• Evan A Los, Katrina L Ramsey, Ines Guttmann-Bauman, and Andrew J Ahmann.
• 1 Pediatric Endocrinology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
• J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017 May 1; 11 (3): 506-512.

BackgroundWe examined the reliability of trained dogs to alert to hypoglycemia in individuals with type 1 diabetes.MethodsPatients with type 1 diabetes who currently used diabetes alert dogs participated in this exploratory study. Subjects reported satisfaction, perceived dog glucose sensing ability and reasons for obtaining a trained dog. Reliability of dog alerts was assessed using capillary blood glucose (CBG) and blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) as comparators in 8 subjects (age 4-48). Hypoglycemia was defined as CBG or CGM <70 mg/dL.ResultsDog users were very satisfied (8.9/10 on a Likert-type scale) and largely confident (7.9/10) in their dog's ability to detect hypoglycemia. Detection of hypoglycemia was the primary reason for obtaining a trained dog. During hypoglycemia, spontaneous dog alerts occurred at a rate 3.2 (2.0-5.2, 95% CI) times higher than during euglycemia (70-179 mg/dL). Dogs provided timely alerts in 36% (sensitivity) of all hypoglycemia events (n = 45). Due to inappropriate alerts, the PPV of a dog alert for hypoglycemia was 12%. When there was concurrence of a hypoglycemic event between the dog alert and CGM (n = 30), CGM would have alerted prior to the dog in 73% of events (median 22-minute difference).ConclusionsThis is the first study evaluating reliability of trained dogs to alert to hypoglycemia under real-life conditions. Trained dogs often alert a human companion to otherwise unknown hypoglycemia; however due to high false-positive rate, a dog alert alone is unlikely to be helpful in differentiating hypo-/hyper-/euglycemia. CGM often detects hypoglycemia before a trained dog by a clinically significant margin.

24 keywords...

hide…