OBJECTIVE: A subset of drivers with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) may be at significant risk of hypoglycemia-related driving collisions and moving vehicle violations due to acute and chronic neurocognitive impairment. The present study compared drivers with T1DM with and without a recent history of multiple driving mishaps on a neurocognitive battery during euglycemia, progressive mild hypoglycemia, and recovery from hypoglycemia, to determine whether neurocognitive measures differentiate the two risk groups. We hypothesized that drivers with a history of multiple recent hypoglycemia-related driving mishaps would demonstrate greater psychomotor slowing, both during hypoglycemia and euglycemia. STUDY DESIGN:Partcipants were 42 adults with T1DM and were assigned to one of two groups: those reporting no driving mishaps in the last year (-History) and those reporting two or more (+History).Neurocognitive testing was conducted before and repeated during a hyper-insulinemic clamping procedure. RESULTS: Not surprisingly, all drivers demonstrated a decrease in functioning across all neurocognitive tasks during hypoglycemia. However, in contrast to the common belief that neurocognitive functions return slowly and gradually following hypoglycemia, baseline neurocognitive functioning immediately recovered upon return of BG to euglycemia for all subjects. Between-group analyses revealed that subjects with a recent history of driving mishaps consistently demonstrated poorer performance on tasks measuring working memory. CONCLUSION: Working memory is a potential neurocognitive indicator that may help differentiate adults with T1DM with and without a history of driving mishaps, predict future risk for driving mishaps, and provide targeted intervention programs to address this critical public health issue.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: A subset of drivers with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) may be at significant risk of hypoglycemia-related driving collisions and moving vehicle violations due to acute and chronic neurocognitive impairment. The present study compared drivers with T1DM with and without a recent history of multiple driving mishaps on a neurocognitive battery during euglycemia, progressive mild hypoglycemia, and recovery from hypoglycemia, to determine whether neurocognitive measures differentiate the two risk groups. We hypothesized that drivers with a history of multiple recent hypoglycemia-related driving mishaps would demonstrate greater psychomotor slowing, both during hypoglycemia and euglycemia. STUDY DESIGN: Partcipants were 42 adults with T1DM and were assigned to one of two groups: those reporting no driving mishaps in the last year (-History) and those reporting two or more (+History).Neurocognitive testing was conducted before and repeated during a hyper-insulinemic clamping procedure. RESULTS: Not surprisingly, all drivers demonstrated a decrease in functioning across all neurocognitive tasks during hypoglycemia. However, in contrast to the common belief that neurocognitive functions return slowly and gradually following hypoglycemia, baseline neurocognitive functioning immediately recovered upon return of BG to euglycemia for all subjects. Between-group analyses revealed that subjects with a recent history of driving mishaps consistently demonstrated poorer performance on tasks measuring working memory. CONCLUSION:Working memory is a potential neurocognitive indicator that may help differentiate adults with T1DM with and without a history of driving mishaps, predict future risk for driving mishaps, and provide targeted intervention programs to address this critical public health issue.
Authors: Daniel J Cox; Boris Kovatchev; Karen Vandecar; Linda Gonder-Frederick; Lee Ritterband; William Clarke Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Augustina M A Brands; Geert Jan Biessels; Edward H F de Haan; L Jaap Kappelle; Roy P C Kessels Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Daniel J Cox; Jennifer Kim Penberthy; John Zrebiec; Katie Weinger; James E Aikens; Brian Frier; Barbara Stetson; Mary DeGroot; Paula Trief; Hartmut Schaechinger; Norbert Hermanns; Linda Gonder-Frederick; William Clarke Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Daniel J Cox; Linda A Gonder-Frederick; Jaclyn A Shepard; Laura K Campbell; Karen A Vajda Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: Daniel J Cox; Harsimran Singh; William L Clarke; Stacey M Anderson; Boris P Kovatchev; Linda A Gonder-Frederick Journal: Ann Adv Automot Med Date: 2010
Authors: Daniel Lorber; John Anderson; Shereen Arent; Daniel J; Brian M Frier; Michael A Greene; John W Griffin; Gary Gross; Katie Hathaway; Irl Hirsch; Daniel B Kohrman; David G Marrero; Thomas J Songer; Alan L Yatvin Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Daniel J Cox; Linda A Gonder-Frederick; Harsimran Singh; Karen S Ingersoll; Tom Banton; Jesse H Grabman; Karen Schmidt; William Clarke Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Daniel Lorber; John Anderson; Shereen Arent; Daniel J Cox; Brian M Frier; Michael A Greene; John W Griffin; Gary Gross; Katie Hathaway; Daniel B Kohrman; David G Marrero; Thomas J Songer; Alan L Yatvin Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 19.112