Next Article in Journal
Anti-Inflammatory Effects of a Stauntonia hexaphylla Fruit Extract in Lipopolysaccharide-Activated RAW-264.7 Macrophages and Rats by Carrageenan-Induced Hind Paw Swelling
Next Article in Special Issue
Post-Exercise Carbohydrate-Energy Replacement Attenuates Insulin Sensitivity and Glucose Tolerance the Following Morning in Healthy Adults
Previous Article in Journal
Micronutrient Gaps in Three Commercial Weight-Loss Diet Plans
Previous Article in Special Issue
Amaranthus caudatus Stimulates Insulin Secretion in Goto-Kakizaki Rats, a Model of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2
Article Menu
Issue 1 (January) cover image

Export Article

Nutrients 2018, 10(1), 109; doi:10.3390/nu10010109

Review
Carbohydrate Counting in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes
Pediatric Clinic, Department of Surgical and Biomedical Sciences, Università degli Studi di Perugia, 06132 Perugia, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 26 December 2017 / Accepted: 16 January 2018 / Published: 22 January 2018

Abstract

:
Carbohydrate counting (CC) is a meal-planning tool for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with a basal bolus insulin regimen by means of multiple daily injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. It is based on an awareness of foods that contain carbohydrates and their effect on blood glucose. The bolus insulin dose needed is obtained from the total amount of carbohydrates consumed at each meal and the insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio. Evidence suggests that CC may have positive effects on metabolic control and on reducing glycosylated haemoglobin concentration (HbA1c). Moreover, CC might reduce the frequency of hypoglycaemia. In addition, with CC the flexibility of meals and snacks allows children and teenagers to manage their T1D more effectively within their own lifestyles. CC and the bolus calculator can have possible beneficial effects in improving post-meal glucose, with a higher percentage of values within the target. Moreover, CC might be integrated with the counting of fat and protein to more accurately calculate the insulin bolus. In conclusion, in children and adolescents with T1D, CC may have a positive effect on metabolic control, might reduce hypoglycaemia events, improves quality of life, and seems to do so without influencing body mass index; however, more high-quality clinical trials are needed to confirm this positive impact.
Keywords:
carbohydrate counting; glycosylated haemoglobin; hypoglycaemia; insulin; type 1 diabetes

1. Introduction

Type 1 diabetes (T1D), formerly called insulin-dependent diabetes or juvenile diabetes, is an autoimmune disorder characterised by a severe deficiency or absence of endogenous insulin, which results in chronic hyperglycaemia. The achievement of optimal glucose control is facilitated by intensive insulin treatment in patients with T1D [1,2]. The current recommendations are based on the basal bolus paradigm, with subcutaneous long-acting insulin or continuous subcutaneous infusion of rapid-acting insulin to cover basal requirements and with rapid-acting insulin to prevent or correct glucose excursions. Frequent self-measurements of capillary blood glucose allow for insulin dose adjustments, with the aim of achieving good metabolic control [3]. Furthermore, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides information about the glucose level every 5 min and allows patients to view their glycaemic data either on their insulin pump or on a separate receiver [4].
Despite advances in medical treatment and technology, nutritional therapy continues to be a cornerstone of diabetes care [5]. Nutritional recommendations for a healthy lifestyle for the general population are also appropriate for children and adolescents with T1D, with the only difference compared to healthy peers being the need for insulin therapy. The International Society for Paediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) Consensus Guidelines of 2014 stressed the importance of and special issues applying to nutritional management for children with diabetes [6]. The Guidelines recommended that a proper diet should allow for optimal growth, maintain an ideal weight, and prevent acute and chronic complications. The approximate energy intake and essential nutrients should be distributed as follows: carbohydrates 50–55%; fat 30–35%; and protein 10–15%.
Carbohydrates are the primary macronutrient that has an effect on the postprandial glycaemic response; their dietary intake should not be limited to ensure proper growth in children and adolescents with T1D. Adjusting the insulin dose to carbohydrate intake could produce potential improvements in glycaemic control and quality of life. Carbohydrate counting (CC) is a meal-planning tool for patients with T1D, based on an awareness of foods that contain carbohydrates and their effect on blood glucose. The bolus insulin dose needed is obtained from the total amount of carbohydrates consumed at each meal and the insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio (ICR) [7]. The current guidelines recommend the algorithms for prandial insulin be based on the carbohydrate amount taken in during a meal. They recognise the additional benefits to glycaemic control due to the use of the glycaemic index (GI) and that fats and proteins in the diet may influence postprandial glycaemia [6,8,9]. The aim of this review is to analyse the impact of CC in children and adolescents with T1D.

