Abstract
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).
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).
| Original language | Spanish (Colombia) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 74-79 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Revista Colombiana De Endocrinologia Diabetes Metabolismo |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - May 2019 |
