; mean ± SD, duration 15.5±5.1 years) and in 12 age-matched healthy male control subjects. Multi-channel frequency analysis of electroencephalogram (electrophysiologic brain mapping) and recording of P300 and somatosensory evoked potentials were performed before, during and immediately after the hypoglycaemic period. The hypoglycaemia produced a significant increase in low frequency electroencephalographic activity in both groups, most pronounced over anterior regions of the brain. The electroencephalographic activity was normalised immediately after the hypoglycaemic period. The patients with diabetes showed somewhat longer P300 latencies during the initial normoglycaemic examination. Hypoglycaemia caused a marked reduction of the P300 amplitude in both groups of subjects and the amplitude was not restored immediately after normalisation of blood glucose levels. The somatosensory cortical responses were not affected by hypoglycaemia. We conclude that hypoglycaemia results in impairment in cerebral function, as measured by neurophysiological techniques, which is not immediately normalised when blood glucose is restored to normal.     

Insulin detemir lowers the risk of hypoglycaemia and provides more consistent plasma glucose levels compared with NPH insulin in Type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: Hypoglycaemia remains a major barrier preventing optimal glycaemic control in Type 1 diabetes due to the limitations of conventional insulin preparations. We investigated whether basal-bolus therapy with insulin detemir (detemir), a new soluble basal insulin analogue, was more effective in reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia compared with NPH insulin (NPH). METHODS: In this multinational, open-label, cross-over trial, 130 individuals with Type 1 diabetes received detemir and NPH twice daily in a randomized order in combination with premeal insulin aspart (IAsp) during two 16-week treatment periods. Risk of hypoglycaemia was based on self-measured plasma glucose (SMPG) and self-reported episodes during the last 10 weeks of each period. RESULTS: Risk of nocturnal and overall hypoglycaemia was, respectively, 50% and 18% lower with detemir than with NPH (P < 0.001). A total of 19 severe hypoglycaemic episodes occurred during treatment with detemir compared with 33 with NPH (NS). HbA(1c) decreased by 0.3% point with both treatments and was comparable at 7.6% (+/- sem 0.06%, 95% confidence interval -0.106, 0.108) after 16 weeks with similar doses of basal insulin. Within-person variation in mean plasma glucose was lower with detemir than with NPH (sd 3.00 vs. 3.33, P < 0.001), as was prebreakfast SMPG (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Detemir was associated with a significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia compared with NPH at similar HbA1c when used in combination with mealtime IAsp. The more consistent plasma glucose levels observed with detemir may allow people to aim for tighter glycaemic control without an increased risk of hypoglycaemia.     

Reproducibility and reliability of hypoglycaemic episodes recorded with Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS) in daily life.

AIM: Continuous glucose monitoring may reveal episodes of unrecognized hypoglycaemia. We evaluated reproducibility and reliability of hypoglycaemic episodes recorded in daily life by the Medtronic MiniMed Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS). METHODS: Twenty-nine adult patients with Type 1 diabetes underwent 6 days of continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring, applying one CGMS on each side of the abdomen. Blood glucose was measured by HemoCue B-Glucose Analyzers six times daily and two different 4-point calibration sets were generated (set A and B). Using these calibration sets, CGMS raw data were recalibrated generating four different CGMS data sets [left-A (left side of abdomen, calibration set A), left-B, right-A and right-B]. Agreement between CGMS data sets was evaluated during hypoglycaemic events, comparing CGMS readings = 2.2 mmol/l with nadir values from corresponding CGMS data sets. CGMS readings were also compared with independent self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) values. RESULTS: With hypoglycaemia (CGMS readings = 2.2 mmol/l) in calibration set left-A, values below 3.5 mmol/l were present in 99% (95% CI: 95-100%) of samples in left-B, 91% (95% CI: 84-96%) of samples in right-A, and 90% (95% CI: 83-95%) of samples in right B. In 84% of these episodes (95% CI: 59-96%) independent SMBG values were below 3.5 mmol/l. Difference in duration was observed with a median difference of 20 min; (left-A vs. right-B). CONCLUSION: Hypoglycaemic episodes recorded by CGMS are reproducible and agreement with independent SMBG values is acceptable for retrospective recording of hypoglycaemic events with CGMS.     