2. Educational Program on Carbohydrate Counting (CC)

With the discovery of insulin, researchers recognised that the total amount of dietary carbohydrates should be used to determine the need for insulin at meals. In the 1980s, the conventional insulin therapy imposed very rigid eating patterns with restricted and controlled carbohydrates portions. Subsequently, in the 1990s, the Diabetes Control and Complication Trial (DCTT) was a turning point for the treatment of diabetes. From this study, it was found that intensive insulin therapy, using multiple daily injection (MDI) or insulin pumps (CSII), improved glycaemic control and reduced complications related to the disease. In the DCTT, CC, one of the methods of meal planning, was considered effective in achieving good glycaemic control and allowing more flexibility in food choices [10,11].
An experienced team, including the role of the dietitian, is essential for the patient with T1D and his or her family so that they can then partake in the educational program and learn the method of CC as well as healthy-eating principles [11]. Children and those who care for them can learn to estimate the amount of carbohydrates with reasonable accuracy; however, continuing education therapy is needed. Carbohydrates have the most significant impact on raising postprandial blood glucose. A careful counting of carbohydrates will lead to the correct calculation of the required insulin dose, which in turn will lead to normalising postprandial glycaemia [12]. The American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics have identified three levels of CC [8]:
  • Level 1, Patients should understand that carbohydrates raise blood glucose, and they must be encouraged to consume a consistent amount of carbohydrates per meal. Simple methods to quantify the carbohydrates must be provided: gram increments of carbohydrates, 10–12 g carbohydrate portions, and 15 g carbohydrate exchanges. In particular, this level is helpful for patients in therapy with twice-daily insulin doses and who need consistent carbohydrate intake [13];
  • Level 2, Pattern management. This represents an intermediate step, in which patients learn to evaluate changes in blood glucose compared to carbohydrates consumed, which are modified by insulin and physical activity. Therefore, patients supported by paediatric teams can make changes to their insulin. However, ever more frequently, paediatric teams use other methods, such as carbohydrate intake or the insulin-to-carb ratio (ICR);
  • Level 3, Advanced CC. Patients in MDI or CSII learn ICR and how to use it.

3. Insulin-to-Carb Ratio (ICR), Insulin Sensitivity Factor (ISF), and Glycaemic Index (GI)

The insulin-to-carb ratio (ICR) is individualised and depends on one’s sensitivity to insulin, which is how many grams of carbohydrates 1 unit of insulin covers. ICR allows children to obtain their insulin needs at mealtimes on the basis of the carbohydrates that will be consumed at that time, their blood glucose level, and their anticipated physical activity [6,9]. For the identification of the carbohydrates-to-insulin ratio, the empirical method of the 500 rule or 300–450 rule, for very young children who need less than 10 units of insulin a day, is often used [14,15,16,17]. It consists of dividing 500, 300, or 450 by the total daily insulin dose (TDD). ICR is not constant during the day; it tends to be higher in the morning, lower for lunch, and higher in the evening [18]. ICR varies more in children than in adults, which is linked to the more frequent changes occurring in the daily activity of the child [9].
The insulin sensitivity factor (ISF) is a correction algorithm of pre-prandial glycaemia. In particular, ISF indicates how many mmol/L (or mg/dL) 1 unit of insulin lowers blood glucose by; it is obtained by dividing 1800 (rapid analogue) or 1500 (regular insulin) by the TDD [19]. ISF also needs to be individualised for each patient. Regarding infants and toddlers, ISF is generally higher, approximately 100–150 mg/dL [19]. A recent study showed that the bolus insulin for meals was more than the one calculated by the 500 rule, in particular at breakfast and in pre-pubescent children. Moreover, for corrections, insulin need was slightly less than that calculated by the 100 rule (100 divided by total daily insulin dose) [19].
The GI expresses the glycaemic response after eating a known amount of carbohydrates contained in food, but in relation to the same amount of carbohydrates contained in white bread. The glycaemic area measured 120 min after food intake is expressed as a percentage of the standard. Using the GI and eating low-GI food may produce modest benefits in the control of postprandial hyperglycaemia. Moreover, to consider both the quality and the amount of carbohydrates, the concept of glycaemic load was introduced [20]. In patients with T1D, GI should be used with a method of carbohydrate quantification [21].

