Glycaemic response after intake of a high energy, high protein, diabetes-specific formula in older malnourished or at risk of malnutrition type 2 diabetes patients. Issue 6 (December 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Laksir, Hamid; Lansink, Mirian; Regueme, Sophie C.; de Vogel-van den Bosch, Johan; Pfeiffer, Andreas F.H.; Bourdel-Marchasson, Isabelle
• Is Part Of: Clinical nutrition. Volume 37:Issue 6(2018)Part A
• Page Start: 2084
• Page End: 2090
• Publication Date: 2018-12
• Subjects: Type-2 diabetes -- Diabetes-specific formula -- Malnutrition -- Nutrition -- Protein; Critically ill -- Nutrition -- Periodicals; Diet therapy -- Periodicals; Parenteral feeding -- Periodicals; Enteral feeding -- Periodicals; Enteral Nutrition -- Periodicals; Parenteral Nutrition -- Periodicals; Metabolism -- Periodicals; Diétothérapie -- Périodiques; Alimentation parentérale -- Périodiques; Alimentation entérale -- Périodiques; Nutrition -- Périodiques; Diet therapy; Enteral feeding; Nutrition; Parenteral feeding; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 615.854
• DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2017.09.027
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0261-5614

Abstract

Summary: Background & aims: Several studies with diabetes-specific formulas (DSFs) for hyperglycaemic patients in need of nutritional support have been conducted in non-malnourished patients, mainly comparing products with varying macronutrient compositions. Here, the effect of a high energy, high protein DSF on postprandial responses was compared to a product with a similar macronutrient composition in malnourished or at risk of malnutrition patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: In this randomised, double-blind cross-over study, 20 patients were included. After overnight fasting, patients consumed 200 mL of a DSF or standard supplement (control) (19.6 g protein, 31.2 g carbohydrates and 10.6 g fat), while continuing their anti-diabetic medication. The formulas differed in type of carbohydrates and presence of fibre. The postprandial glucose, insulin and glucagon responses were monitored over 4 h. Data were analysed with a Linear Mixed Model, and results of the modified ITT population (n = 19) are shown. Results: Postprandial glucose response as incremental area under the curve (iAUC), was lower after consumption of DSF compared with control (489.7 ± 268.5 (mean ± SD) vs 581.3 ± 273.9 mmol/L min, respectively; p = 0.008). Also, the incremental maximum concentration of glucose (iCmax) was lower for DSF vs control (3.5 ± 1.4 vs 4.0 ± 1.4 mmol/L; p = 0.007). Postprandial insulin and glucagon levels, expressed as iAUC or iCmax, were not significantly different between groups. Conclusions: Consumption of a high energy, high protein DSF by older malnourished or at risk of malnutrition type 2 diabetes patients resulted in a significantly lower glucose response compared to control. These data suggest that the use of a DSF is preferred for patients with diabetes in need of nutritional support.