Next Article in Journal
High Ultrafiltration Rate Is Associated with Increased All-Cause Mortality in Incident Hemodialysis Patients with a High Cardiothoracic Ratio
Next Article in Special Issue
Prevalence of Cognitive Decline in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients: A Real-World Cross-Sectional Study in Mysuru, India
Previous Article in Journal
Pelvic Venous Insufficiency: Input of Short Tau Inversion Recovery Sequence
Previous Article in Special Issue
Next Generation Sequencing Analysis of MODY-X Patients: A Case Report Series
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Optimal Prandial Timing of Insulin Bolus in Youths with Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review

Department of Translational Medical Science, Section of Pediatrics, Regional Center of Pediatric Diabetes, Federico II University of Naples, 80131 Naples, Italy
Pediatric Diabetology Unit, Pediatric Department, Santa Chiara General Hospital of Trento, 38122 Trento, Italy
Department of Pediatrics, University of Cambridge and Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12(12), 2058;
Received: 13 November 2022 / Revised: 30 November 2022 / Accepted: 12 December 2022 / Published: 13 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diabetes Mellitus: Current Research and Future Perspectives)


The aim of this systematic review was to report the evidence on optimal prandial timing of insulin bolus in youths with type 1 diabetes. A systematic search was performed including studies published in the last 20 years (2002–2022). A PICOS framework was used in the selection process and evidence was assessed using the GRADE system. Up to one third of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes injected rapid-acting insulin analogues after a meal. Moderate–high level quality studies showed that a pre-meal bolus compared with a bolus given at the start or after the meal was associated with a lower peak blood glucose after one to two hours, particularly after breakfast, as well as with reduced HbA1c, without any difference in the frequency of hypoglycemia. There were no differences related to the timing of bolus in total daily insulin and BMI, although these results were based on a single study. Data on individuals’ treatment satisfaction were limited but did not show any effect of timing of bolus on quality of life. In addition, post-prandial administration of fast-acting analogues was superior to rapid-acting analogues on post-prandial glycemia. There was no evidence for any difference in outcomes related to the timing of insulin bolus across age groups in the two studies. In conclusion, prandial insulin injected before a meal, particularly at breakfast, provides better post-prandial glycemia and HbA1c without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia, and without affecting total daily insulin dose and BMI. For young children who often have variable eating behaviors, fast-acting analogues administered at mealtime or post-meal could provide an additional advantage.

1. Introduction

Post-prandial hyperglycemia is a key factor influencing glycemic outcomes in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) [1]. There are currently three rapid-acting insulin analogues on the market, and manufacturers recommend injecting insulin five to 10 minutes prior to a meal (Aspart) or up to 15 to 20 minutes after a meal (Lispro and Glulisine, respectively) [2,3,4]. In adults, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of rapid-acting insulin analogues [5] and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems data [6,7] showed that the injection of insulin 10 to 30 minutes before a meal provides optimal post-prandial glycemia [8]. Other studies in adults showed that the post-prandial spike is more effectively controlled by proper timing of insulin administration rather than increasing the pre-meal insulin dose or administering a super-sized correction bolus, which could result in hypoglycemia [9]. Inaccurate insulin bolus timing has been shown to result in suboptimal glycemic control in people with T1D [1]. Fast-acting analogues are now available on the market, and they have an onset of action approximately five to seven minutes earlier, and a glucose lowering effect 78–147% higher, than rapid-acting analogues [10], and they should provide more flexibility in the timing of the insulin bolus.
Timing of bolus is critical even when advanced insulin technologies are used. Data from advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) systems clearly show that the timing of bolus remains critical to achieve optimal glycemic targets, and a delayed administration may cause automated over-delivery of insulin and subsequent hypoglycemia [11]. In fact, even with the use of algorithms, refinements to mealtime boluses are necessary in order to control prandial glycemic excursions [11]. Smart pens, which record and store data on the amount and timing of recent insulin injections, provide dose reminder alerts, and the option to view active insulin on board, may facilitate and improve diabetes management and support people with T1D in achieving better timing of insulin boluses, particularly if combined with CGM use [12]. However, there is not enough supportive strong evidence for any of the bolus timing strategies, likely because significant interindividual and intraindividual variations exist in post-prandial glucose peak times [13]. A previous review on optimal prandial timing of bolus insulin concluded that in adults with T1D, the administration of rapid-acting insulin analogues 15–20 min before a meal led to a 30% reduction in post-meal glucose levels and rates of hypoglycemia compared with a bolus given immediately before a meal [8]. Improving post-meal glycemia is important as this will result in better HbA1c levels [14].
In the pediatric population, rapid-acting insulin analogues are now widely used, but there is no clear consensus on the optimal timing of bolus and whether this varies according to age. Given the recent introduction of fast-acting analogues, it would also be important to have an overview of the evidence of the optimal timing of bolus for these new insulin formulations. The aim of this systematic review is to provide an up-to-date summary of the available evidence on optimal prandial timing of insulin boluses in the pediatric population with T1D and its effect on glycemic outcomes and on treatment satisfaction.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