3.1. Glycaemic Control

In previous studies conducted in adult subjects, glycaemic variations were assessed after the ingestion of different amounts and qualities of carbohydrates: complex carbohydrates in a mixed meal and simple sugar dextrose [22]. Blood sugar was higher, but for a shorter time, after the dextrose load than after the mixed meals. The total amount released by the artificial pancreas to return glycaemia to basal levels did not differ when exposed to different types of carbohydrates, but a difference did occur in the release kinetics. Furthermore, there was a linear relation between carbohydrate intake and insulin need.
A systematic review and meta-analysis was recently performed to evaluate the effectiveness of CC on glycaemic control in people with T1D [22]. It included 10 studies, published from 2000 to 2014, involving 773 participants. Four studies enrolled children and adolescents [23,24,25,26], and six studies included adults [27,28,29,30,31,32]. Overall, CC, compared with other diabetes diet methods or usual diabetes diets, improved HbA1c values, in line with a previous systematic review and a meta-analysis [28,33,34]. A non-significant improvement of HbA1c was found in the subgroup analysis restricted to trials that compared CC with other T1D diet methods [14].
One systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarise all available evidence from both observational and randomised controlled studies on the effects of advanced CC on glycaemic control, psychosocial measures, body weight, and severe hypoglycaemic events in patients of all age groups with T1D [26]. Six randomised controlled trials and 21 before/after studies were included; four uncontrolled trials (Table 1) [35,36,37,38] and one randomised controlled trial (Table 2) [39] were conducted in children and adolescents with a mean age ± standard deviation of 12 ± 4 years. In only one study, in which 28 adolescents were included, the improvement in HbA1c was not demonstrated after advanced CC. These 28 patients switched from a prescriptive to a flexible meal plan and insulin. According to the authors, this result could be related to inaccurate CC, incorrect calculation of insulin dose, or inappropriate insulin injection technique.
Bell et al. only included one study of children in their systematic review [28]. The results favoured the alternative approach, i.e., a low glycaemic index over CC. However, the improvement of the glycaemic control found in adults needed to be interpreted with care, as more studies had a concurrent intensification of insulin therapy in the intervention group.
Compliance and the ability to accurately estimate the amount of carbohydrates consumed by children and adolescents with T1D is another aspect that should be considered. The greater ability of parents to count carbohydrates led to lower values of HbA1c in their children and adolescents [40,41,42,43,44]. At the same time, there are wide variations in this ability, with studies where participants may estimate carbohydrates to within 10–15 g or within 15–20% of the actual amount, while in others, only half could accurately evaluate the carbohydrate amount or had large differences in calculations [28,40,41,42,43,44,45].
An important aspect that should not be overlooked is the effect of time on changes in HbA1c. The effects of diabetes self-management training programmes were short-lived. Thus, as recommended in many countries, regular reinforcement of advanced CC is critical in patient management [41,46,47]. In the review by Schmidt et al., the study with the longest period of evaluation was also the study with the smallest improvement in HbA1c [34]. The accuracy of counting carbohydrates is associated with an improvement in glycaemic control; at the same time, intense glucose monitoring is an independent variable related to the reduction in HbA1c [43,48].
Considering the available data, in several studies the CC method has been compared to a control arm consisting of usual or standard care rather than alternative methods for calculating bolus insulin. In addition, observational studies generally conclude showing no improvement in glycaemic control. Furthermore, results in the paediatric and adolescent population seem better than those observed in adults, probably also for the psychological aspects associated with CC. All these considerations highlight the need of further well-designed, double-blind large studies that confirm the role of CC in patients with T1D of different age groups.

3.2. Hypoglycaemia

The calculation of carbohydrate amount for the adjustment of insulin dose is useful for better glycaemic control, and, for the practical CC, the small quantification errors are permissive. A 10 g variation in the carbohydrate quantity did not induce differences in blood glucose. Furthermore, patients may have episodes of hypo- and hyperglycaemia for an overestimation or underestimation of 20 g in a meal of 60 g carbohydrates [35,37,49]. Adolescents may be less accurate in the calculation and have a decay of glycaemic control. Hypoglycaemia is not reported or defined uniformly [40]. Uncontrolled studies showed a significant reduction in severe hypoglycaemia in children with T1D using CC [29,30]. Other data suggested that CC did not significantly decrease hypoglycaemia events [14]. In a before/after study in nine children, an insignificant increase in non-severe hypoglycaemia was observed [28]. CC might reduce the frequency of hypoglycaemia; probably, the reduction in HbA1c concentration is a result of stabilised glycaemic control rather than just an overall lowering of blood glucose [15].

3.3. Growth, Weight, and Psychological Effects

Intensive and appropriate insulin therapy and, consequently, better metabolic control have enabled an improvement in the growth prognosis of paediatric patients with T1D [30,50]. Modern T1D care prevents abnormalities of the GH-IGF-I axis, which means that children with T1D can achieve a final height similar to their healthy peers [51].
Some clinicians believe that flexibility in the diet, which can be permitted by CC, may lead to the development of obesity [8,9]. The DAFNE study demonstrated that a freedom diet did not increase cardiovascular risk factors, including obesity [26]. Paediatric studies have shown that therapy MDI associated with the calculation of carbohydrates does not cause obesity in children with T1D. Some studies documented a decrease in body mass index (BMI), and some studies reported an increase; nevertheless, only minor variations in weight after the use of CC were found [30,52,53,54]. The increased weight documented in children and adolescents with T1D was attributed to changes in growth occurring during puberty progression [29]. In another study, Marigliano et al. evaluated the impact of CC and nutritional education on changes in dietary habits, body fat composition, and fat body distribution in diabetic children in therapy with CSII [55]. The results revealed that CC and a proper nutrition education did not have a negative effect on dietary habits, body composition, or body fat distribution. Moreover, a reduction of intake of fat and protein, with an increase in carbohydrates intake, was observed in a subgroup of subjects showing a significant improvement in metabolic control.
Females at a young age with T1D face a higher risk of eating behaviour disorders and, consequently, are more likely to have impaired metabolic control and diabetic complications [56]. Furthermore, a cross-sectional case-controlled study has shown that there was an increased frequency of food disturbances in pre-teen and early-teenage girls with T1D [57]. Rigid dietary patterns that do not conform to the habits and needs of patients might have an effect on the psychological development of children with T1D. An Australian 9-month before/after study that evaluated diabetes-related quality of life reported significant improvements in patient-rated life satisfaction after the introduction of CC. Often, the lack of flexibility in the management of meals and snacks is one of the worst aspects of living with diabetes, and adolescents especially ignore dietary advice. Thus, CC is an important tool allowing children and teenagers to manage their T1D more effectively within their own lifestyles [1,31]. This psychological effect of CC could also be useful during the honeymoon period and the transition from adolescence to adulthood.
In addition, it is extremely important to highlight that for the children and adolescents with T1D, the psychological aspects, such as the quality of life, adherence, and motivation, are key points of good glycaemic control. The reports of the Dose Adjustment for Normal Eating (DAFNE) study emphasised the positive effect of CC on the quality of life [58]. So far, many kinds of structural education programs for T1D have been reported [59,60]. Most of these programs included CC and showed the improvement of patients’ adherence, as well as motivation. Therefore, CC has a positive effect on patients’ adherence and motivation too. In addition, it has been observed that CC also has a positive effect on the parents and caregivers, who are the key persons for the treatment of infants and young children with T1D [59,60].

