12/22 Whiskers AMPS 384 PMPS 448

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 12/23 Whiskers AMPS 384 don't understand back to bouncin

Cheryl, I know it's very tempting to focus on the preshot numbers, but they are a small part of the picture, you need to get more spot checks in between to see how the insulin is working. One spot check isn't going to give you much of an idea, you need to get at least one spot check in each cycle. You also should try to get some nadir checks, somewhere around +6...you need them to see if he needs a dose adjustment...remember that dose is adjusted based on nadirs, not preshots.

Is he going low and bouncing? Or is it too little insulin and his numbers are high overall? Without that mid cycle data, you can't tell.

ETA: Here's the link to yesterday's condo viewtopic.php?f=9&t=32641&start=0

BTW, today is only 12/22....you scared me for a minute with the 12/23 date! LOL
 
Re: 12/23 Whiskers AMPS 384 don't understand back to bouncin

Thanks, I thought maybe the bouncing was coming to an end with the lower AMPS and PMPS yesterday, and was encouraged by that.
I wish I could do a +6 during the week but I am at work. I can however do them on the weekend.
 
Re: 12/23 Whiskers AMPS 384 don't understand back to bouncin

Hi, Cheryl & Whiskers.. I understand you being confused & frusturated, if it is bouncing.. I agree Somogyi Rebound is the most difficult part of the sugar dance in my opinion. It does look like you are getting spot checks when you can, I know most of us have to work & we do the best we can - your SS looks good.. maybe a few more & we can get a better idea what is going on. I am sharing this link with you too, I found it helpful when Baby was going through liver training school, this may or may not be applicable to your situation Somogyi Rebound

**to answer your question, I have not heard of low carb food at +6 or +7 raising #s, I have in the past even given a snack at +9 to help lower the preshot #.
 
Re: 12/23 Whiskers AMPS 384 don't understand back to bouncin

Hi nicole,

The vet did refer to bouncing as Somogyi Rebound. I will read the link you provided.
So a snack can help lower pre shot numbers. That is what we did yesterday.
Thanks so much
 
Re: 12/23 Whiskers AMPS 384 don't understand back to bouncin

Until you can do a curve when you are home, & see what numbers are in between amps & pmps, you cannot make a judgement--
We all understand your frustration, but I hope you will be home some for the Holidays & can give some insight into where he goes during the day!

Here's a example of a curve:

rve:
+0 - PreShot number.
+1 - Usually higher than PreShot number because of the last shot wearing off. May see a food spike in this number.
+2 - Often similar to the PreShot number.
+3 - Lower than the PreShot number, onset has started.
+4 - Lower.
+5 - Lower.
+6 - Nadir/Peak (the lowest number of cycle).
+7 - Surf (hang around the nadir number).
+8 - Slight rise.
+9 - Slight rise.
+10 - Rising.
+11 - Rising (may dip around +10 or +11).
+12 - PreShot number
 
Re: 12/23 Whiskers AMPS 384 don't understand back to bouncin

I understand that you are at work, but can you get a before bed test every night and a test before you leave for work? I think we talked about this before, you work evening shift, right? Those spot checks will do a lot to help you see what is going on in between preshots. One spot check out of 5 cycles just doesn't help you much. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I'm just trying to explain that without data, you are simply guessing at what is happening. The one spot check showed a similar number at +3 and PS...was that because he was bouncing? If you had a spot check from that morning, you might have seen a lower number, telling you that it most likely was a bounce...but without the other spot check, it's a guess. Does that make sense?

I don't like using one curve to adjust dose or gauge how a dose is working because not all cycles are the same....you could do a curve on a bounce cycle, and you could think from that one curve that the dose needs to be increased, when in fact the dose may need to be decreased. This is why the spot checks are so important. Curves are great, but you need spot checks too.

I saw that you were thinking about increasing dose on Friday. You need to get nadir checks (around +6) before then to determine if a dose adjustment is necessary.
 
Re: 12/22 Whiskers AMPS 384 don't understand back to bouncin

hi, guys!

hoping whiskers comes down for you...

celi & binks
 
Re: 12/22 Whiskers AMPS 384 don't understand back to bouncin

Nicole & Baby said:
...I agree Somogyi Rebound is the most difficult part of the sugar dance in my opinion.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with Nicole. I recently did two extensive lit searches on Somogyi on both medical and veterinary databases. There is considerable controversy over whether Somogyi exists. The term was coined by Michael Somogyi in the 1930s using data from 5 humans based on urine glucose tests. Even as long ago as the 1980s, there was disagreement over whether this form of chronic rebound existed. Over the years, clinical and/or experimental research has failed to demonstrate the presence of chronic Somogyi rebound. Further, none of the later research involves the use of long-acting insulin, such as Lantus or Levemir.

I posted this in Marjorie/Gracie's condo on 12/14:
The topic of Somogyi came up some time before you joined the Board. Both Jill and I did a lot of lit searching. I have access to both a medical and veterinary library system. For a theory that has so many people convinced that it is a factor in human as well as in feline diabetes, there is an amazingly small amount of research on the topic. The earliest paper by Michael Somogyi, is from the 1930s and was not published in a widely recognized medical journal (i.e., it was in the Weekly Bulletin of the St. Louis Medical Society). Note that this was a report based on 5 human subjects and urine glucose, not blood glucose was measured. More recent reports note that Somogyi's observations have not been reliably reproduced under controlled conditions.

Gale said:
Although some patients had a very rapid fluctuation from hypoglycaemia to hyperglycaemia, we found no evidence that changes in counterregulatory hormone levels were responsible.The preceding interval of hypoglycemia was often prolonged, which implied defective homeostasis, and the difference between the patients with apparent rebound and those without could not be explained in terms of circulating levels of cortisol, growth hormone, or glucagon. Other workers have noted very variable changes in growth-hormone and cortisol levels after acute hypoglycsemia in unstable diabetics. We did not measure catecholamines and cannot rule out the possibility that they were partly responsible for the difference between our groups. However, the evidence presented here suggests that free insulin is the major factor involved.

The bold is mine. It points out that there is no evidence for what the vet is suggesting about "stress" hormones (i.e., cortisol).

In addition to the dearth of empirical research, there is even less that pertains to cats and none that addresses Somogyi phenomenon in the use of Lantus. Given that the presence of Somogyi is believed to be associated with doses that are raised in too large of an increment, it is surprising that this IM vet would not be an enthusiastic supporter of the Queensland/Rand tight regulation protocol. (FYI - there is another TR protocol and the vet may have assumed this was the one you were referring to.)

This is a link to info on Chronic Somogyi Rebound on Wiki. I would draw your attention to the section on Controversy:

Although this theory is well known among clinicians and individuals with diabetes, there is little scientific evidence to support it. Clinical studies indicate that a high fasting glucose in the morning is more likely because the insulin given on the previous evening fails to last long enough.[5] Recent studies using continuous glucose monitoring show that a high glucose in the morning is not preceded by a low glucose during the night.[6] Furthermore, many individuals with hypoglycemic episodes during the night fail to wake due to a failure of release of epinephrine during nocturnal hypoglycemia.[7] Thus, Somogyi's theory is not assured and may be refuted.

This information pertains to humans, not cats. However, the phenomenon was based on humans and extrapolated to felines so I'm going to presume the issues with the paucity as well as quality of the research are the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top