Data for the present review were collected through searches of Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science,, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Articles published between 1 January 2002 and 30 September 2022 were considered. Search terms, or “MESH” (Medical Subject Headings) used different combinations of terms: “insulin timing” or “time of dose” or “timing of bolus” or “timing of prandial” or “insulin-meal interval” AND “Type 1 diabetes” or “T1D” “insulin dependent” AND “post-prandial hyperglycemia” or “post-prandial excursion” or “metabolic control” or “glucose level” or “hypoglycemia” or “total daily insulin” or BMI or “treatment satisfaction”.

2.2. Criteria for Study Selection

We conducted a systematic search of the literature according to the PICOS model (population, intervention, comparison, results, study design):
PopulationChildren and adolescents (1–18 years) with T1D.
InterventionInsulin bolus given immediately before meal (START: ‒2 to 0 min)
or post-meal (POST: 10–20 min after the start of the meal) Rapid analogue insulin bolus
or mealtime (START) or post-meal (POST) fast-acting insulin analogue bolus.
ComparisonPre-meal bolus (‒20 to ‒10 min), the gold standard in adults.
Outcomes(i) post-prandial glucose levels, blood glucose area under the curve (AUC), maximum blood glucose level; (ii) HbA1c, number of hypoglycemic episodes, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) episodes, total daily insulin dose, time in range, time below range; (iii) BMI; (iv) treatment satisfaction.
Study designRandomized clinical trials (RCTs), observational studies (cohort, case-control, cross-sectional studies), exploratory studies, mix of qualitative and quantitative studies.
The inclusion criteria in this systematic review included (i) youths aged 1–18 year with T1D; (ii) observational studies, exploratory studies, mix of qualitative and quantitative studies; (iii) we excluded review articles, after their reference lists screening to identify potential eligible studies; (iv) only full text papers were included, whereas abstract only were not included; (v) data on intervention (different timing of pre-meal bolus) (vi) publication date in the last 20 years (1 January 2003–30 September 2022).
Exclusion criteria were: (i) data available only for adults ≥18 years; (ii) case reports; studies with <10 children or adolescents with T1D; (iii) full paper not available; (iv) study not yet published; (v) studies not reporting different timing of bolus dose; (vi) languages other than English were not “a priori” exclusion criteria.

2.3. Data Extraction and Management

Two review authors (EM and RF) independently screened for inclusion the title and abstract of all the studies identified using the search strategy, with any disagreement resolved by a third reviewer (MLM). After abstract selection, 4 investigators conducted the full paper analysis.
The following characteristics were reviewed for each included study: (i) reference aspects: authorship(s); published or unpublished; year of publication; year in which the study was conducted; other relevant cited papers; (ii) study characteristics: study design, type of rapid or fast-acting insulin analogue and modality of bolus delivery, timing of bolus; (iii) population characteristics: age, number of pediatric participants with T1D, setting, treatment regimen, meal duration, meal composition, period, region; (iv) methodology: pre-prandial glucose targets, frequency of glucose monitoring, bolus timing: (v) main results: assessment of post-prandial glucose levels, HbA1c, patient and parent’s satisfaction.

2.4. Assessment of the Certainty of the Evidence

Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the certainty of evidence (, accessed on 22 October 2022) for the included studies. GRADE was independently completed by 2 review authors (EM, RF) and the quality of evidence was rated for each of the outcomes above reported. In the case of risk bias in the study design, imprecision of estimates, inconsistency across studies, indirectness of the evidence, and publication bias, the option of decreasing the level of certainty by 1 or 2 levels according to the GRADE guidelines was applied [15]. GRADE has 4 levels of quality of evidence: very low, low, moderate, and high.
HighThe authors have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect.
ModerateThe authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect.
LowThe true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect.
Very lowThe true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect.