3.4. Bolus Calculator

The bolus calculator is a useful tool both for patients with T1D who require MDI and patients with an insulin pump, which allows the calculation of the prandial insulin dose based on the amount of carbohydrates, the pre-prandial blood glucose value, and active insulin [61]. Its use is associated with improved metabolic control and greater satisfaction in treating adults, children, and adolescents [62]. Few studies found the bolus calculator to be effective in children using CSII. The bolus calculator and CC may have beneficial effects in reducing HbA1c by improving post-meal glucose, with a higher percentage of values within the target range [63,64,65]. Moreover, an insulin pump offers the possibility to tailor insulin delivery to the meal composition through the use of different bolus options: normal, dual wave, or square wave. Evidence suggests that children who apply at least one D-W/S-W bolus a day are better at achieving the recommended HbA1c level [66]. In an 18-month observational study, Rabbone et al. investigated the effect of CC, with or without an automated bolus calculator, in children treated with MDI. This study showed that bolus calculator use led to greater improvements in HbA1c [67].

3.5. Fat and Protein Counting

Learning about CC is important because it also increases knowledge about other macronutrients [57]. Low carbohydrate diets have been popularised by social media for those who wish to lose weight [68]. However, the promotion of a low carbohydrate diet in lay media is in contrast to published paediatric diabetes guidelines that endorse a balanced diet from a variety of foods for optimal growth and development in children with T1D [69]. De Bock et al. described a series of six cases where the adoption of a low carbohydrate diet in children impacted growth and cardiovascular risk factors with potential long-term sequelae [69]. Meals enriched in fat and protein result in a prolonged blood glucose rise by 3–4 h after food ingestion, and frequently, a relative insulin resistance is observed [70]. The American Diabetes Association recommends an appropriate glycaemic impact education regarding protein and fat. Recent studies and the use of continuous glucose monitoring have shown that post-prandial glucose excursion may occur because of fat, protein, and GI [71,72]. CGM and increasing focus on the daily lives of patients highlight the limitations of the traditional CC method, used to calculate the meal-time insulin dose. From the new insights about the effect of dietary macronutrients on post-prandial glucose control, it appears that, to improve the calculation of the insulin bolus, CC should be integrated with the counts of fats and proteins. On the other hand, it has been demonstrated that bolus calculation for high fat feeding prevents late rises in postprandial triglycerides and tumour necrosis factor alpha, thus improving cardiovascular risk profile [73]. Therefore, the development of suitable and usable algorithms is necessary, without forgetting the importance of educational therapy for a successful translation of fat/protein counting in real life [74].

4. Conclusions

Current guidelines recommend that the algorithms for prandial insulin dose be based on the carbohydrate amount taken with a meal. CC and intensive insulin therapy enable patients to have greater freedom in the management of the meals or snacks and activities of daily living, without forgetting the principles of healthy eating. A paediatric interdisciplinary T1D care team is fundamental. It has to provide education, monitoring, and support to the children and their caregivers, bearing in mind crucial aspects of children and adolescents with T1D: physical and psychological development and T1D complications.
CC may improve metabolic control and reduce HbA1c concentration. Moreover, with developments in medical technology and with the new insights into the effect of dietary macronutrients on post-prandial glucose control, it appears that, to improve the calculation of the insulin bolus, the CC should be integrated with the counts of fats and proteins. Research into suitable and usable algorithms is necessary. Overall, CC may have a positive effect on metabolic control, reduce hypoglycaemia events, improve quality of life, and not influence BMI. However, more high-quality clinical trials are needed to confirm this positive impact.

Acknowledgments

This review, including the costs to publish in open access, was supported by a grant from the World Association of Infectious Diseases (WAidid).