Changes in cardiac repolarization during clinical episodes of nocturnal hypoglycaemia in adults with Type 1 diabetes

Aims/hypothesis Experimental hypoglycaemia leads to abnormal cardiac repolarization manifest by a lengthened QT interval and caused by adrenergic stimulation. However it is less clear whether spontaneous clinical episodes lead to similar changes. We have therefore measured cardiac ventricular repolarization and counterregulatory responses in patients with Type 1 diabetes during hypoglycaemic and euglycaemic nights.Methods We studied 22 patients with Type 1 diabetes (mean age 40.4±17.2 years, duration of diabetes 17.2±9.3 years, HbA1c 8.2±1.2% overnight). Measurements were taken hourly of blood glucose, plasma potassium, catecholamines and high resolution electrocardiograms.Results Hypoglycaemia (blood glucose level <2.5 mmol/l) occurred on 7 of the 22 nights. During overnight hypoglycaemia, QTc interval increased by 27 ms (±15) above baseline, compared with 9 ms (±19) during nights with no nocturnal hypoglycaemia (p=0.034, 95%CI 2, 35). Adrenaline increased by 0.33 nmol/l (±0.21) above baseline during hypoglycaemia, compared with –0.05 nmol/l (±0.08) during euglycaemia (p=0.001, 95%CI 0.19, 0.56 nmol/l). There was no significant difference between potassium, and noradrenaline concentrations between the two groups.Conclusion/interpretation QTc interval lengthens significantly during spontaneous nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Increases are generally less than those observed during experimental hypoglycaemia and could reflect attenuated sympathoadrenal responses during clinical episodes. The clinical relevance of these changes is uncertain but is consistent with the hypothesis that clinical hypoglycaemia can cause abnormal cardiac repolarization and an attendant risk of cardiac arrhythmia.Abbreviations ECG electrocardiogram     

Nocturnal hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes--consequences and assessment

Hypoglycaemia is inevitable when striving for low HbA1c values. Nocturnal hypoglycaemia often occurs without symptoms, but results in diminished next day well-being and hypoglycaemia unawareness. Frequency of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was first assessed in research ward settings, but suffered from insufficient glucose sampling frequency. This may have resulted in overestimation of the duration of hypoglycaemic episodes. The advent of the first continuous glucose sensor, the needle-type MedtronicMiniMed Continuous Glucose Measurement System, revolutionized the assessment of glucose values. However, on scrutiny, the first version of this sensor showed a drift into the hypoglycaemic area and delayed recovery from hypoglycaemia. Using the microdialysis-based GlucoDay system, our group reported a lower frequency of nocturnal hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes patients using an insulin pump, than that expected from the existing literature. Today, more than 80 years after the introduction of insulin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes, the associated frequency of nocturnal hypoglycaemia still awaits its definitive assessment.     

Severe hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes mellitus: underlying drivers and potential strategies for successful prevention

