Keywords
diabetes mellitus type 2
glycemic index
continuous glucose monitoring
How to Cite
Abstract
Background: Liquid nutritional formulas ensure a contribution of standard macro and micronutrients that can substitute or complement the diet of patients with diabetes. There are no head-to-head comparisons that evaluate the glycemic profile between specific nutritional formulas for diabetics.
Methods: A cross-over clinical trial was conducted to compare the glycemic behavior and the glycemic variability between four commercial specific nutritional formulas in diabetes and a standard breakfast in 10 subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus, using a continuous glucose monitoring system. The average, standard deviation and the area under the curve (AUC) in hyperglycemia of each of the formulas were calculated. In addition, the coefficient of variation and other measures of variability were determined. The interstitial glucose delta was analyzed every 5 minutes stratified for each nutritional formula.
Results: Glucose average for standard breakfast was 146.7 ± 44.3 mg/dl, Ensoy Diabetes® 129.6 ± 25.1mg/dl, Enterex DBT® 129.6 ± 26.8 mg/dl, Glucerna SR® 131.5 ± 31.7 mg/dl and Prowhey DM® 131.7 ± 30.7 mg/dl. The 4 nutritional formulas had lower AUC in a period of 4 hours (post-absorptive) compared to a standard breakfast (p <0.001), generating lower glycemic excursions and reaffirming their lower glycemic index.
Conclusions: When comparing formulas, they all had a good glycemic profile in general. Ensoy Diabetes® showed lower AUC compared to Glucerna SR®, a finding that could be explained by the lower actual carbohydrate content of Ensoy Diabetes® (17 vs 22.4 gr).
References
2. Aschner P, Muñoz OM, Girón DM, García OM, Fernández DG, Casas LA, et. al. Guía de práctica clínica para el diagnóstico, tratamiento y seguimiento de la diabetes mellitus tipo 2 en la población mayor de 18 años. Guía No. GPC-2015-51. Colombia Médica 2016; 47 (2):109-31.
3. Look AHEAD Research Group, Wing RR, Bolin P, Brancati FL, Bray GA, Clark JM. Cardiovascular effects of intensive lifestyle intervention in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2013 Jul 11;369(2):145-54.
4. Elia M, Ceriello A, Laube H, Sinclair AJ, Engfer M, Stratton RJ. Enteral nutritional support and use of diabetes-specific formulas for patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2005 Sep;28(9):2267-79.
5. Ojo O, Brooke J. Evaluation of the role of enteral nutrition in managing patients with diabetes: a systematic review. Nutrients. 2014 Nov 18;6(11):5142-52.
6. Gulati S, Misra A, Nanda K, Pandey RM, Garg V, Ganguly S, Cheung L. Efficacy and tolerance of a diabetes specific formula in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: An open label, randomized, crossover study. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2015 Oct-Dec;9(4):252-7
7. Stenvers DJ, Schouten LJ, Jurgens J, Endert E, Kalsbeek A, Fliers E, Bisschop PH. Breakfast replacement with a low-glycaemic response liquid formula in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised clinical trial. Br J Nutr. 2014 Aug 28;112(4):504-12.
8. Livesey G1, Tagami H. Interventions to lower the glycemic response to carbohydrate foods with a low-viscosity fiber (resistant maltodextrin): meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jan;89(1):114-25.
9. Kovatchev B, Cobelli C. Glucose Variability: Timing, Risk Analysis, and Relationship to Hypoglycemia in Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2016 Apr;39(4):502-10.
Authors must state that they reviewed, validated and approved the manuscript's publication. Moreover, they must sign a model release that should be sent. A copy may be reviewed here