Author Contributions

Giorgia Tascini wrote the first draft of the manuscript; Maria Giulia Berioli and Laura Cerquiglini revised the text; Elisa Santi, Giulia Mancini, Francesco Rogari and Giada Toni gave a support in the literature review; Susanna Esposito critically revised the text and made substantial scientific contributions. All the authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Switzer, S.M.; Moser, E.G.; Rockler, B.E.; Garg, S.K. Intensive insulin therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Endocrinol. Metab. Clin. N. Am. 2012, 41, 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Tamborlane, W.V.; Sikes, K.A. Insulin therapy in children and adolescents. Endocrinol. Metab. Clin. N. Am. 2012, 41, 145–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Malik, F.S.; Taplin, C.E. Insulin therapy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr. Drugs 2014, 16, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Golicki, D.T.; Golicka, D.; Groele, L.; Pankowska, E. Continuous glucose monitoring system in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetologia 2008, 51, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Smart, C.E.; Aslander-van de Vliet, E.; Waldron, S. ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2009 Compendium: Nutritional management in children and adolescents with diabetes. Pediatr. Diabetes 2009, 10, 100–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Smart, C.E.; Annan, F.; Bruno, L.P.C.; Higgins, L.A.; Acerini, C.L. ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2014 Compendium: Nutritional management in children and adolescents with diabetes. Pediatr. Diabetes 2014, 15, 135–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Gillespie, S.J.; Kulkarni, K.D.; Daly, A.E. Using carbohydrate counting in diabetes clinical practice. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 1998, 98, 897–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kawamura, T. The importance of carbohydrate counting in the treatment of children with diabetes. Pediatr. Diabetes 2007, 8, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Sheard, N.F.; Clark, N.G.; Brand-Miller, J.C.; Franz, M.J.; Pi-Sunyer, F.X.; Mayer-Davis, E.; Kulkarni, K.; Geil, P. Dietary carbohydrate (amount and type) in the prevention and management of diabetes: A statement by the American diabetes association. Diabetes Care 2004, 27, 2266–2271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. THE DCCT Research Group. Nutrition interventions for intensive therapy in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 1993, 93, 768–772. [Google Scholar]
  11. Rabbone, I.; Canova, A.; Tuli, G.; Gioia, E.; Sicignano, S.; Cerutti, F. The calculation of carbohydrates in type 1 diabetes in children. G. Ital. Diabetol. Metab. 2011, 31, 150–154. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
  12. Deeb, A.; Al Hajeri, A.; Alhmoudi, I.; Nagelkerke, N. Accurate carbohydrate counting is an important determinant of postprandial glycemia in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 2017, 11, 753–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Wolever, T.M.; Hamad, S.; Chiasson, J.L.; Josse, R.G.; Leiter, L.A.; Rodger, N.W.; Ross, S.A.; Ryan, E.A. Day-to-day consistency in amount and source of carbohydrate associated with improved blood glucose control in type 1 diabetes. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 1999, 18, 242–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Slama, G.; Klein, J.C.; Delage, A.; Ardila, E.; Lemaignen, H.; Papoz, L.; Tchobroutsky, G. Correlation between the nature and amount of carbohy- drate in meal intake and insulin delivery by the artificial pancreas in 24 insulin-dependent diabetics. Diabetes 1981, 30, 101–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Halfon, P.; Belkhadir, J.; Slama, G. Correlation between amount of carbohydrate in mixed meals and insulin delivery by artificial pancreas in seven IDDM subjects. Diabetes Care 1989, 12, 427–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Walsh, J.; Roberts, R.; Bayle, T.; Varma, C.B. Using Insulin, Everything You Need for Success with Insulin; Torrey Pines Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  17. Walsh, J.; Roberts, R. Pumping Insulin, 4th ed.; Torrey Pines Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  18. Danne, T. Current practice of insulin pump therapy in children and adolescents-the Hannover recipe. Pediatr. Diabetes 2006, 7, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Hanas, R.; Adolfsson, P. Bolus calculator settings in well-controlled prepubertal children using insulin pumps are characterized by low insulin to carbohydrate ratios and short duration of insulin action time. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 2017, 11, 247–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Barclay, A.W.; Petocz, P.; McMillan-Price, J.; Flood, V.M.; Prvan, T.; Mitchell, P.; Brand-Miller, J.C. Glycemic index, glycemic load, and chronic disease risk—A meta-analysis of observational studies. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2008, 87, 627–637. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  21. Craig, M.E.; Twigg, S.M.; Donaghue, K.C. National Evidence-Based Clinical Care Guidelines for Type 1 Diabetes in Children, Adolescents and Adults. Available online: https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjkvJndgOHYAhVItpQKHSCHAj0QFgglMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdiabetessociety.com.au%2Fdownloads%2FType1guidelines(7Feb11).pdf&usg=AOvVaw1sAlGP3LfMJDEqvaxMzrbE (accessed on 19 December 2017).
