Monika Reddy1, Ian F Godsland2, Katharine D Barnard3, Pau Herrero4, Pantelis Georgiou4, Hazel Thomson2, Desmond G Johnston2, Nick S Oliver2. 1. Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Imperial College London, London, UK m.reddy@imperial.ac.uk. 2. Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Imperial College London, London, UK. 3. Human Development and Health Academic Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 4. Centre for Bio-Inspired Technology, Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is evidence suggesting that glycemic variability reduces quality of life (QoL) in people with type 2 diabetes, but this association has not been explored in type 1 diabetes. We aimed to assess whether glycemic variability has an impact on QoL in adults with established type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). METHODS: Participants wore a blinded continuous glucose monitor for up to 5 days and completed the diabetes quality of life (DQOL) questionnaire. Glycemic variability measures were calculated using the EasyGV version 9.0 software. A correlation analysis was performed to assess whether there was a relationship between glycemic variability and measures of QoL. RESULTS: In all, 57 participants with type 1 diabetes (51% male, 65% on CSII, 35% on MDI, mean [SD] age 41 [13] years, duration of diabetes 21 [12] years, HbA1c 63 [12] mmol/mol [7.9% (1.1)], body mass index 25.2 [4.0] kg/m(2)) were included in the analysis. No significant associations between glycemic variability and DQOL total or subscale scores were demonstrated. The glycemic variability was significantly higher for MDI participants compared to CSII participants (P < .05 for all glycemic variability measures), but no significant difference in QoL between the 2 treatment modality groups was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with CSII is associated with lower glycemic variability compared to MDI. Despite this, and contrary to findings in type 2 diabetes, this study did not find an association between glycemic variability and QoL in adults with relatively well-controlled type 1 diabetes, irrespective of whether they are on MDI or CSII.
BACKGROUND: There is evidence suggesting that glycemic variability reduces quality of life (QoL) in people with type 2 diabetes, but this association has not been explored in type 1 diabetes. We aimed to assess whether glycemic variability has an impact on QoL in adults with established type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). METHODS: Participants wore a blinded continuous glucose monitor for up to 5 days and completed the diabetes quality of life (DQOL) questionnaire. Glycemic variability measures were calculated using the EasyGV version 9.0 software. A correlation analysis was performed to assess whether there was a relationship between glycemic variability and measures of QoL. RESULTS: In all, 57 participants with type 1 diabetes (51% male, 65% on CSII, 35% on MDI, mean [SD] age 41 [13] years, duration of diabetes 21 [12] years, HbA1c 63 [12] mmol/mol [7.9% (1.1)], body mass index 25.2 [4.0] kg/m(2)) were included in the analysis. No significant associations between glycemic variability and DQOL total or subscale scores were demonstrated. The glycemic variability was significantly higher for MDI participants compared to CSII participants (P < .05 for all glycemic variability measures), but no significant difference in QoL between the 2 treatment modality groups was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with CSII is associated with lower glycemic variability compared to MDI. Despite this, and contrary to findings in type 2 diabetes, this study did not find an association between glycemic variability and QoL in adults with relatively well-controlled type 1 diabetes, irrespective of whether they are on MDI or CSII.
Authors: Daniel J Cox; Anthony McCall; Boris Kovatchev; Samiha Sarwat; Liza L Ilag; Meng H Tan Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-05-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: H Hoey; H J Aanstoot; F Chiarelli; D Daneman; T Danne; H Dorchy; M Fitzgerald; P Garandeau; S Greene; R Holl; P Hougaard; E Kaprio; M Kocova; H Lynggaard; P Martul; N Matsuura; H M McGee; H B Mortensen; K Robertson; E Schoenle; O Sovik; P Swift; R M Tsou; M Vanelli; J Aman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Stephan Schiekofer; Martin Andrassy; Jiang Chen; Gottfried Rudofsky; Jochen Schneider; Thoralf Wendt; Norbert Stefan; Per Humpert; Andreas Fritsche; Michael Stumvoll; Erwin Schleicher; Hans-Ulrich Häring; Peter P Nawroth; Angelika Bierhaus Journal: Diabetes Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Bruno Vergès; Elise Pignol; Alexia Rouland; Benjamin Bouillet; Sabine Baillot-Rudoni; Emilienne Quilot; Abdelmadjid Djeffal; Jean Michel Petit Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2021-02-10
Authors: A Schaschkow; C Mura; S Dal; A Langlois; E Seyfritz; C Sookhareea; W Bietiger; C Peronet; N Jeandidier; M Pinget; S Sigrist; E Maillard Journal: J Diabetes Res Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 4.011