3. Evidence from Clinical Studies

The PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1) summarizes the process of publications screening.
A final number of 13 studies were included in this systematic review. A summary of studies along with the grading of evidence are reported in Table 1 [10,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26].
According to moderate–high level quality studies, these are the main results:

3.1. Glycemic Outcomes

Post-prandial blood glucose: Administration of rapid-acting analogues a few minutes before, compared with immediately before or after the meal, leads to a smaller peak blood glucose at one hour after lunch [27] and up to two hours after breakfast [16,17]. No differences in these glycemic parameters were found between children and adolescents [17]. Time to reach post-meal glucose peak was longer when using a pre-meal bolus 20′ before a carbohydrate-rich meal compared with a similar bolus at the beginning of the meal [21]. Only one study reported data on time above range (TAR) and showed that a pre-meal bolus was associated with a better TAR compared with a bolus at the beginning or after the meal [16].
Fast-acting analogues administered at mealtime or post-meal, compared with rapid insulin analogues, provided an additional advantage in terms of reduced post-meal blood glucose peaks in one pediatric study, using fast-acting insulin aspart (FIAsp) [10], and in another using ultra-rapid lispro (URLi) [26]. Blood glucose was lower at one hour post-meal in two studies [24,26], and up to two hours in children, but not in adolescents, with T1D [10].
HbA1c and hypoglycemia: Some studies reported a better HbA1c in individuals who injected rapid-acting insulin analogue before a meal compared to immediately before or after, with no differences in risk of hypoglycemia [16,17,22,27], or even a reduced risk as reported in the study by Peters et al. [20]. These data are very important because, particularly in the pediatric population, giving insulin before a meal is associated with parental concerns about risk of hypoglycemia [20]. Another study did not show any difference in HbA1c associated with timing of bolus in children nor in adolescents [17].
In one study, the use of a fast-acting analogue (FIASP) administered at mealtime or post-meal, to cover a standardized liquid meal, compared with pre-meal rapid insulin analogues, led to better HbA1c results without increasing hypoglycemia [24]. However, another study assessing the fast-acting URLi compared with rapid-acting analogue, to cover real life meals, did not show any difference in HbA1c whereas hypoglycemia (blood glucose <54 mg/dL) two hours post-meal was increased [26].
Other benefits: A pre-meal standard bolus when eating an Italian ‘‘margherita’’ pizza was associated with a reduced zero to six hour glucose area under the curve, without an increase in hypoglycemia, and no differences in post-prandial blood glucose (PBG) and blood glucose (BG) peak was detected [23]. In an adolescent cohort of adolescents with T1D, pre-meal insulin bolus was associated with a reduced prevalence of missed bolus. This is an important finding given that missing even one meal insulin dose per week is associated with suboptimal glycemia and increased risk of DKA [22].

3.2. Total Daily Insulin Dose and BMI

One study with rapid-acting analogues showed that post-meal insulin bolus was associated with a higher total daily insulin dose and BMI compared to a bolus given pre-meal or at the same time as the meal in young people with T1D aged 12–18 years [20]. In contrast, no differences in these parameters were found in another study comparing the fast-rapid-acting analogue FIAsp given at mealtime and post-meal FIAsp with mealtime IAsp [24].

3.3. Treatment Satisfaction

Treatment satisfaction was analyzed only in one study, which reported no differences associated with timing of bolus, as well as no differences when analyzing data separately for children and adolescents [17].

4. Discussion

This systematic review provides an updated summary of current evidence, graded with the GRADE approach, on timing of insulin boluses in the pediatric population. In 2017, Slattery et al. conducted a systematic review on this topic in adults, and concluded that a rapid-acting insulin analog injected 15–20 min before a meal was associated with a ~30% reduction in post-meal glucose levels compared with when injected immediately before the meal [8]. Moreover, a greater risk of post-prandial hypoglycemia was detected when patients injected rapid-acting analogues after compared with before eating [8].
This systematic review shows that one third of children and adolescents inject rapid-acting analogues after a meal [20,22], despite the ISPAD 2018 recommendation of pre-meal injection [1]. Potential explanations for this observation are that post-meal insulin administration might facilitate a better evaluation of the carbohydrates consumed by the child, reduces parental concerns about the risk of hypoglycemia due to delayed or partial consumption of the meal, and could increase treatment satisfaction [20].
In this review, we analyzed selected studies considering three different bolus timings: pre-meal bolus: −20 to −10 min before the meal; at start of the meal: −2 to 0 min; post-meal bolus: 10–20 min after the start of the meal.
According to moderate–high level quality studies, these are the main findings of this review:
  • Similar to adults, in the pediatric population, individuals using pre-meal insulin injection showed better glycemic outcomes (post-prandial BG, HbA1c, and hypoglycemia) compared with those on post-meal injections.
  • Studies on fast-acting analogues confirmed the feasibility of post-meal dosing, which could contribute to lower BG levels for two hours after the meal according to their pharmacokinetic properties [10].
  • The available data on treatment satisfaction are insufficient to make any conclusion about a negative effect on quality of life associated with pre-meal compared to post-meal bolusing.
  • Only a few studies reported CGM data, which are a very important tool to move towards a personalized approach for the timing of insulin boluses based on individual characteristics, age groups, and meal composition. CGM data also provides valuable information on the individual’s glucose trends (stable, increasing, or decreasing levels) to adapt insulin timing or dose and improve time in range (TIR) [28].
The main strengths of this review are the stringent inclusion criteria, the inclusion of studies covering a 20-year period, the application of the PICOS model for the selection of studies, and the GRADE system for evidence assessment. The limitations are the heterogeneity of the studies, in terms of sample size, age of the study population, and the included outcomes. Due to this heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was not possible. In addition, assessment of the outcomes according to age groups was not possible due to limited data. Another key limitation of the available studies is lack of glycemic outcomes based on CGM systems, which are essential to move towards a personalized timing of boluses according to age groups and individual characteristics. Future studies assessing timing of boluses using CGM are needed.