  22. Gupta, L.; Khandelwal, D.; Kalra, S. Applied carbohydrate counting. J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 2017, 67, 1456–1457. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Gilbertson, H.R.; Brand-Miller, J.C.; Thorburn, A.W.; Evans, S.; Chondros, P.; Werther, G.A. The effect of flexible low glycemic index dietary advice versus measured carbohydrate exchange diets on glycemic control in children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2001, 24, 1137–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Goksen, D.; Altinok, Y.A.; Ozen, S.; Demir, G.; Darcan, S. Effects of carbohydrate counting method on metabolic control in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus. J. Clin. Res. Pediatr. Endocrinol. 2014, 1, 74–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. De Albuquerque, I.Z. Carbohydrate counting, nutritional status and metabolic profile of adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Sci. Med. 2014, 24, 21–24. [Google Scholar]
  26. Enander, R.; Gundevall, C.; Strömgren, A.; Chaplin, J.; Hanas, R. Carbohydrate counting with a bolus calculator improves post-prandial blood glucose levels in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes using insulin pumps. Pediatr. Diabetes 2012, 13, 545–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Kalergis, M.; Pacaud, D.; Strychar, I.; Meltzer, S.; Jones, P.J.; Yale, J.F. Optimizing insulin delivery: Assessment of three strategies in intensive diabetes management. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2000, 2, 299–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Bell, K.J.; Barclay, A.W.; Petocz, P.; Colagiuri, S.; Brand-Miller, J.C. Efficacy of carbohydrate counting in type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014, 2, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Trento, M.; Trinetta, A.; Kucich, C.; Grassi, G.; Passera, P.; Gennari, S.; Paganin, V.; Tedesco, S.; Charrier, L.; Cavallo, F.; et al. Carbohydrate counting improves coping ability and metabolic control in patients with type 1 diabetes managed by group care. J. Endocrinol. Investig. 2011, 34, 101–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Schmidt, S.; Meldgaard, M.; Serifovski, N.; Storm, C.; Christensen, T.M.; Gade-Rasmussen, B.; Nørgaard, K. Use of an automated bolus calculator in MDI-treated type 1 diabetes: The BolusCal Study, a randomized controlled pilot study. Diabetes Care 2012, 35, 984–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Scavone, G.; Manto, A.; Pitocco, D.; Gagliardi, L.; Caputo, S.; Mancini, L.; Zaccardi, F.; Ghirlanda, G. Effect of carbohydrate counting and medical nutritional therapy on glycemic control in Type 1 diabetic subjects: A pilot study. Diabet. Med. 2010, 27, 477–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. DAFNE Study Group. Training in flexible, intensive insulin management to enable dietary freedom in people with type 1 diabetes: Dose adjustment for normal eating (DAFNE) randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2002, 325, 746. [Google Scholar]
  33. Fu, S.; Li, L.; Deng, S.; Zan, L.; Liu, Z. Effectiveness of advanced carbohydrate counting in type 1 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 37067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Schmidt, S.; Schelde, B.; Nørgaard, K. Effects of advanced carbohydrate counting in patients with type 1 diabetes: A systematic review. Diabet. Med. 2014, 31, 886–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Abaci, A.; Atas, A.; Unuvar, T.; Bober, E.; Buyukgebiz, A. The effect of carbohydrate counting on metabolic control in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Gulhane Med. J. 2009, 51, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  36. Alemzadeh, R.; Palma-Sisto, P.; Parton, E.; Totka, J.; Kirby, M. Beneficial effects of flexible insulin therapy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Acta Diabetol. 2003, 40, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Alemzadeh, R.; Berhe, T.; Wyatt, D.T. Flexible insulin therapy with glargine insulin improved glycemic control and reduced severe hypoglycemia among preschool-aged children with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Pediatrics 2005, 115, 1320–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Hayes, R.L.; Garnett, S.P.; Clarke, S.L.; Harkin, N.M.; Chan, A.K.; Ambler, G.R. A flexible diet using an insulin to carbohydrate ratio for adolescents with type 1 diabetes—A pilot study. Clin. Nutr. 2012, 31, 705–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Gupta, L.; Khandelwal, D.; Kalra, S. Carbohydrate counting-1: South Asian framework. J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 2017, 67, 1296–1298. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  40. Bishop, F.; Maahs, D.; Spiegel, G. The carbohydrate counting in adolescents with type 1 diabetes (CCAT) study. Diabetes Spectr. 2009, 22, 56–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Smart, C.E.; Ross, K.; Edge, J.A.; King, B.R.; McElduff, P.; Collins, C.E. Can children with Type 1 diabetes and their caregivers estimate the carbohydrate content of meals and snacks? Diabet. Med. 2010, 27, 348–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Rabasa-Lhoret, R.; Garon, J.; Langelier, H.; Poisson, D.; Chiasson, J.L. Effects of meal carbohydrate content on insulin requirements in type 1 diabetic patients treated intensively with the basal-bolus (ultralente-regular) insulin regimen. Diabetes Care 1999, 22, 667–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Mehta, S.N.; Quinn, N.; Volkening, L.K.; Laffel, L.M. Impact of carbo- hydrate counting on glycemic control in children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009, 32, 1014–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Nebel, I.T.; Bluher, M.; Starcke, U.; Muller, U.A.; Haak, T.; Paschke, R. Evaluation of a computer based interactive diabetes education program designed to train the estimation of the energy or carbohydrate contents of foods. Patient Educ. Couns. 