AIMS: It is necessary to evaluate glucose variability and postprandial hyperglycemia in patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus because of the limitations associated with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurements. We evaluated parameters reflecting postprandial hyperglycemia and glycemic variability in patients with optimal HbA1c. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine patients with HbA1c levels below 7% were recruited to the study. A continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) was applied for two 72-h periods. 1,5-Anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG) and fructosamine (FA) were measured as parameters for postprandial hyperglycemia and glucose variability. Using CGMS data, the following postprandial hyperglycemia parameters were calculated: mean postprandial maximum glucose (MPMG) and area under the curve for glucose above 180 mg/dL (AUC-180). To measure glycemic variability, we calculated mean amplitude of glucose excursion (MAGE) using a classical (MAGEc) and new method (MAGE group of sign [MAGEgos]). RESULTS: The baseline HbA1c level was 6.3±0.3%. The mean MPMG was 10.34±1.84 mmol/L, and the mean AUC-180 was 0.17±0.23 mmol/L/day. The mean MAGEgos was 3.27±1.29 mmol/L, and MAGEc was 4.30±1.43 mmol/L, indicating glycemic variability in our patients. The mean levels of 1,5-AG and FA were 16.7±7.4 μg/mL and 273.0±22.5 μmol/L, respectively. In a correlation analysis, FA was significantly correlated with MPMG, AUC-180, MAGEgos, and MAGEc. In contrast, 1,5-AG was only correlated with AUC-180. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated postprandial hyperglycemia and glycemic variability in subjects with well-controlled diabetes. FA may reflect postprandial hyperglycemia and glycemic variability, but 1,5-AG may be of limited value for assessing glucose variability in patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus.
AIMS: It is necessary to evaluate glucose variability and postprandial hyperglycemia in patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus because of the limitations associated with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurements. We evaluated parameters reflecting postprandial hyperglycemia and glycemic variability in patients with optimal HbA1c. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine patients with HbA1c levels below 7% were recruited to the study. A continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) was applied for two 72-h periods. 1,5-Anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG) and fructosamine (FA) were measured as parameters for postprandial hyperglycemia and glucose variability. Using CGMS data, the following postprandial hyperglycemia parameters were calculated: mean postprandial maximum glucose (MPMG) and area under the curve for glucose above 180 mg/dL (AUC-180). To measure glycemic variability, we calculated mean amplitude of glucose excursion (MAGE) using a classical (MAGEc) and new method (MAGE group of sign [MAGEgos]). RESULTS: The baseline HbA1c level was 6.3±0.3%. The mean MPMG was 10.34±1.84 mmol/L, and the mean AUC-180 was 0.17±0.23 mmol/L/day. The mean MAGEgos was 3.27±1.29 mmol/L, and MAGEc was 4.30±1.43 mmol/L, indicating glycemic variability in our patients. The mean levels of 1,5-AG and FA were 16.7±7.4 μg/mL and 273.0±22.5 μmol/L, respectively. In a correlation analysis, FA was significantly correlated with MPMG, AUC-180, MAGEgos, and MAGEc. In contrast, 1,5-AG was only correlated with AUC-180. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated postprandial hyperglycemia and glycemic variability in subjects with well-controlled diabetes. FA may reflect postprandial hyperglycemia and glycemic variability, but 1,5-AG may be of limited value for assessing glucose variability in patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Authors: Kathleen M Dungan; John B Buse; Joseph Largay; Mary M Kelly; Eric A Button; Shuhei Kato; Steven Wittlin Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Francesco Zaccardi; Paola Di Stefano; Elena Busetto; Marco Orsini Federici; Andrea Manto; Fabio Infusino; Gaetano Antonio Lanza; Dario Pitocco; Giovanni Ghirlanda Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2008-11
Authors: Y Fukumura; S Tajima; S Oshitani; Y Ushijima; I Kobayashi; F Hara; S Yamamoto; M Yabuuchi Journal: Clin Chem Date: 1994-11 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Giada Acciaroli; Giovanni Sparacino; Liisa Hakaste; Andrea Facchinetti; Giorgio Maria Di Nunzio; Alessandro Palombit; Tiinamaija Tuomi; Rafael Gabriel; Jaime Aranda; Saturio Vega; Claudio Cobelli Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2017-06-01
Authors: Allen B King; Athena Philis-Tsimikas; Eric S Kilpatrick; Irene H Langbakke; Kamilla Begtrup; Tina Vilsbøll Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2017-03-10 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Anna L Krämer; Angelina Riederer; Federico Fracassi; Felicitas S Boretti; Nadja S Sieber-Ruckstuhl; Thomas A Lutz; Barbara Contiero; Eric Zini; Claudia E Reusch Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Jennifer Leohr; Mary Anne Dellva; David E Coutant; Elizabeth LaBell; Tim Heise; Grit Andersen; Eric Zijlstra; Lidia Hermanski; Leszek Nosek; Helle Linnebjerg Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 6.447