4.5 Article

Effect of long-term glycemic variability on estimated glomerular filtration rate decline among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: Insights from the Diabetic Nephropathy Cohort in Singapore

期刊

JOURNAL OF DIABETES
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 908-919

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1753-0407.12512

关键词

estimated glomerular filtration; HbA1c variability; progression; type 2 diabetes mellitus

资金

  1. Alexandra Health Small Innovation Grants [AHPL SIGII/11001, SIG/11029, SIG/12024]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundIn the present study, we examined the association between HbA1c variability and renal disease progression based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Singapore. MethodsGlycemic burden and renal function were retrospectively assessed in 1628 patients in 2002-2014. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the relationships between HbA1c variability (expressed as HbA1c coefficient of variation [HbA1c-CV] in quartiles), HbA1c intrapersonal mean (HbA1c-IM), and eGFR decline, adjusted for baseline covariates. ResultsAmong patients with relatively good glycemic control (i.e. HbA1c-IM below the median cohort value [8.0%]), HbA1c-CV Quartile 4 was associated with eGFR decline (odds ratio [OR] 1.88; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-3.25). The OR for HbA1c-CV Quartile 4 was 2.20 (95% CI 1.24-3.89) after additional adjustment for HbA1c-IM. Where HbA1c-IM was above the median cohort value, HbA1c-CV Quartiles 3 and 4 were associated with eGFR decline, with ORs of 2.60 (95% CI 1.48-4.55) and 3.29 (95% CI 1.89-5.76) respectively. After further adjusting for HbA1c-IM, the ORs for Quartiles 3 and 4 were 2.69 (95% CI 1.53-4.74) and 3.51 (95% CI 1.98-6.21), respectively. ConclusionsVariability in HbA1c is strongly and independently associated with eGFR decline in patients with T2DM independent of mean HbA1c. The findings may highlight the importance of sustained stable glycemic control in management of diabetes mellitus.

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

4.5
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