Hypoglycaemia remains an over‐riding factor limiting optimal glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes. Severe hypoglycaemia is prevalent in almost half of those with long‐duration diabetes and is one of the most feared diabetes‐related complications. In this review, we present an overview of the increasing body of literature seeking to elucidate the underlying pathophysiology of severe hypoglycaemia and the limited evidence behind the strategies employed to prevent episodes. Drivers of severe hypoglycaemia including impaired counter‐regulation, hypoglycaemia‐associated autonomic failure, psychosocial and behavioural factors and neuroimaging correlates are discussed. Treatment strategies encompassing structured education, insulin analogue regimens, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pumps, continuous glucose sensing and beta‐cell replacement therapies have been employed, yet there is little randomized controlled trial evidence demonstrating effectiveness of new technologies in reducing severe hypoglycaemia. Optimally designed interventional trials evaluating these existing technologies and using modern methods of teaching patients flexible insulin use within structured education programmes with the specific goal of preventing severe hypoglycaemia are required. Individuals at high risk need to be monitored with meticulous collection of data on awareness, as well as frequency and severity of all hypoglycaemic episodes. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Hypoglycaemia and cardiac arrhythmias in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Improved blood glucose control by insulin treatment in patients with Type 2 (non-insulin dependent) diabetes mellitus increases the risk for hypoglycaemic episodes. Our objective was to investigate if hypoglycaemia causes electrocardiographic changes and cardiac arrhythmias in patients with Type 2 diabetes. Six insulin-treated patients with Type 2 diabetes and no known cardiac disease took part in the study. Hypoglycaemia was induced by insulin infusion aiming at a plasma glucose less than or equal to 2.0 mmol l-1 or hypoglycaemic symptoms. All patients experienced hypoglycaemic symptoms. The median lowest arterial plasma glucose was 2.0 mmol l-1. Arterial plasma adrenaline concentration increased from 0.4 +/- 0.1 (mean +/- SE) to 6.9 +/- 0.3 nmol l-1 (p less than 0.001) while serum potassium was lowered from 4.1 +/- 0.3 mmol l-1 to 3.5 +/- 0.2 mmol l-1 (p less than 0.001). The heart rate increased significantly during hypoglycaemia except in one patient who developed hypoglycaemic symptoms and a severe bradyarrhythmia at a plasma glucose of 4.4 mmol l-1. One patient developed frequent ventricular ectopic beats during hypoglycaemia while four patients showed no arrhythmia. ST-depression in ECG leads V2 and V6 was observed during hypoglycaemia in five patients (p less than 0.05) and four patients developed flattening of the T-wave. In conclusion, the study supports the hypothesis that hypoglycaemia in patients with Type 2 diabetes may be hazardous by causing cardiac arrhythmias.     

Frequency and risk factors of severe hypoglycaemia in insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional survey.

AIMS: The reported risk of severe hypoglycaemia in insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes is highly variable and few studies have evaluated the influence of risk factors. We assessed the incidence and the influence of potential risk factors for severe hypoglycaemia in a questionnaire survey in subjects with insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes receiving currently recommended multifactorial intervention. METHODS: Consecutive patients with insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes (n = 401) completed a questionnaire about occurrence of hypoglycaemia in the past, hypoglycaemia awareness and socio-demographic factors. A zero-inflated negative binomial model was used to assess the influence of potential risk factors on the rate of severe hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: The overall incidence of severe hypoglycaemia in the preceding year was 0.44 episodes/person year. Sixty-six (16.5%) patients had experienced at least one event. The risk of any episode of severe hypoglycaemia positively correlated with impaired hypoglycaemia awareness, being married and long duration of diabetes. The risk of repeated episodes of severe hypoglycaemia positively correlated with the presence of peripheral neuropathy, while long duration of diabetes prior to insulin treatment and treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor antagonists (ARBs) were associated with reduced risk. C-peptide concentration and HbA1c were not associated with the risk of severe hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of insulin-treated Type 2 diabetic patients, the incidence of severe hypoglycaemia is higher than reported in most studies, corresponding to about one-third of that in Type 1 diabetes. Impaired hypoglycaemia awareness is the most important risk factor for severe hypoglycaemia.     

Human insulin: much ado about hypoglycaemia (un)awareness

Summary The biological effects, hypoglycaemic symptoms, endocrine counterregulatory responses and glucose recovery following the injection of purified porcine and human insulin preparations were compared in a number of controlled clinical investigations and prospective clinical trials. In these studies involving healthy volunteers, Type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetic patients on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion or intensified conventional insulin therapy and insulin treated Type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetic patients, no differences with regard to biological effects, counterregulatory responses, hypoglycaemic awareness or the long-term incidence of severe hypoglycaemia between porcine and human insulin preparations were identified. These data fail to confirm any specific risk of severe hypoglycaemia attributable to the use of human insulin preparations in the treatment of patients with diabetes mellitus.     

