4.7 Article

Contributions of fasting and postprandial plasma glucose increments to the overall diurnal hyperglycemia of type 2 diabetic patients -: Variations with increasing levels of HbA1c

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 881-885

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.26.3.881

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - The exact contributions of postprandial and fasting glucose increments to overall hyperglycemia remain controversial, The discrepancies between the data published previously might be caused by the interference of several factors. To test the effect of overall glycemic control itself, we analyzed the diurnal glycemic profiles Of type 2 diabetic patients investigated at different levels of HbA(1c). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - in 290 non-insulin- and non-acarbose-using patients with type 2 diabetes, plasma glucose (PG) concentrations were determined at fasting (8:00 A.M.) and during postprandial and postabsorptive periods (at 11:00 A.M., 2:00 P.M., and 5:00 P.M.). The areas under the curve above fasting PG concentrations (AUC(1)) and >6.1 mmol/l (AUC(2)) were calculated for further evaluation of the relative contributions of postprandial (AUC(1)/AUC(2), %) and fasting [(AUC(2) - AUC(1))/AUC(2), %] PG increments to the overall diurnal hyperglycemia. The data were compared over quintiles of HbA(1c). RESULTS - The relative contribution of postprandial glucose decreased progressively from the lowest (69.7%) to the highest quintile of HbA(1c) (30.5%, P < 0.001), whereas the relative contribution of fasting glucose increased gradually with increasing levels of HbA(1c): 30.3% in the lowest vs. 69.5% in the highest quintile (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS - The relative contribution of postprandial glucose excursions is predominant in fairly controlled patients, whereas the contribution of fasting hyperglycemia increases gradually with diabetes worsening. These results could therefore provide a unifying explanation for the discrepancies as observed in previous studies.

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