Glycemic variability in normal glucose tolerance women with the previous gestational diabetes mellitus

Wang, Yongmei; Zhao, Lihua; Su, Jianbin; Qiao, Haifeng; Wang, Xiaohua; Xu, Feng; Chen, Tong; Chen, Jinfeng; Wu, Gang; Wang, Xueqin

doi:10.1186/s13098-015-0077-5

Cited by 21 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This could explain why SD in this cohort, reported to be 1.5, is larger compared to SD reported in other studies in subjects with normal glucose tolerance (ranged 0.5 -0.9). However, other GV measures were similar to those reported from analysis of other datasets (28,31,(41)(42)(43). The accuracy of the CGM systems used in the study, particularly in the hypoglycemic range, is a further limitation and may affect GV measurements.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Measures of Glycemic Variability in Type 1 Diabetes and the Effect of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring

El-Laboudi

Godsland

Johnston

et al. 2016

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Measures of Glycemic Variability in Type 1 Diabetes and the Effect of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring

El-Laboudi

Godsland

Johnston

et al. 2016

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kohnert et al (25) showed that glycemic variability correlated with postprandial b-cell dysfunction in patients with type 2 diabetes. Women with previous gestational diabetes mellitus and postpartum normal glucose tolerance showed elevated glycemic variability, which is associated with impaired b-cell dysfunction (26). Furthermore, glycemic variability can be reduced by improving b-cell function with intensive insulin therapy in early type 2 diabetes (27).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Visit-to-Visit Fasting Plasma Glucose Variability on the Development of Type 2 Diabetes: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVEAlthough increasing evidence suggests the association between short-term variability of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and diabetic complications or mortality, the impact of visit-to-visit variability of FPG on the development of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has not been evaluated. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSOur analysis included 131,744 Korean men and women without diabetes using the Korean National Health Insurance System cohort with periodic health examination program. FPG variability was calculated using the coefficient of variation (FPG-CV), SD (FPG-SD), and variability independent of the mean (FPG-VIM). RESULTSDuring the median follow-up time of 8.3 years, Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated lower disease-free probability in the higher FPG variability group compared with the lower FPG variability group. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis exhibited that the hazard ratio for incident T2D was 1.67 (95% CI 1.58-1.77, P < 0.001) in the highest quartile of FPG-CV compared with the lowest quartile of FPG-CV after adjusting for confounding variables, including mean FPG. The association between FPG variability and the risk of T2D was consistent when modeling using FPG-SD and FPG-VIM in both normal and impaired fasting glucose groups. A 1 SD increase in the FPG-CV was associated with a 24% increased risk of T2D in the fully adjusted model. CONCLUSIONSIncreased variability of FPG is associated with the development of T2D independently of diverse risk factors.Glycemic variability has recently drawn attention as another aspect of glycemic control and may contribute to additional risk of diabetic complications independent of hemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ) (1). Several human studies (2,3) suggested an association between glycemic variability and all-cause/cardiovascular mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. Interestingly, mean fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level was not significantly associated with mortality in a multivariate analysis after adjusting for the coefficient of variation (CV) of FPG (3). In addition, long-term FPG variability was

show abstract

“…The upper and lower bounds of the time in range definition are consistent with the definitions for hypo- and hyperglycemia defined above. For individuals without type 1 diabetes, 70–140 mg/dL (3.9–7.8 mmol/L) represents a normal glycemic range ( 66 ). However, spending most of the day in this range is not generally achievable for people with type 1 diabetes because they do not have physiological insulin secretion ( 67 ).…”

Section: Time In Rangementioning

confidence: 99%

Standardizing Clinically Meaningful Outcome Measures Beyond HbA1c for Type 1 Diabetes: A Consensus Report of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, the American Diabetes Association, the Endocrine Society, JDRF International, The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, and the T1D Exchange

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVETo identify and define clinically meaningful type 1 diabetes outcomes beyond hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) based upon a review of the evidence, consensus from clinical experts, and input from researchers, people with type 1 diabetes, and industry. Priority outcomes include hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, time in range, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). While priority outcomes for type 1 and type 2 diabetes may overlap, type 1 diabetes was the focus of this work.RESEARCH AND METHODSA Steering Committee—comprising representatives from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, the American Diabetes Association, the Endocrine Society, JDRF International, The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, and the T1D Exchange—was the decision-making body for the Type 1 Diabetes Outcomes Program. Their work was informed by input from researchers, industry, and people with diabetes through Advisory Committees representing each stakeholder group. Stakeholder surveys were used to identify priority outcomes. The outcomes prioritized in the surveys were hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, time in range, DKA, and PROs. To develop consensus on the definitions of these outcomes, the Steering Committee relied on published evidence, their clinical expertise, and feedback from the Advisory Committees.RESULTSThe Steering Committee developed definitions for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, time in range, and DKA in type 1 diabetes. The definitions reflect their assessment of the outcome’s short- and long-term clinical impact on people with type 1 diabetes. Knowledge gaps to be addressed by future research were identified. The Steering Committee discussed PROs and concluded that further type 1 diabetes–specific development is needed.CONCLUSIONSThe Steering Committee recommends use of the defined clinically meaningful outcomes beyond HbA1c in the research, development, and evaluation of type 1 diabetes therapies.

show abstract

Glycemic variability in normal glucose tolerance women with the previous gestational diabetes mellitus

Cited by 21 publications

References 34 publications

Measures of Glycemic Variability in Type 1 Diabetes and the Effect of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Measures of Glycemic Variability in Type 1 Diabetes and the Effect of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Impact of Visit-to-Visit Fasting Plasma Glucose Variability on the Development of Type 2 Diabetes: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About