Preliminary evaluation of the impact of periodontal treatment on markers of glycaemic control in dogs with diabetes mellitus: A prospective, clinical case series.

BACKGROUND: Periodontal disease (PD) can adversely affect glycaemic control in humans. However, it is unknown if a similar association exists in dogs. METHODS: Ten client-owned dogs with poorly regulated diabetes mellitus (DM) and PD were prospectively enrolled. A complete blood count, serum biochemistry, urinalysis and measurement of C-reactive protein, interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumour necrosis factor-α, haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and fructosamine concentrations were performed before periodontal treatment (PT) and monthly thereafter for 3 months. A periodontal disease severity score (PDSS) was determined during PT. The effects of time post-PT and PDSS on markers of inflammation and glycaemic control were determined by generalised estimating equation analysis. RESULTS: HbA1c (mean; 95% confidence interval [CI]) decreased 3 months post-PT (32.1 mmol/mol; 21.1-43.1 mmol/mol vs. 44.3 mmol/mol; 36.4-52.0; p = 0.003). PDSS at enrolment was significantly (p = 0.031) positively associated with HbA1c concentration. Due to a significant (p < 0.001) interaction between PDSS and time post-PT in the analysis of fructosamine, dogs with low (1-3) PDSS and high (7-9) PDSS were analysed separately. Fructosamine (mean; 95% CI) significantly decreased 1 month post-PT (570 µmol/L; 457-684 µmol/L vs. 624 µmol/L; 499-748; p = 0.001) in the high PDSS group but not in the low PDSS group. Fructosamine concentration upon enrolment and PDSS were correlated (r = 0.73, p = 0.017). IL-6 concentration significantly decreased 3 months post-PT (9.9 pg/mL; 8.5-11.3 pg/mL vs. 11.2 pg/mL; 9.7-12.7; p = 0.002). LIMITATIONS: Limitations of the study included the small number of dogs, the lack of a control group and the inability to assess PDSS during follow-ups. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support a potential detrimental interaction between PD and DM. The apparent beneficial effect of PT on markers of glycaemic control was most conspicuous in dogs with more severe PD.

Owner preference for insulin delivery device and glycaemic control in diabetic dogs.

OBJECTIVES: To assess treatment satisfaction and owner preference for two delivery devices (VetPen, MSD Animal Health, and U40 insulin syringes) and the effect on glycaemic control in diabetic dogs treated with porcine insulin zinc suspension. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomised prospective cross-over study with two arms, each of 8 weeks. Twenty client-owned diabetic dogs on insulin treatment by U40 syringe were enrolled. Dogs were randomly assigned to receive insulin by syringe or pen injector for 2 months, followed by 2 months of the other injection method. Treatment satisfaction and owners' insulin delivery device preference were assessed using a questionnaire. Glycaemic control was assessed using a clinical score, serum fructosamine and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c%) at the time of the enrolment (T0) and the end of each arm of treatment (T2 and T4). RESULTS: Treatment satisfaction differed for the two types of the delivery device when the order that each device was used was taken into consideration. Owners who used the syringe first did not have a significant preference for an injection device. In contrast, owners who used the pen injector first expressed a significant preference for VetPen compared to syringes. No significant differences in the number of dogs of Groups 1 and 2 with good and poor glycaemic control at T2 and T4 were detected. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Overall treatment satisfaction and preference for the two delivery methods were similar. However, VetPen was preferred by owners who were randomised to use this device first. Glycaemic control did not appear to be affected by the insulin delivery device used.

The effect of capromorelin on glycemic control in healthy dogs.

Capromorelin is a ghrelin-receptor agonist widely used as an appetite stimulant in dogs. Capromorelin disrupts glucose homeostasis in cats but information regarding its effects on canine glucose homeostasis is lacking. The study objective was to evaluate the effect of capromorelin on glucose homeostatic mechanisms in healthy dogs. Eight clinically healthy client-owned adult dogs were enrolled in this prospective, cross-over, placebo-controlled study. Dogs were randomized to receive capromorelin (Entyce, 3 mg/kg) or placebo, q24h for 3 d. A wk later, treatments were crossed over. Interstitial glucose (IG) concentrations were measured using a flash glucose monitoring system throughout. On d 1 of each treatment, blood glucose (BG), insulin, glucagon, glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP), and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) concentrations were measured before drug administration, then before and 30-120 min after feeding a glucose-rich diet (Ensure Plus, 21 kcal/kg). Data were analyzed as a 2-period crossover design using generalized least squares estimation. Capromorelin administration increased mean 48 h IG by10% and mean BG by 20% at 90 and 120 min post-prandially (P < 0.0001). Post-prandially, there was a time-by-treatment effect for insulin (P = 0.03) and GIP (P = 0.0002) because capromorelin doubled geometric mean insulin concentrations at 120 min and increased geometric mean GIP concentrations more rapidly than after placebo. There were no differences in glucagon or GLP-1 concentrations between treatment groups. The increase in post-prandial blood glucose was not the result of overt suppression of incretin hormone secretion. There was also no suppressive effect of capromorelin on insulin.

Evaluation of fructosamine concentration as an index marker for glycaemic control in diabetic dogs.