5. Conclusions

The results of this systematic review are in line with those from studies in adults with T1D, in showing that a pre-prandial bolus provided better post-prandial glycemia and HbA1c without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia, and without affecting total daily insulin dose and BMI. For young children who often have variable eating behaviors, fast-acting analogues administered at mealtime or post-meal [29] could provide an additional advantage [24,26].

Author Contributions

R.F., E.M. and M.L.M. conceptualized and designed the study; R.F. and E.M. screened abstracts; F.D.C., L.L., F.M.R., M.G. and A.R. conducted the full paper analysis; E.M. and R.F. independently assessed the certainty of the evidence for each of the outcomes; M.L.M. resolved discrepancies; R.F., E.M. and M.L.M. prepared the draft manuscript. M.L.M., M.L.M. reviewed the manuscript and all the authors approved the final version of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All databases generated for this study are included in the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. DiMeglio, L.A.; Acerini, C.L.; Codner, E.; Craig, M.E.; Hofer, S.E.; Pillay, K.; Maahs, D.M. ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018, Glycemic control targets and glucose monitoring for children, adolescents, and young adults with diabetes. Pediatr. Diabetes 2018, 19, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  2. Novo Nordisk A/S. NovoRapid Summary of Product Characteristics. 2011. Available online: (accessed on 22 October 2022).
  3. Eli Lilly. Humalog Summary of Product Characteristics. 2011. Available online: (accessed on 22 October 2022).
  4. Sanofi-Aventis. Apidra Summary of Product Characteristics. 2011. Available online: (accessed on 22 October 2022).
  5. Home, P.D. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rapid-acting insulin analogues and their clinical consequences. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2012, 14, 780–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Duran-Valdez, E.; Burge, M.R.; Broderick, P.; Shey, L.; Valentine, V.; Schrader, R.M.; Schade, D.S. Insulin timing: A patient-centered approach to improve control in type 1 diabetes. Endocr. Pract. 2017, 23, 471–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Pettus, J.; Price, D.A.; Edelman, S.V. How patients with type 1 diabetes translate continuous glucose monitoring data into diabetes management decisions. Endocr. Pract. 2015, 21, 613–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Slattery, D.; Amiel, S.A.; Choudhary, P. Optimal prandial timing of bolus insulin in diabetes management: A review. Diabet. Med. 2018, 35, 306–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  9. Pettus, J. Time to get serious about insulin timing. Endocr. Pract. 2017, 23, 503–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fath, M.; Danne, T.; Biester, T.; Erichsen, L.; Kordonouri, O.; Haahr, H. Faster-acting insulin aspart provides faster onset and greater early exposure vs. insulin aspart in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Pediatr. Diabetes 2017, 18, 903–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  11. Boughton, C.K.; Hartnell, S.; Allen, J.M.; Hovorka, R. The importance of prandial insulin bolus timing with hybrid closed-loop systems. Diabet. Med. 2019, 36, 1716–1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sy, S.L.; Munshi, M.M.; Toschi, E. Can Smart Pens Help Improve Diabetes Management? J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 2022, 16, 628–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Johansen, M.D.; Gjerløv, I.; Christiansen, J.S.; Hejlesen, O.K. Interindividual and intraindividual variations in postprandial glycemia peak time complicate precise recommendations for self-monitoring of glucose in persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 2012, 6, 356–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Simmons, J.H.; Chen, V.; Miller, K.M.; McGill, J.B.; Bergenstal, R.M.; Goland, R.S.; Harlan, D.M.; Largay, J.F.; Massaro, E.M.; Beck, R.W.; et al. Differences in the management of type 1 diabetes among adults under excellent control compared with those under poor control in the T1D Exchange Clinic Registry. Diabetes Care 2013, 36, 3573–3577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  15. Schünemann, H.J.; Cuello, C.; Akl, E.A.; Mustafa, R.A.; Meerpohl, J.J.; Thayer, K.; Morgan, R.L.; Gartlehner, G.; Kunz, R.; Katikireddi, S.V.; et al. GRADE guidelines: 18. How ROBINS-I and other tools to assess risk of bias in nonrandomized studies should be used to rate the certainty of a body of evidence. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2019, 111, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  16. Cobry, E.; McFann, K.; Messer, L.; Gage, V.; VanderWel, B.; Horton, L.; Chase, H.P. Timing of meal insulin boluses to achieve optimal postprandial glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 2010, 12, 173–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Danne, T.; Aman, J.; Schober, E.; Deiss, D.; Jacobsen, J.L.; Friberg, H.H.; Jensen, L.H.; ANA 1200 Study Group. A comparison of postprandial and preprandial administration of insulin aspart in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2003, 26, 2359–2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  18. Rohilla, L.; Dayal, D.; Gujjar, N.; Walia, P.; Kumar, R.; Yadav, J. Mealtime bolus insulin dose timing in children with type 1 diabetes: Real-life data from a tertiary care centre in northern India. Acta Endocrinol. 2021, 17, 528–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Lane, W.; Lambert, E.; George, J.; Rathor, N.; Thalange, N. Exploring the Burden of Mealtime Insulin Dosing in Adults and Children With Type 1 Diabetes. Clin. Diabetes 2021, 39, 347–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Peters, A.; Van Name, M.A.; Thorsted, B.L.; Piltoft, J.S.; Tamborlane, W.V. Postprandial dosing of bolus insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes: A cross-sectional study using data from the T1D Exchange registry. Endocr. Pract. 2017, 23, 1201–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tucholski, K.; Sokołowska, M.; Tucholska, D.; Kamińska, H.; Jarosz-Chobot, P. Assessment of optimal insulin administration timing for standard carbohydrates-rich meals using continuous glucose monitoring in children with type 1 diabetes: A cross-over randomized study. J. Diabetes Investig. 2019, 10, 1237–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Datye, K.A.; Boyle, C.T.; Simmons, J.; Moore, D.J.; Jaser, S.S.; Sheanon, N.; Kittelsrud, J.M.; Woerner, S.E.; Miller, K.M.; T1D Exchange. Timing of Meal Insulin and Its Relation to Adherence to Therapy in Type 1 Diabetes. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 2018, 12, 349–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  23. De Palma, A.; Giani, E.; Iafusco, D.; Bosetti, A.; Macedoni, M.; Gazzarri, A.; Spiri, D.; Scaramuzza, A.E.; Zuccotti, G.V. Lowering postprandial glycemia in children with type 1 diabetes after Italian pizza “margherita” (TyBoDi2 Study). Diabetes Technol. Ther. 2011, 13, 483–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bode, B.W.; Iotova, V.; Kovarenko, M.; Laffel, L.M.; Rao, P.V.; Deenadayalan, S.; Ekelund, M.; Larsen, S.F.; Danne, T. Efficacy and Safety of Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart Compared With Insulin Aspart, Both in Combination With Insulin Degludec, in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: The onset 7 Trial. Diabetes Care 2019, 42, 1255–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Kawamura, T.; Kikuchi, T.; Horio, H.; Rathor, N.; Ekelund, M. Efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart versus insulin aspart in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes from Japan. Endocr. J. 2021, 28, 409–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Wadwa, R.P.; Laffel, L.M.; Franco, D.R.; Dellva, M.A.; Knights, A.W.; Pollom, R.K. Efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid lispro versus lispro in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: The PRONTO-Peds trial. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2023, 25, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Scaramuzza, A.E.; Iafusco, D.; Santoro, L.; Bosetti, A.; De Palma, A.; Spiri, D.; Mameli, C.; Zuccotti, G.V. Timing of bolus in children with type 1 diabetes using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (TiBoDi Study). Diabetes Technol. Ther. 2010, 12, 149–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Pemberton, J.S.; Barrett, T.G.; Dias, R.P.; Kershaw, M.; Krone, R.; Uday, S. An effective and cost-saving structured education program teaching dynamic glucose management strategies to a socio-economically deprived cohort with type 1 diabetes in a VIRTUAL setting. Pediatr. Diabetes 2022, 23, 1045–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Heise, T.; Hövelmann, U.; Brøndsted, L.; Adrian, C.L.; Nosek, L.; Haahr, H. Faster-acting insulin aspart: Earlier onset of appearance and greater early pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects than insulin aspart. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2015, 17, 682–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The PRISMA flow diagram.
Figure 1. The PRISMA flow diagram.
Jpm 12 02058 g001
Table 1. Literature analysis after PICOS selection: description, summary of the studies and grading of evidence using the GRADE system. PRE: −20 to −10 min before the meal; START: −2 to 0 min; POST: 10–20 min after the start of the meal.
Table 1. Literature analysis after PICOS selection: description, summary of the studies and grading of evidence using the GRADE system. PRE: −20 to −10 min before the meal; START: −2 to 0 min; POST: 10–20 min after the start of the meal.
Rapid-Acting Analogs
ReferencesMain ObjectiveStudy DesignPopulation and Comparator, SettingMethodsBolus TimingResultsStudy Limitations and Level of Evidence
Scaramuzza AE et al.
Effect of different timing of bolus dosecross-sectional30 T1D
Age: 6–20 yrs (15.2 ± 3.9)