Cognitive function in Type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetic patients after nocturnal hypoglycaemia

Summary Eight Type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetic patients with no diabetic complications were studied on two consecutive and one subsequent overnight occasions. The aim was to evaluate the influence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia on neuropsychological and reaction time tests the following morning. Hypoglycaemia was induced by i. v. insulin infusion, blood glucose nadir was 1.5±0.3 mmol/l. Duration of hypoglycaemia (blood glucose < 3 mmol/l) was 101±38 min. Whole night sleep statistics for all patients showed no statistical differences between the normoglycaemic and hypoglycaemic nights, however, there was a tendency of prolongation of the second sleep cycle in the nights with hypoglycaemia. Each patient was used as his own control and periods with blood glucose concentration less than 3 mmol/l were compared to exactly the same periods in nights with blood glucose level over 5 mmol/l. During hypoglycaemia the amount of deep sleep was reduced and replaced by superficial sleep and arousals of short duration. Further, the reduction in deep sleep was replaced later at night. Neuropsychological test scores and reaction time measurements in the morning showed no differences between the normoglycaemic and hypoglycaemic nights. In conclusion: despite sleep disturbances, nocturnal hypoglycaemia did not impair cognitive function the following morning in Type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetic patients.     

Frequency and Symptoms of Hypoglycaemia Experienced by Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Insulin

This study ascertained the prevalence of severe hypoglycaemia and loss of awareness of hypoglycaemia in patients with Type 2 diabetes treated with insulin. One hundred and four sequentially selected Type 2 diabetic patients were compared with 104 patients with Type 1 diabetes who were matched for duration of insulin therapy. The patients were interviewed using a standardized questionnaire. During treatment with insulin, 18 Type 2 patients had experienced fewer than two episodes of hypoglycaemia, while 86 had experienced two or more episodes; 80 (93%) reported normal awareness, six (7%) reported partial awareness, and none had absent awareness of hypoglycaemia. All 86 Type 1 diabetic patients matched to the 86 Type 2 patients had experienced multiple episodes of hypoglycaemia; 71 (83%) had normal awareness, 14 (16%) had partial awareness and one patient (1%) reported absent awareness of hypoglycaemia. The Type 1 patients who had altered awareness of hypoglycaemia had longer duration of diabetes and insulin therapy (normal awareness: 5 (1–17) years (median (range)) vs partial awareness: 9 (3–18) years, p < 0.01). Similarly, Type 2 patients with altered awareness had longer duration of diabetes (normal awareness: 11 (2–25) years vs partial awareness: 19 (8–24) years, p < 0.02) and had received insulin for longer (normal awareness: 3 (1–18) years vs partial awareness: 12 (6–17) years, p < 0.001). Severe hypoglycaemia in the preceding year had occurred with a similar prevalence in the Type 2 patients (9 (10%)) and Type 1 patients (14 (16%)), but was more frequent in those patients with partial awareness both in Type 1 patients (normal awareness: 3 (4%) vs partial awareness: 11 (73%), p < 0.001) and in Type 2 patients (normal awareness: 3 (4%) vs partial awareness: 6 (100%), p < 0.001). Although the symptoms of hypoglycaemia were idiosyncratic in individual Type 2 patients, the range and prevalence of specific symptoms were similar to those described by the patients with Type 1 diabetes.     