BACKGROUND: Although fructosamine is a commonly used surrogate marker to assess glycaemic control in diabetic dogs, its diagnostic accuracy has been questioned. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability of fructosamine measurements to diagnose well and poorly controlled diabetes mellitus (DM), using continuous glucose monitoring as a gold standard. METHODS: Twenty-four dogs with treated DM and continuous glucose monitoring for mean (±SD) 13.1 (±1.7) days were retrospectively analysed. Two assessment strategies were applied to categorize glycaemic control, and fructosamine concentrations were determined shortly after sensor cessation using a colorimetric assay. RESULTS: Correlations of individual fructosamine concentrations with mean glucose as well as percentage of measurements > 15 mmol/L were not significant (p = 0.372, p = 0.129). Fructosamine did not differ between dogs with and without hypoglycaemic episodes (p = 0.64). Receiver operating characteristic analysis for fructosamine to diagnose either good or poor glycaemic control revealed AUC values of 0.71 (p = 0.025) indicating moderate accuracy, and 0.7 (p = 0.135) indicating AUC is non-discriminatory, respectively. The respective positive likelihood ratios for the optimal cutoffs to identify good (<396 µmol/L) and poor control (>449 µmol/L) were three. CONCLUSIONS: Fructosamine measurement is an imperfect surrogate marker for classifying glycaemic control in diabetic dogs and can only complement serial glucose measurements.

Influence of type of starch and feeding management on glycaemic control in diabetic dogs.

The present study evaluated the effects of two diets with different starch sources and two feeding methods on the glycaemic control in dogs with diabetes mellitus. The diets had similar nutrient contents (40% starch and 16% dietary fibre), one formulated with 46% of broken rice and the other with 42% sorghum and 10% lentils (as-fed). Ten client-owned diabetic dogs were fed with each diet for 2 months, in a crossover design. Five dogs received NPH human insulin and food every 12 h (feeding method 1), and the other five received insulin every 12 h but were fed three times a day (feeding method 2). In feeding method 2, morning insulin was higher than the evening dose and dogs received the second meal after 4 to 5 h of the morning insulin and meal. Parameters evaluated included insulin dosage, 12- and 8-h glycaemic curves, complete blood count, biochemical profile and urinalysis. Glycaemic curves were analysed by ANOVA with repeated measures. Glycaemic control parameters (fasting, mean, minimum and maximum glycaemia and serum fructosamine) and glucose area under the curve (AUC) were calculated and analysed by paired t test (p < 0.05). In feeding method 1, dogs fed the sorghum-based diet presented lower mean (p = 0.04) and minimum blood glucose concentrations (p = 0.03), and a tendency to lower maximum blood glucose (p = 0.06) and glucose AUC (p = 0.08) than when fed the rice-based diet. When food was provided twice a day, the ingestion of the rice-based diet resulted in higher post-prandial glucose response than the diet with sorghum and lentil. In feeding method 2, there was no effect of diet on the assessed parameters (p > 0.05). No differences in insulin dosage were observed between groups or feeding methods (p > 0.05). Providing two meals a day followed by insulin administration associated with the sorghum- and lentil-based diet improved glycaemic control in diabetic dogs.

Flash glucose monitoring in diabetic dogs: a feasible method for evaluating glycemic control.

OBJECTIVE: To alleviate clinical signs and avoid life-threatening complications in dogs with diabetes mellitus, individualized treatment plans and frequent reassessments are necessary. Performing blood glucose profiles every 7-14 days following insulin adjustments and monthly thereafter, is recommended. In 2016, a factory calibrated continuous blood glucose monitoring system was presented as a possible alternative to glucometer readings. The objectives of this study were to summarize the experiences with this new technology and to show, that in combination with simple rules, already the first measurement period can improve glycemic control. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The electronic database of the endocrine unit of the clinic was retrospectively searched for diabetic dogs with flash glucose monitoring. In case of repeated sensor implantations, only the first sensor was considered. The recordings of day A (starting at midnight after sensor placement) were compared to the measurements of day B (day before sensor failure) and all owners were contacted to fill in a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: The final study population consisted of 24 dogs weighing 3.4 to 36 kg. Although the clicking noise during sensor placement irritated most dogs, the application was considered easy and painless. Waiting for disinfectant evaporation and fixation of the sensor disc with forceps helped to avoid sensor detachment when removing the application device. Although transient mild to moderate skin irritations were observed in 80 % of the dogs, 95 % of the owners were highly satisfied with this new monitoring technology. Mean and maximum glucose (p = 0.043, p = 0.003) as well as glucose readings ≥ 11.1 mmol/l (p = 0.032) decreased from day A to B, whereas markers of glycemic variability did not change. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Flash glucose monitoring is a feasible, safe method with high user satisfaction and offers a possibility to improve glycemic control in diabetic dogs.

The effect of Insulin Degludec on glycemic control in diabetic cats over a 12-month period.

Insulin degludec (IDeg) is a long-acting basal insulin recently developed for use in humans. This study aimed to investigate the effects of IDeg on glycemic control in diabetic cats. Changes in body weight, IDeg dosage, and glycated albumin (GA) were evaluated at 0, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months following initiation of IDeg. A significant decrease in GA was observed and a mean GA level below 25% was achieved between 3 and 12 months. Furthermore, a significant increase in body weight was observed between 3 and 12 months. The mean IDeg dose was 0.75 ± 0.68 IU/kg/day at 12 months. Taken together, long-term glycemic control was successfully achieved in diabetic cats using IDeg.