Treatment: CSII, Aspart

Setting: hospital for 3 days

Period: 2009

Region: Italy
Meal: standard lunch (55% CHO) for 3 days, lasted 15–20 min

Pre-prandial BG: 80–140 mg/dL

Capillary BG monitor: −15, 0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 180 min

Outcome: 1 h- and 3 h-PBG, AUC; number of hypoglycemic events
−15 (PRE),
immediately before (START)
and immediately after the meal (POST)

randomly assigned to each patient
1 h-PBG was lower when bolus PRE or START vs. POST l (p = 0.024), not significant at 3 h-PBG
No difference in PBG at any time, when bolus was administered PRE vs. START
Lower AUC for glycemia with bolus PRE, but NS
Hypoglycemia: 12 patients experienced 1 episode each of mild hypoglycemia
Cobry E et al. (2010)
Determine the optimal timing of insulin bolus deliverycross-over23 T1D
Age: 12–30 yrs (18.3 ± 4.4; 11 pediatric)

Treatment: CSII, Glulisine

Setting: 3 clinical visits

Period: 2009
Region: Colorado
Meal: frozen prepackaged breakfast

Pre-prandial BG: 100–180 mg/dL

Capillary BG monitor: 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 210, 240 min

Outcome: 1–2 h PBG, BG peak, TAR, AUC, hypoglycemia
−20 (PRE)
immediately before (START) and +20 min (POST),
Lower 1 h- and 2 h-PBG with PRE vs. START (0.0029 and 0.0294) vs. POST (p = 0.001 and 0.0408) bolus. No differences between START and POST
Lower BG readings above 180 mg/dL in PRE vs. START bolus (p < 0.0001) and POST bolus (p < 0.0001)
Lower AUC with PRE vs. START bolus (p = 0.0297)
Lower peak BG with PRE vs. START bolus (p = 0.0039) and POST bolus(p = 0.0027).
Hypoglycemia: no significant difference among the different treatment groups
Small pediatric sample

Danne T et al. (2003)
Compare PBG after pre-prandial vs. post-prandial insulin injectionRandomized, open-labeled, cross-over trial
6 weeks period
42 T1D 6–12 yrs
34 T1D 13–17 yrs
(12.2 ± 2.8 yrs)
Treatment: MDI (long-acting basal insulin: NPH, lente, or ultralente)

Setting: 3 visits in 6 week period

Period: 2003

Region: Germany, Austria, Sweden
Meal: all
Capillary BG profiles (before, 120 min after meal and at 10:00 p.m. ± 1 h)
Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) completed by adolescents and parents of the children at the clinic before and after each treatment period.

Outcome: 2 h-PBG, Fructosamine (+6 weeks), HbA1c (+6 weeks), hypoglycemia, DTSQ score
Immediately before (PRE), immediately after (0–30′) meal start (POST)Lower PBG 120 min after breakfast for IAsp PRE vs. POST (p = 0.016)

Fructosamine and HbA1c: no difference in IAsp PRE vs. IAsp POST

The relative risk of hypoglycemia was not significantly different (p = 0.31)
No clinically relevant differences were found between the two age groups in any of the parameters
Treatment satisfaction was equally high for both regimens with both patients and parents

NPH use

Rohilla L et al. (2021)
Real world data on post-prandial bolusing in young children with T1D Retrospective study 44 T1D
Age: 2–7 yrs (4.1 ± 1.3)
Treatment: MDI in basal bolus

Period: 2015–2021

Region: North India
Meal: all

Capillary BG

2 years f/up

Outcome: hypoglycemia, DKA, HbA1c
10–20′ before (PRE). during or within 10′ after meal (POST)HbA1c: no difference during f/up between Group 1 and Group 2

DKA, number of hypoglycemic episodes: not different
PBG not detected. The only study with age <6 y

Lane W et al. (2021)
Review of the burden associated with pre-meal insulin administration Prospective online survey350 parents of children ≤15 yrs

Treatment: 70% MDI
Aspart and Lispro

Period: 2019–2020

Region: USA, Canada, UK, Japan, Spain, and France
Meal: all

Online survey

Outcome: burden, quality of life
15–20′ before (PRE)
0–2′ before (START)
after the start of the meal (POST)
93% of parents felt that PRE bolus has a negative impact on the child’s day to day life
Having the freedom to administer insulin at START or POST would have a positive impact
Online survey

Peters A et al. (2017)
Assess prevalence and characteristics of children and adolescents with T1D using pre-prandial vs. post-prandial bolus Cross sectional study, data from T1D Exchange registry21533 T1D (12450 < 18 yrs)

Treatment: 99% used rapid-acting insulin. Pump users 48%

Period: 2010–2012
Region: USA
Meal: all

Capillary BG

Survey: when do you usually give an insulin bolus?

