Influence of fiber on glycemic index of enteral nutrition

Enhanced hypoglycemic effects of konjac glucomannan combined with Polygonatum cyrtonema Hua polysaccharide in complete nutritional liquid diet fed type 2 diabetes mice

In our aging society, dysphagia and malnutrition are growing concerns, necessitating intervention. Liquid nutrition support offers a practical solution for traditional dietary issues, but it raises a key issue: the potential for post-meal glucose spikes impacting efficacy. This study examined the effects of supplementation of Polygonatum cyrtonema Hua polysaccharide (PCP), konjac glucomannan (KGM) and their combination on acute phase postprandial glycemic response and long-term glucose metabolism in T2DM mice on a complete nutritional liquid diet. KGM was more effective in reducing postprandial glucose response, while PCP was more prominent in ameliorating long-term glucose metabolism. The KGM-PCP combination demonstrated superior outcomes in fasting blood glucose, insulin, and glucose homeostasis. PCP and KGM also influenced the composition and abundance of the gut microbiome, with the H-PCP group showing optimal performance. Moreover, the KGM-PCP combination improved body weight, lipid homeostasis, and liver health the most. PCP potentially regulates glycemia through metabolic pathways, while KGM improves glycemic metabolism by reducing postprandial glucose levels in response to viscous intestinal contents. This research identifies the structure, viscosity properties, and hypoglycemic effects of KGM and PCP in complete nutritional liquid diet fed T2DM mice, enabling their strategic utilization as hypoglycemic components in nutritional administration and glycemic regulation.

Determination of glycemic index of enteral formulas used in clinical practice

Glycemic Index (GI) is a measure of carbohydrate quality and is recognised as a valid and reproducible method of classifying carbohydrate foods according to its effects on postprandial glycaemia. In this randomised crossover trial (RBR-7rjx3k) we determined the GI of nine enteral formulas, following the Food and Agriculture Organisation/World Health Organisation method. Forty healthy participants were included in the study (85% female mean age 27.1 ± 6.7 years). GI of the enteral formulas ranged from 40.5 to 85.2; four formulas had high GI (Nutrienteral 1.5^®, Novasource GI Control^®, Diamax^®, Isosource Soya^®), two intermediate GI (Fresubin 1.2 HP Fibre^®, Nutrison Energy Multifiber 1.5^®) and three low GI (Trophic 1.5^®, Glucerna^®, Novasource GC HP^®). The GI coefficient of variation ranged from 22.9% to 83.6%. The effect of the enteral formulas with low GI in glycemic control of patients with enteral nutrition prescription needs to be test in future studies.

Nutrition and Hyperglycemia Management in the Inpatient Setting (Meals on Demand, Parenteral, or Enteral Nutrition)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this paper is to provide the latest evidence and expert recommendations for management of hospitalized patients with diabetes or hyperglycemia receiving enteral (EN), parenteral (PN) nutrition support or, those with unrestricted oral diet, consuming meals on demand.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with and without diabetes mellitus commonly develop hyperglycemia while receiving EN or PN support, placing them at increased risk of adverse outcomes, including in-hospital mortality. Very little new evidence is available in the form of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to guide the glycemic management of these patients. Reduction in the dextrose concentration within parenteral nutrition as well as selection of an enteral formula that diminishes the carbohydrate exposure to a patient receiving enteral nutrition are common strategies utilized in practice. No specific insulin regimen has been shown to be superior in the management of patients receiving EN or PN nutrition support. For those receiving oral nutrition, new challenges have been introduced with the most recent practice allowing patients to eat meals on demand, leading to extreme variability in carbohydrate exposure and risk of hypo and hyperglycemia. Synchronization of nutrition delivery with the astute use of intravenous or subcutaneous insulin therapy to match the physiologic action of insulin in patients receiving nutritional support should be implemented to improve glycemic control in hospitalized patients. Further RCTs are needed to evaluate glycemic and other clinical outcomes of patients receiving nutritional support. For patients eating meals on demand, development of hospital guidelines and policies are needed, ensuring optimization and coordination of meal insulin delivery in order to facilitate patient safety.

