AIMS: The aim of this review is to focus on intra-day glucose variability (GV), specifically reviewing its correlation with HbA1c, the methods currently available to measure it, and finally the relationship between GV and cardiovascular outcomes, in type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients, and in the non-diabetic population. DATA SYNTHESIS: The term GV has been used in the literature to express many different concepts; in the present review, we focus our attention on intra-day GV. In particular, we try to assess whether GV provides additional information on glycemic control beyond HbA1c, since GV seems to be incompletely expressed by HbA1c, particularly in patients with good metabolic control. Many different indexes have been proposed to measure GV, however at the moment no "gold standard" procedure is available. Evidence in vitro, in experimental settings and in animal studies, shows that fluctuating glucose levels display a more deleterious effect than constantly high glucose exposure. However, these findings are not completely reproducible in human settings. Moreover, the relationship between GV and cardiovascular events is still controversial. CONCLUSIONS: The term GV should be reserved to indicate intra-day variability and different indexes of GV should be used, depending on the metabolic profile of the population studied and the specific issue to be investigated. Self glucose monitoring or continuous glucose monitoring should be used for assessing glucose variability.
AIMS: The aim of this review is to focus on intra-day glucose variability (GV), specifically reviewing its correlation with HbA1c, the methods currently available to measure it, and finally the relationship between GV and cardiovascular outcomes, in type 1 and type 2 diabeticpatients, and in the non-diabetic population. DATA SYNTHESIS: The term GV has been used in the literature to express many different concepts; in the present review, we focus our attention on intra-day GV. In particular, we try to assess whether GV provides additional information on glycemic control beyond HbA1c, since GV seems to be incompletely expressed by HbA1c, particularly in patients with good metabolic control. Many different indexes have been proposed to measure GV, however at the moment no "gold standard" procedure is available. Evidence in vitro, in experimental settings and in animal studies, shows that fluctuating glucose levels display a more deleterious effect than constantly high glucose exposure. However, these findings are not completely reproducible in human settings. Moreover, the relationship between GV and cardiovascular events is still controversial. CONCLUSIONS: The term GV should be reserved to indicate intra-day variability and different indexes of GV should be used, depending on the metabolic profile of the population studied and the specific issue to be investigated. Self glucose monitoring or continuous glucose monitoring should be used for assessing glucose variability.
Authors: Giuseppe Bellastella; Maria Ida Maiorino; Annamaria De Bellis; Maria Teresa Vietri; Carmela Mosca; Lorenzo Scappaticcio; Daniela Pasquali; Katherine Esposito; Dario Giugliano Journal: Endocrine Date: 2015-10-28 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Maria Ida Maiorino; Elisabetta Della Volpe; Laura Olita; Giuseppe Bellastella; Dario Giugliano; Katherine Esposito Journal: Endocrine Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: G Bellastella; M I Maiorino; L Scappaticcio; O Casciano; M Petrizzo; M Caputo; V A Paglionico; D Giugliano; K Esposito Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2017-08-30 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: M G Dalfrà; N C Chilelli; G Di Cianni; G Mello; C Lencioni; S Biagioni; M Scalese; G Sartore; A Lapolla Journal: Int J Endocrinol Date: 2013-11-11 Impact factor: 3.257
Authors: Shu-Hua Mi; Gong Su; Hong-Xia Yang; Yun Zhou; Lei Tian; Tao Zhang; Hong Tao Journal: Diabetol Metab Syndr Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 3.320