Outcomes: HbA1c, total daily insulin dose/Kg, hypoglycemia, DKA, BMI
Insulin several minutes before or immediately before meal (PRE)
vs. during meal or after meal (POST) = 32%
Children dosing POST (32%) were characterized by higher HbA1c (p < 0.0001), larger total daily insulin dose/Kg (p < 0.0001), greater prevalence of history of hypoglycemia (p = 0.0071) and DKA (p = 0.02) vs. PRE

BMI was significantly increased in the POST group versus PRE for ages 12–18 yrs only (p 0.078)
Cross-sectional design

Tucholski K et al. (2019)
Assess PBG in children and adolescents using CSII after carbohydrate-rich mealsCross over RCT29 T1D
Age: 9.6–15.2 yrs

Treatment: CSII, rapid-acting insulin

Period: 2009–2010

Region: Poland
Meal: over a period of 3 days, consumption of carbohydrate-rich meal (60–65%) at breakfast

Outcomes: CGM: PBG at 0, 120, 180′, glucose peak, AUC, hypoglycemia
Insulin 20 min before (PRE) vs. 10′ before (PRE)
vs. 0′ (START)
Patients who administered bolus 20 min PRE vs. at START had longer median time to reach peak glucose (p = 0.01)

PBG and peak differences were NS

Hypoglycemia: NS

Datye KA et al. (2018)
Explore the association between timing of insulin bolus and missed bolusCross sectional study, data from T1D exchange registry3608 T1D < 18 yrs

Treatment: CSII (60%)

Period: 2010–2012

Region: USA
Meal: all

Capillary BG

Survey on timing of bolus at meal, frequency of missed meal insulin doses

Outcomes: prevalence of bolus before meal, population characteristics, missed bolus, HbA1c, hypoglycemia
Several minutes before (PRE), immediately before (START), during-after meal (POST), and “I do not give a mealtime bolus”.
Frequency of missed meal insulin doses (from never to once a day)
Prevalence: Insulin PRE (21%), at START (44%), or POST (during 10%, after 24%)
Giving insulin PRE or at START was reported by 61% of participants/parents <6 yrs of age, 72% of those 6–13 yrs, 68% of those 13–18 yrs

Insulin PRE: usually younger patient, shorter DT1 duration, more likely to use pump therapy, monitored BG more frequently

Insulin PRE was associated with lower HbA1c and fewer missed meal insulin doses (p < 0.01) (vs. during or after meal).
No association between timing of meal insulin and occurrence of severe hypoglycemia events

Rapid-Acting Analogs and a Pizza Meal
De Palma A et al. (2011)
Evaluate the most effective type and timing of a pump-delivered, pre-prandial bolus for a pizza ‘‘margherita’’ mealLongitudinal study38 T1D
Age: 6–19 yrs

Treatment: CSII, rapid-acting insulin

Period: 2010

Setting: hospital

Region: Italy
Meal based on pizza Margherita, at lunch

Capillary BG −15, 0, +30, 60, 90, 120, 180, 240, 300

Outcomes: BG, hypoglycemia, AUC 0–6 h
(a) a dual-wave bolus 30%/70% over a 6-h period, administered 15 min PRE(b) a dual-wave bolus 30/70% given over a 6-h period, at START; (c) a standard bolus 15 min PRE(d) a standard bolus at STARTThe simple bolus 15 min PRE, rather than at START or delivered as a double-wave bolus, is better to control the glycemic rise (AUC 0–6 h) usually observed (p < 0.01)

No difference in hypoglycemia

Fast-Acting Analogs
Bode B et al. (2019)
Assess the efficacy and safety of faster aspart vs. IAspRCT777 patients with DT1 < 18 yrs

Treatment: FAsp vs. IAsp for 26 weekswith Degludec

Period: 2016–2018

Region: 150 sites across 17 countries
Meal: a standardized liquid meal at main meals
Capillary BG. CGM in a subgroup of 135 patients
Outcomes: HbA1c, hypoglycemia, PBG at 1 h, TDI
260 mealtime FAsp
258 mealtime IAsp
269 post-meal FAsp
HbA1c: Mealtime and post-meal FAsp performed better than IAsp (p = 0.014)
Lower 1-h PBG increment with FAsp versus IAsp over all meals (p < 0.01 for all)
No significant differences in the overall rate of hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, insulin dose and BMI
Home-sampling kit to measure FPG

