Jean-Pierre Le Floch1, Laurence Kessler2. 1. Diabetology, Clinique de Villecresnes, Villecresnes, France jplefloch@dietvill.com. 2. Diabetology, CHRU de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glucose variability has been suspected to be a major factor of diabetic complications. Several indices have been proposed for measuring glucose variability, but their interest remains discussed. Our aim was to compare different indices. METHODS: Glucose variability was studied in 150 insulin-treated diabetic patients (46% men, 42% type 1 diabetes, age 52 ± 11 years) using a continuous glucose monitoring system (668 ± 564 glucose values; mean glucose value 173 ± 38 mg/dL). Results from the mean, the median, different indices (SD, MAGE, MAG, glucose fluctuation index (GFI), and percentages of low [<60 mg/dL] and high [>180 mg/dL] glucose values), and ratios (CV = SD/m, MAGE/m, MAG/m, and GCF = GFI/m) were compared using Pearson linear correlations and a multivariate principal component analysis (PCA). RESULTS: CV, MAGE/m (ns), GCF and GFI (P < .05), MAG and MAG/m (P < .01) were not strongly correlated with the mean. The percentage of high glucose values was mainly correlated with indices. The percentage of low glucose values was mainly correlated with ratios. PCA showed 3 main axes; the first was associated with descriptive data (mean, SD, CV, MAGE, MAGE/m, and percentage of high glucose values); the second with ratios MAG/m and GCF and with the percentage of low glucose values; and the third with MAG, GFI, and the percentage of high glucose values. CONCLUSIONS: Indices and ratios provide complementary pieces of information associated with high and low glucose values, respectively. The pairs MAG+MAG/m and GFI+GCF appear to be the most reliable markers of glucose variability in diabetic patients.
BACKGROUND:Glucose variability has been suspected to be a major factor of diabetic complications. Several indices have been proposed for measuring glucose variability, but their interest remains discussed. Our aim was to compare different indices. METHODS:Glucose variability was studied in 150 insulin-treated diabeticpatients (46% men, 42% type 1 diabetes, age 52 ± 11 years) using a continuous glucose monitoring system (668 ± 564 glucose values; mean glucose value 173 ± 38 mg/dL). Results from the mean, the median, different indices (SD, MAGE, MAG, glucose fluctuation index (GFI), and percentages of low [<60 mg/dL] and high [>180 mg/dL] glucose values), and ratios (CV = SD/m, MAGE/m, MAG/m, and GCF = GFI/m) were compared using Pearson linear correlations and a multivariate principal component analysis (PCA). RESULTS: CV, MAGE/m (ns), GCF and GFI (P < .05), MAG and MAG/m (P < .01) were not strongly correlated with the mean. The percentage of high glucose values was mainly correlated with indices. The percentage of low glucose values was mainly correlated with ratios. PCA showed 3 main axes; the first was associated with descriptive data (mean, SD, CV, MAGE, MAGE/m, and percentage of high glucose values); the second with ratios MAG/m and GCF and with the percentage of low glucose values; and the third with MAG, GFI, and the percentage of high glucose values. CONCLUSIONS: Indices and ratios provide complementary pieces of information associated with high and low glucose values, respectively. The pairs MAG+MAG/m and GFI+GCF appear to be the most reliable markers of glucose variability in diabeticpatients.
Authors: J K Snell-Bergeon; R Roman; D Rodbard; S Garg; D M Maahs; I E Schauer; B C Bergman; G L Kinney; M Rewers Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Roger S Mazze; Ellie Strock; David Wesley; Sarah Borgman; Blaine Morgan; Richard Bergenstal; Robert Cuddihy Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Jeroen Hermanides; Titia M Vriesendorp; Robert J Bosman; Durk F Zandstra; Joost B Hoekstra; J Hans Devries Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 7.598
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: Thomas A Peyser; Andrew K Balo; Bruce A Buckingham; Irl B Hirsch; Arturo Garcia Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Ana M Gómez; Oscar M Muñoz; Alejandro Marin; Maria Camila Fonseca; Martin Rondon; María Alejandra Robledo Gómez; Andrei Sanko; Dilcia Lujan; Maira García-Jaramillo; Fabian Mauricio León Vargas Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2018-02-16
Authors: Gyuri Kim; Soo Lim; Hyuk-Sang Kwon; Ie B Park; Kyu J Ahn; Cheol-Young Park; Su K Kwon; Hye S Kim; Seok W Park; Sin G Kim; Min K Moon; Eun S Kim; Choon H Chung; Kang S Park; Mikyung Kim; Dong J Chung; Chang B Lee; Tae H Kim; Moon-Kyu Lee Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 6.577