4.4 Article

A novel analytical method for assessing glucose variability: Using CGMS in type 1 diabetes mellitus

期刊

DIABETES TECHNOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 644-653

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/dia.2006.8.644

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Marked blood glucose (BG) fluctuations may increase the risk of some complications associated with diabetes. Acute BG excursions are common in patients with diabetes, but are not usually quantified, nor can they be captured by glycosylated hemoglobin level. This study evaluated the sensitivity of novel analytical methods for assessing BG variability using CGMS(R) (Medtronic Minimed, Northridge, CA) data from patients treated with pramlintide, a drug that acutely reduces postprandial hyperglycemia when added to insulin therapy. Methods: Retrospective analyses were done on 24-h CGMS profiles obtained from 22 evaluable subjects with type I diabetes using insulin pumps and receiving preprandial three times daily injections of placebo (n = 6) or 30 mu g of pramhntide (n = 16) for 4 weeks. CGMS data were recorded at baseline, after 4 weeks of treatment, and after 2 weeks off-treatment. Three parameters were calculated for each time period: variability (BG rate of change), an index for severe hypoglycemia [low BG index (LBGI)], and an index for marked hyperglycemia [high BG index (HBGI)]. Results: The mean postprandial BG rate of change was significantly lower after 4 weeks of pramlintide treatment compared with placebo treatment (0.87 vs. 1.21 mg/dL/min, P < 0.01) without changes in average glycemia, illustrating the sensitivity of this parameter to medication effects. The HBGI and LBGI indicated a decreased risk of hyperglycemia without a significant increase in risk of hypoglycemia after 4 weeks of pramlintide. Conclusions: These results suggest the potential utility of several novel methods for assessing variability and glycemic extremes to gauge the effects of pharmacological interventions not captured by glycosylated hemoglobin.

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

4.4
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