2002, 46, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ahola, A.J.; Makimattila, S.; Saraheimo, M.; Mikkilä, V.; Forsblom, C.; Freese, R.; Groop, P.H. FinnDIANE Study Group. Many patients with type 1 diabetes estimate their prandial insulin need inappropriately. J. Diabetes 2010, 2, 194–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Funnell, M.M.; Brown, T.L.; Childs, B.P.; Haas, L.B.; Hosey, G.M.; Jensen, B.; Maryniuk, M.; Peyrot, M.; Piette, J.D.; Reader, D.; et al. National standards for diabetes self-management education. Diabetes Care 2012, 35, S101–S108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Norris, S.L.; Lau, J.; Smith, S.J.; Schmid, C.H.; Engelgau, M.M. Self-management education for adults with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of the effect on glycemic control. Diabetes Care 2002, 25, 1159–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Plank, J.; Kohler, G.; Rakovac, I.; Semlitsch, B.M.; Horvath, K.; Bock, G.; Kraly, B.; Pieber, T.R. Long-term evaluation of a structured outpatient education programme for intensified insulin therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes: A 12-year follow-up. Diabetologia 2004, 47, 1370–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Smart, C.E.; Ross, K.; Edge, J.A.; Collins, C.E.; Colyvas, K.; King, B.R. Children and adolescents on intensive insulin therapy maintain postprandial glycaemic control without precise carbohydrate counting. Diabet. Med. 2009, 26, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Salardi, S.; Tonioli, S.; Tassoni, R.; Tellarini, M.; Mazzanti, I.; Caccianti, E. Growth and growth factors in diabetes mellitus. Arch. Dis. Child. 1987, 62, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Chiarelli, F.; Giannini, C.; Mohn, A. Growth, growth factors and diabetes. Eur. J. Endocrinol. 2004, 151, U109–U117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Dias, V.M.; Pandini, J.A.; Nunes, R.R.; Sperandei, S.L.; Portella, E.S.; Cobas, R.A.; Gomes, M.B. Effect of the carbohydrate counting method on glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetol. Metab. Syndr. 2010, 2, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Pitocco, D.; Rizzi, A.; Scavone, G.; Tanese, L.; Zaccardi, F.; Manto, A.; Ghirlanda, G. Fields of application of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in the treatment of diabetes and implications in the use of rapid-acting insulin analogues. Minerva Endocrinol. 2013, 38, 321–328. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  54. Laurenzi, A.; Bolla, A.M.; Panigoni, G.; Doria, V.; Uccellatore, A.; Peretti, E.; Saibene, A.; Galimberti, G.; Bosi, E.; Scavini, M. Effects of carbohydrate counting on glucose control and quality of life over 24 weeks in adult patients with type 1 diabetes on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion: A randomized, prospective clinical trial (GIOCAR). Diabetes Care 2011, 34, 823–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Marigliano, M.; Morandi, A.; Maschio, M.; Sabbion, A.; Contreas, G.; Tomasselli, F.; Tommasi, M.; Maffeis, C. Nutritional education and carbohydrate counting in children with type 1 diabetes treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion: The effects on dietary habits, body composition and glycometabolic control. Acta Diabetol. 2013, 50, 959–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Rydall, A.C.; Rodin, G.M.; Olmested, M.P.; Devenyi, R.G.; Daneman, D. Disordered eating behavior and microvascu-lar complications in young women with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N. Engl. J. Med. 1997, 336, 1905–1906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Colton, P.; Olmested, M.; Daneman, D.; Rydall, A.; Rodin, G. Disturbed eating behavior and eating disorders in preteen and early teenage girls with type 1 diabetes: A case-controlled study. Diabetes Care 2004, 27, 1654–1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Cooke, D.; O’Hara, M.C.; Beinart, N.; Heller, S.; La Marca, R.; Byrne, M.; Mansell, P.; Dinneen, S.F.; Clark, M.; Bond, R.; et al. NIHR DAFNE Study Group. Linguistic and psychometric validation of the Diabetes-Specific Quality-of-Life Scale in U.K. English for adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2013, 36, 1117–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Kime, N.H.; Waldron, S.; Webster, E.; Lange, K.; Zinken, K.; Danne, T.; Aschemeier, B.; Sumnik, Z.; Cinek, O.; Raposo, J.F.; et al. Pediatric diabetes training for healthcare professionals in Europe: Time for change. Pediatr. Diabetes 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Coates, V.E.; Horigan, G.; Davies, M.; Davies, M.T. Exploring why young people with Type 1 diabetes decline structured education with a view to overcoming barriers. Diabet. Med. 2017, 34, 1092–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Bruttomesso, D.; Cipponeri, E. The binomial cho counting and home glycemic self-control: Is it applied? Il Giornale di AMD 2013, 16, 144–149. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
