4.0 Review

Glycemic Control and Burnt-Out Diabetes in ESRD

期刊

SEMINARS IN DIALYSIS
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 148-156

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-139X.2010.00701.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [R21 DK078012, R21 DK078012-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [R21DK078012] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Treatment of early diabetes mellitus, the most common cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD), may prevent or slow the progression of diabetic nephropathy and lower mortality and the incidence of cardiovascular disease in the general diabetic population and in patients with early stages of CKD. It is unclear whether glycemic control in patients with advanced CKD, including those with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who undergo maintenance dialysis treatment is beneficial. Aside from the uncertain benefits of treatment in ESRD, hypoglycemic interventions in this population are also complicated by the complex changes in glucose homeostasis related to decreased kidney function and to dialytic therapies, occasionally leading to spontaneous resolution of hyperglycemia and normalization of hemoglobin A1c levels, a condition which might be termed burnt-out diabetes. Further difficulties in ESRD are posed by the complicated pharmacokinetics of antidiabetic medications and the serious flaws in our available diagnostic tools used for monitoring long-term glycemic control. We review the physiology and pathophysiology of glucose homeostasis in advanced CKD and ESRD, the available antidiabetic medications and their specifics related to kidney function, and the diagnostic tools used to monitor the severity of hyperglycemia and the therapeutic effects of available treatments, along with their deficiencies in ESRD. We also review the concept of burnt-out diabetes and summarize the findings of studies that examined outcomes related to glycemic control in diabetic ESRD patients, and emphasize areas in need of further research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据