Hypoglycaemia in Type 2 diabetes

The primary cause of hypoglycaemia in Type 2 diabetes is diabetes medication—in particular, those which raise insulin levels independently of blood glucose, such as sulphonylureas (SUs) and exogenous insulin. The risk of hypoglycaemia is increased in older patients, those with longer diabetes duration, lesser insulin reserve and perhaps in the drive for strict glycaemic control. Differing definitions, data collection methods, drug type/regimen and patient populations make comparing rates of hypoglycaemia difficult. It is clear that patients taking insulin have the highest rates of self‐reported severe hypoglycaemia (25% in patients who have been taking insulin for > 5 years). SUs are associated with significantly lower rates of severe hypoglycaemia. However, large numbers of patients take SUs in the UK, and it is estimated that each year > 5000 patients will experience a severe event caused by their SU therapy which will require emergency intervention. Hypoglycaemia has substantial clinical impact, in terms of mortality, morbidity and quality of life. The cost implications of severe episodes—both direct hospital costs and indirect costs—are considerable: it is estimated that each hospital admission for severe hypoglycaemia costs around £1000. Hypoglycaemia and fear of hypoglycaemia limit the ability of current diabetes medications to achieve and maintain optimal levels of glycaemic control. Newer therapies, which focus on the incretin axis, may carry a lower risk of hypoglycaemia. Their use, and more prudent use of older therapies with low risk of hypoglycaemia, may help patients achieve improved glucose control for longer, and reduce the risk of diabetic complications.     

Asymptomatic hypoglycaemia: identification and impact

The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) demonstrated that intensive management in people with type 1 diabetes delays the onset and the progression of microvascular complications associated with the disease. However, it is also known that intensive regimens can increase the number of hypoglycaemias and that the perception of symptoms decreases in relation to the statutes of metabolic control 1. Impairment of hypoglycaemic awareness is reported by up to 50% of patients with type 1 diabetes and it is associated with an increase of severe episodes of hypoglycaemia 2. Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) has become a major tool in the management of diabetes. Current recommendations suggest frequent SMBG. The major inconvenience of SMBG is due to the limitations of the glycaemic profile obtained from intermittent finger-sticks. This is an incomplete picture of blood glucose excursions; moreover, the frequent SMBG is not readily accepted by patients suffering from diabetes because it is invasive and painful.     

Symptoms of hypoglycaemia in people with diabetes.

The symptoms of hypoglycaemia are fundamental to the early detection and treatment of this side-effect of insulin and oral hypoglycaemic therapy in people with diabetes. The physiology of normal responses to hypoglycaemia is described and the importance of symptoms of hypoglycaemia is discussed in relation to the treatment of diabetes. The symptoms of hypoglycaemia are described in detail. The classification of symptoms is considered and the usefulness of autonomic and neuroglycopenic symptoms for detecting hypoglycaemia is discussed. The many external and internal factors involved in the perception of symptoms are reviewed, and symptoms of hypoglycaemia experienced by people with Type 2 diabetes are addressed. Age-specific differences in the symptoms of hypoglycaemia have been identified, and are important for clinical and research practice, particularly with respect to the development of acquired hypoglycaemia syndromes in people with Type 1 diabetes that can result in impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia. In addition, the routine assessment of hypoglycaemia symptoms in the diabetic clinic is emphasized as an important part of the regular review of people with diabetes who are treated with insulin.     

A randomized pilot study in Type 1 diabetes complicated by severe hypoglycaemia, comparing rigorous hypoglycaemia avoidance with insulin analogue therapy, CSII or education alone.

AIM: To determine potential for amelioration of recurrent severe hypoglycaemia without worsening in overall control in individuals with long-standing Type 1 diabetes (T1DM). METHODS: Twenty-one people with T1DM characterized by altered hypoglycaemia awareness and debilitating severe hypoglycaemia were randomized in a pilot 24-week prospective study to optimized analogue therapy (ANALOGUE; lispro/glargine); continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy (CSII; lispro); or re-education with relaxation of blood glucose targets on existing conventional insulin regimen (EDUCATION). Glycaemic profiles and duration of biochemical hypoglycaemia were measured by continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring and self-monitored blood glucose. RESULTS: Further severe hypoglycaemia was prevented in five participants (71%) in each group (P = 0.06). Incidence of severe hypoglycaemia was: 0.6 (ANALOGUE), 0.9 (CSII), and 3.7 (EDUCATION) episodes per patient year. Restoration of hypoglycaemia awareness was confirmed by validated questionnaire in three (43%) ANALOGUE, four (57%) CSII and five (71%) EDUCATION patients. Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was significantly improved in the ANALOGUE group between weeks 0 and 24 (8.6 +/- 1.1 vs. 7.6 +/- 0.8%; P = 0.04 for change). Non-significant improvement was seen in the CSII group (8.5 +/- 1.9 vs. 7.4 +/- 1.0%; P = 0.06). No change in HbA1c was seen in the EDUCATION group (8.5 +/- 1.1 vs. 8.3 +/- 1.0%; P = 0.54). There were no episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis or any other adverse events in any group. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot randomized trial comparing optimized ANALOGUE, CSII or EDUCATION alone in unselected individuals with recurrent severe hypoglycaemia, we show potential for restoring hypoglycaemia awareness and preventing further severe hypoglycaemia with concomitant improvement in glycaemic control in ANALOGUE and CSII groups.     