  62. Colin, I.M.; Paris, I. Glucose meters with built-in automated bolus calculator: Gadget or real value for insulin-treated diabetic patients? Diabetes Ther. 2013, 4, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Vallejo Mora, M.D.R.; Carreira, M.; Anarte, M.T.; Linares, F.; Olveira, G.; González Romero, S. Bolus calculator reduces hypoglycemia in the short term and fear of hypoglycemia in the long term in subjects with type 1 diabetes (CBMDI Study). Diabetes Technol. Ther. 2017, 19, 402–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Pankowska, E.; Blazik, M. Bolus calculator with nutrition database software, a new concept of prandial insulin programming for pump users. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 2010, 4, 571–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Shashaj, B.; Busetto, E.; Sulli, N. Benefits of a bolus calculator in pre- and postprandial glycaemic control and meal flexibility of paediatric patients using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). Diabet. Med. 2008, 25, 1036–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Pańkowska, E.; Szypowska, A.; Lipka, M.; Szpotańska, M.; Błazik, M.; Groele, L. Application of novel dual wave meal bolus and its impact on glycated hemoglobin A1c level in children with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr. Diabetes 2009, 10, 298–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Rabbone, I.; Scaramuzza, A.E.; Ignaccolo, M.G.; Tinti, D.; Sicignano, S.; Redaelli, F.; De Angelis, L.; Bosetti, A.; Zuccotti, G.V.; Cerutti, F. Carbohydrate counting with an automated bolus calculator helps to improve glycaemic control in children with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injection therapy: An 18-month observational study. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2014, 103, 388–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Krebs, J.D.; Parry Strong, A.; Cresswell, P.; Reynolds, A.N.; Hanna, A.; Haeusler, S. A randomised trial of the feasibility of a low carbohydrate diet vs standard carbohydrate counting in adults with type 1 diabetes taking body weight into account. Asia Pac. J. Clin. Nutr. 2016, 25, 78–84. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  69. De Bock, M.; Lobley, K.; Anderson, D.; Davis, E.; Donaghue, K.; Pappas, M.; Siafarikas, A.; Cho, Y.H.; Jones, T.; Smart, C. Endocrine and metabolic consequences due to restrictive carbohydrate diets in children with type 1 diabetes: An illustrative case series. Pediatr. Diabetes 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Ahern, J.A.; Gatcomb, P.M.; Held, N.A.; Petit, W.A., Jr.; Tamborlane, W.V. Exaggerated hyperglycemia after a pizza meal in well-controlled diabetes. Diabetes Care 1993, 16, 578–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Herman, W.H. Approaches to glycemic treatment Sec. 7: In standards of medical care in diabetes. Diabetes Care 2015, 38, S41–S48. [Google Scholar]
  72. Bell, K.J.; Smart, C.E.; Steil, G.M.; Brand-Miller, J.C.; King, B.; Wolpert, H.A.; Kirstine, J. Impact of fat, protein, and glycemic index on postprandial glucose control in type 1 diabetes: Implications for intensive diabetes management in the continuous glucose monitoring era. Diabetes Care 2015, 38, 1008–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Campbell, M.D.; Walker, M.; Ajjan, R.A.; Birch, K.M.; Gonzalez, J.T.; West, D.J. An additional bolus of rapid-acting insulin to normalise postprandial cardiovascular risk factors following a high-carbohydrate high-fat meal in patients with type 1 diabetes: A randomised controlled trial. Diabetes Vasc. Dis. Res. 2017, 14, 336–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Kordonouri, O.; Hartmann, R.; Remus, K.; Bläsig, S.; Sadeghian, E.; Danne, T. Benefit of supplementary fat plus protein counting as compared with conventional carbohydrate counting for insulin bolus calculation in children with pump therapy. Pediatr. Diabetes 2012, 13, 540–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Characteristics of uncontrolled studies with carbohydrate counting (CC) used in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D).
Table 1. Characteristics of uncontrolled studies with carbohydrate counting (CC) used in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D).
Authors and YearDesignFollow-Up (Months)Sample SizeInsulin RegimenInsulin Type (Short-Acting/Long-Acting)Age (Years)T1D Duration (Years)HbA1c at Baseline (mmol/mol) HbA1c at Baseline (%)Psychosocial MeasuresWeight (kg)/BMI (kg/m2)/BMI SDS at BaselineHypoglycaemia Reporting
Uncontrolled Trials
Abaci et al., 2009 [35]Before/after129MDIAnalogue/NPH154789.3Not reported—/—/1.1Yes
Alemzadeh
et al., 2003 [36]
Before/after1244MDIAnalogue/NPH or analogue115789.3Not reported—/19.3/—Yes
Alemzadeh
et al., 2005 [37]
Before/after1235MDIAnalogue/analogue53738.8Not reported—/17.1/—Yes
Hayes et al., 2012 [38]Before/after928MDIHuman or analogue/analogue14 (median)4 (median)61 (median)7.7 (median)DQOL-Y—/—/0.99Not reported
BMI: body mass index; BMI SDS: body mass index standard deviation score; DQOL-Y: Diabetes Quality of Life for Youth scale; HbA1c: glycosylated haemoglobin concentration; MDI: multiple dose injections; NPH: neutral protamine Hagedorn.
Table 2. Characteristics of controlled, randomised study with carbohydrate counting (CC) used in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D).
Table 2. Characteristics of controlled, randomised study with carbohydrate counting (CC) used in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D).
Author and YearCountryPopulationNo. of PatientsInterventionControlHbA1c (%) (M ± SD) Intervention/ControlHypoglycaemia
(M ± SD)
Insulin Dose (U/kg)
(M ± SD)
BMI
(M ± SD)
Follow Up
Enander et al. [39]SwedenChildren and young people45; 26/30; 14/15Dietary education in carbohydrate countingDietary education in the traditional methodology (the plate exchange method)7.43 ± 0.83 to 7.69 ± 1.00
7.70 ± 1.00 to 8.00 ± 1.00
-0.78 ± 0.24 to 0.80 ± 0.19
0.81 ± 0.22 to 0.83 ± 0.22
-12 months
BMI: body mass index; HbA1c: glycosylated haemoglobin concentration.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Nutrients EISSN 2072-6643 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top