4.7 Article

Neuropathy among the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial cohort 8 years after trial completion

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 340-344

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.29.02.06.dc05-1549

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [N01 DK062204-007] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - To evaluate the impact of prior intensive diabetes therapy on neuropathy among former Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) participants. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - At the conclusion of the DCCT, subjects in the intensive group were encouraged to maintain intensive therapy, and subjects in the conventional group were encouraged to begin intensive therapy. Thereafter, we annually assessed neuropathy as part of the Epidemiology of Diabetes Intervention and Complications (EDIC) study. Neuropathy was defined using the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument (MNSI). We recorded potential adverse consequences of neuropathy. RESULTS - At the first EDIC examination, 1,257 subjects participated in the neuropathy assessment. Consistent with DCCT results, the former intensive group showed a lower prevalence of neuropathy than the conventional group based on positive questionnaire (1.8 vs. 4.7%; P = 0.003) or examination (17.8 vs. 28.0%; P < 0.0001) results. Despite similar levels of glycemic control, symptoms and signs of neuropathy remained less prevalent among the former intensive group compared with the conventional group. At the beginning of the EDIC Study, prior intensive therapy reduced the odds of having symptoms and signs of neuropathy using MNSI criteria by 64% (P = 0.0044) and 45% (P < 0.0001), respectively, with similar odds reductions observed for both neuropathic symptoms (51%, P < 0.0001) and neuropathic signs (43%, P < 0.0001) across 8 years of EDIC follow-up. CONCLUSIONS - The benefits of 6.5 years of intensive therapy on neuropathy status extended for at least 8 years beyond the end of the DCCT, similar to the findings described for diabetic retinopathy and nephropathy.

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

4.7
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