Blood Glucose Awareness Training in Dutch Type 1 diabetes patients. Short-term evaluation of individual and group training.

AIMS: The aims of the present study were: (i) to evaluate the effects of a Dutch translation and adaptation of Blood Glucose Awareness Training (BGAT-III) on blood glucose (bg) perception, glycaemic control, and decisions not to drive or to raise the bg during hypoglycaemia; (ii) to compare the effects of individual and group BGAT. METHODS: Fifty-nine patients with Type 1 diabetes participated in BGAT in either a group or an individual setting. Before and after BGAT, 39 (66%) of them completed 30-70 measurements on a hand-held computer (hhc). During every measurement, they estimated their bg, indicated whether they would drive or raise their bg on the basis of their estimation, and then measured their bg. RESULTS: Individual and group BGAT did not have significantly different effects (P = 0.35-0.98). Overall, BGAT did not significantly affect bg perception (P = 0.11-0.65). Before BGAT patients recognized a mean of 32% of their hypoglycaemic episodes, after BGAT a mean of 39% (P = 0.12). After BGAT, patients more often decided not to drive when their bg was low (P = 0.03). They tended to decide more often to raise their bg during hypoglycaemia (P = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: The effects of BGAT were smaller than expected. Possible reasons for this negative outcome may be the adapted version of BGAT (shorter in duration), a lack of statistical power, or a difference between American and European samples in their reaction to BGAT.     

Frequency,Severity and Symptomatology of Hypoglycaemia: a Comparative Trial of Human and Porcine Insulins in Type 1 Diabetic Patients

A randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial was performed to compare the frequency, severity, and symptomatology of hypoglycaemia during treatment with porcine and human insulins. Forty patients with Type 1 diabetes (20 newly diagnosed and 20 with diabetes of 5–20 years duration) were treated with human and porcine insulins for consecutive 3-month periods, in random order. Episodes of hypoglycaemia were recorded prospectively with self-reporting of the presence and intensity of symptoms using a standardized scoring technique. Serial measurements of glycated haemoglobin and review of home blood glucose tests confirmed that similar glycaemic control was achieved with each insulin species. On comparison of the treatment periods with human and porcine insulins, no differences were demonstrated in the total frequency of symptomatic hypoglycaemia (3.10 vs 3.06 episodes patient^?1 3-months^?1; p = 0.94), the frequency of severe hypoglycaemia (0.1 vs 0.2 episodes patient^?1 3-months^?1; p = 0.44), the occurrence of asymptomatic biochemical hypoglycaemia (0.75 vs 0.68 episodes patient^?1 3-months^?1; p = 0.81), and the capillary blood glucose concentration at the onset of hypoglycaemic symptoms (2.6 ± 0.2 vs 2.4 ± 0.3 mmol I^?1; p = 0.40), with all results being expressed for human vs porcine treatment periods, respectively. The symptoms of hypoglycaemia did not differ during the treatment periods with each insulin species. In conclusion, treatment with human insulin had no effect upon the symptomatic response to hypoglycaemia, did not increase the total frequency of hypoglycaemia, and did not emerge as a significant risk factor for severe hypoglycaemia in these patients.