Glycemic management in critically ill patients

Hyperglycemia associated with critical illness, also called “stress hyperglycemia” or “stress diabetes”, is a consequence of many pathophysiologic hormonal responses including increased catecholamines, cortisol, glucagon, and growth hormone. Alterations in multiple biochemical pathways result in increased hepatic and peripheral insulin resistance with an uncontrolled activation of gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis. Hyperglycemia has a negative impact on the function of the immune system, on the host response to illness or injury, and on infectious and overall outcomes. The degree of glucose elevation is associated with increased disease severity. Large randomized controlled trials including the Van den Berghe study, the NICE-SUGAR trial, VISEP and GLUCONTROL have shown that the control of glucose levels in critically ill patients has implications on outcome and that both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia are detrimental and should be avoided. Glucose variability has also been shown to be detrimental. Aggressive glucose control strategies have changed due to the concerns of hypoglycemia and therefore intermediate target glucose control strategies are most often adopted. Different patient populations may vary with regards to optimal glucose targets, timing and approach for glucose control, and with regards to the prognostic significance of glucose excursions and variability. Medical, surgical, and trauma patients may benefit at different rates from glucose control and the approach may need to be adapted to various medical settings and to correspond to the workflow of health providers. Effect modifiers for the success of insulin therapy for hyperglycemia include the methods of nutritional supplementation and exogenous glucose administration. Further research is required to improve insulin protocols for glucose control, to further define glucose targets, and to enhance the accuracy of glucose measuring technologies.

Management of Hyperglycemia and Enteral Nutrition in the Hospitalized Patient

There has been increased attention on the importance of identifying and distinguishing the differences between stress-induced hyperglycemia (SH), newly diagnosed hyperglycemia (NDH), and hyperglycemia in persons with established diabetes mellitus (DM). Inpatient blood glucose control is now being recognized as not only a cost issue for hospitals but also a concern for patient safety and care. The reasons for the increased incidence of hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients include preexisting DM, undiagnosed DM or prediabetes, SH, and medication-induced hyperglycemia with resulting transient blood glucose variability. It is clear that identifying and documenting hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients with and without a previous diagnosis of DM and initiating prompt insulin treatment are important. Agreement on the optimum treatment goals for hyperglycemia remains quite controversial, and the benefits of intensive glucose management may be lost at the cost of hypoglycemia in intensive care unit patients. Nutrition support in the form of enteral nutrition (EN) increases the risk of hyperglycemia in both critical and non-critically ill hospitalized patients. Reasons for beginning a tube feeding are the same whether a person has NDH or DM. What differs is how to incorporate EN into the established insulin management protocols. The risk for hyperglycemia with the addition of EN is even higher in those without a previous diagnosis of DM. This review discusses the incidence of hyperglycemia, the pathogenesis of hyperglycemia, factors contributing to hyperglycemia in the hospitalized patient, glycemic management goals, current glycemic management recommendations, and considerations for EN formula selection, administration, and treatment.

Enteral nutrition formula selection: current evidence and implications for practice

Many new enteral nutrition (EN) formulas have been created over the past several decades with a variety of intended uses. Although each is intended to promote improved outcomes, research is often unclear and, in many cases, conflicting. It is important to note that EN products are considered medical foods by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and therefore do not have to complete premarket review or approval and are not regulated to the same extent as pharmaceuticals. While standard EN formulas are designed to meet the basic macro- and micronutrient requirements of individuals who cannot meet nutrition needs orally, specialty EN products have been developed to exhibit pharmacologic properties, such as immune-enhancing formulas containing arginine, glutamine, nucleotides, and ω-3 fatty acids. With the vast number of products available, rising costs of healthcare, and the drive toward evidence-based practice, it is imperative that clinicians carefully consider research regarding use of specialty formulas, paying close attention to the quality, patient population, clinical end points, and cost to patient and/or facility.

Extended prandial glycemic profiles of foods as assessed using continuous glucose monitoring enhance the power of the 120-minute glycemic index

BACKGROUND

The glycemic index (GI) is routinely measured 120 minutes after food intake (GI120). The purpose of this prospective open label study was to assess (1) the dynamics of glycemia over the 210 minutes following food consumption and (2) the evolution of GIs based on 120-, 150-, 180-, and 210-minute glycemic profiles.

METHOD

Twenty healthy subjects (mean +/- SE; 21.9 +/- 1.39 years of age; body mass index 23.6 +/- 0.63 kg/m(2); 7 men and 13 women) completed the study. Each subject consumed 10 different foods with known GI120 on three separate occasions at four different times of day according to a defined meal plan over a 9-day period; 32 meals were evaluated. The GIs for intervals of 120, 150, 180 and 210 minutes after food consumption were determined using a continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) to measure glycemia. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was applied to compare the GIs.

RESULTS

Glycemia returned to baseline within 120 minutes for honey and tomato soup; within 210 minutes for white bread, choco-rice cookies, fish and potatoes, wafers, and meat ravioli with cheese; and later for dark chocolate, apricot dumplings, and choco-wheat cookies. The extended GIs were higher than the respective GI120s in eight of the foods.

CONCLUSIONS

The 120-minute glycemic index fails to fully account for changes in glycemia after ingestion of a mixed meal because glycemia remains above baseline for a longer period. The CGMS is a convenient method to determine the glucose response/GIs over intervals extended up to 210 minutes, which is adequate time for the absorption of most foods.