Kawamura T et al. 2021
Assess the efficacy and safety of faster aspart vs. IAspPost-hoc subgroup analysis based on data from the RCT onset 7 trial66 T1D < 18 yrs

Treatment: FAsp vs. IAsp for 26 weeks
with Degludec

Period: 2013–2015

Region: Japan
Meal: all
Capillary BG profiles at baseline and week 26
Follow-up on day 7 and day 30
Pre-prandial target BG: 71–145 mg/dL;Bedtime 120–180 mg/dL
Outcomes: HbA1c, PBG, hypogycemia, insulin dose, body weight
24 mealtime FAsp
19 post-meal FAsp
23 mealtime IAsp
HbA1c: the post-prandial FAsp performed better (with a change from baseline of 0.74%) than the meal FAsp (0.23%) and IAsp (0.39%)
Lower 1-h PBG increment with mealtime FIAsp versus IAsp over all meals
No differences in the overall rate of hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, insulin dose
Low sample size, which precluded statistical analysis between the treatment groups

-Low -
Fath M et al. 2017
Assess FIASP exposure and action in children and adolescents vs. IAsp
RCT12 children with T1D (6–11 yrs) 13 adolescents with T1D (12–17 yrs)

Treatment: MDI and CSII; FiAsp vs. IAsp

Period: 2014
Region: Hanover (Germany)
Meal: a standardized liquid meal (BOOST, Nestlé S.A) consumed within 8 min. The volume of the liquid meal was adjusted according to the subject’s body weight
Two dosing visits and a follow up visit. At each dosing visit, a stable glucose level was achieved overnight using an established protocol of variable intravenous infusion
Capillary BG
Outcomes: PBG from 0 to 2 h
Subjects received 0.2 U/kg subcutaneous dosing immediately prior to a standardized meal
Onset of appearance occurred 5–7 min earlier and exposure was greater for FIASP vs. IAsp in children and adolescents
PG excursion appeared to be reduced for faster aspart compared with IAsp at 0–1 h (p = 0.05) and at 0–2 h (p = 0.028) and as peak (p = 0.044) in children but not in adolescents
Low sample size, standardized liquid meal

Wadwa RP et al. 2022
Assess the efficacy of ultra-rapid lispro (URLi) versus lisproRCT prospective, double-blind716 T1D
Age 12.26 ± 3.39 yrs

Treatment: MDI

Period: 2019–2021

Region: USA, 96 sites
Meal: all
26-week treatment period: randomized to double-blind and pre-study basal insulin
Capillary BG and CGM systems
Outcomes: HBA1c, PBG, insulin dose, hypoglycemia
URLi (n = 280) or lispro (n = 298) Injection 0–2 min prior to meals (mealtime)
vs. open-label URLi (n = 138) injected up to 20 min after start of meals (post-meal)
HbA1c: no significant differences among the treatment groups after 26 weeks
When dosed at the beginning of meals, URLi reduced 1-h PBG (p = 0.001) and PPG excursions versus lispro (p < 0.001)
Hypoglycemia: mealtime URLli vs. Lispro presented higher rate of hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL) at ≤2 h (p = 0.034)
CGM group (n = 79): no difference in AUC 0–2 h
Poor CGM data

T1D: type 1 diabetes, min: minutes, yrs: years, BG: blood glucose, PBG: post-prandial BG, MDI: multiple daily injection, CSII: continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, HbA1c: hemoglobin A1c, CGM: continuous glucose monitoring, FGM: flash glucose monitoring, FIAsp: faster insulin aspart, URLi: ultra-rapid lispro.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mozzillo, E.; Franceschi, R.; Di Candia, F.; Ricci, A.; Leonardi, L.; Girardi, M.; Rosanio, F.M.; Marcovecchio, M.L. Optimal Prandial Timing of Insulin Bolus in Youths with Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 2058.

AMA Style

Mozzillo E, Franceschi R, Di Candia F, Ricci A, Leonardi L, Girardi M, Rosanio FM, Marcovecchio ML. Optimal Prandial Timing of Insulin Bolus in Youths with Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2022; 12(12):2058.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mozzillo, Enza, Roberto Franceschi, Francesca Di Candia, Alessia Ricci, Letizia Leonardi, Martina Girardi, Francesco Maria Rosanio, and Maria Loredana Marcovecchio. 2022. "Optimal Prandial Timing of Insulin Bolus in Youths with Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review" Journal of Personalized Medicine 12, no. 12: 2058.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop