| Literature DB >> 28271075 |
Feng-Fei Li1, Bing-Li Liu1, Hong-Hong Zhu1, Ting Li1, Wen-Li Zhang1, Xiao-Fei Su1, Jin-Dan Wu1, Xue-Qin Wang2, Ning Xu3, Wei-Nan Yu4, Qun Yuan5, Guan-Cheng Qi6, Lei Ye7, Kok-Onn Lee8, Jian-Hua Ma1.
Abstract
Objectives. We performed continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to define the features of patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D) before and after Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII) therapy. Methods. This was a retrospective analysis. Newly diagnosed T2D patients (106) were admitted from eight centers in China. They were divided into a younger patient group (<60 years) and an older patient group (≥60 years). Each group was further divided into male and female patients. CSII therapy was maintained for 3 weeks after the glycemic target was reached. CGM was performed 2 times before and after completion of insulin treatment. Results. CGM data showed the expected significant improvement of mean amplitude glycemic excursion (MAGE) with CSII therapy. The older patients had lower hourly glucose concentrations from 0200 to 0700 o'clock compared to the younger patients at baseline. Surprisingly, in the older patient group, the male patients had a potential risk of hypoglycemia after CSII therapy, especially during periods from 2300 to 2400 and 0400 to 0600. Conclusions. Our data suggested that older male patients with newly diagnosed T2D may have lower nocturnal glucose concentrations. This may potentially increase the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia during CSII therapy. This study was registered with Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, number CliCTR-TRC-11001218.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28271075 PMCID: PMC5320376 DOI: 10.1155/2017/2740372
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Diabetes Res Impact factor: 4.011
Demographic characteristics in study subjects. Data are presented as means ± SD. t-test was used to compare the differences between two groups, P < 0.05.
| Items | Total patients | Total patients | Younger (age < 60 years) | Older (age ≥ 60 years) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male (57) | Female (47) |
| Younger (69) | Older (35) |
| Male (41) | Female (28) |
| Male (16) | Female (19) |
| |
| Age (years) | 51.7 ± 10.5 | 55.7 ± 8.9 | 0.06 | 48.7 ± 7.5 | 64.5 ± 4.1 | 0.00 | 47.3 ± 8.2 | 50.6 ± 6.2 | 0.06 | 64.5 ± 3.4 | 64.6 ± 4.7 | 0.96 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.7 ± 3.1 | 24.9 ± 3.4 | 0.71 | 25.0 ± 3.1 | 24.4 ± 3.5 | 0.43 | 24.6 ± 2.7 | 25.4 ± 3.6 | 0.28 | 24.9 ± 3.9 | 24.0 ± 3.0 | 0.50 |
| HbA1c (%) | 10.0 ± 1.8 | 9.8 ± 1.8 | 0.65 | 10.1 ± 1.8 | 9.3 ± 1.7 | 0.30 | 10.1 ± 1.8 | 10.2 ± 1.8 | 0.89 | 9.5 ± 1.9 | 9.1 ± 1.6 | 0.51 |
| FPG | 10.6 ± 2.9 | 10.8 ± 2.6 | 0.72 | 11.0 ± 2.9 | 10.0 ± 2.3 | 0.08 | 11.0 ± 3.0 | 11.1 ± 2.7 | 0.83 | 9.7 ± 2.1 | 10.3 ± 2.5 | 0.41 |
| LnFPI† | 1.6 ± 0.6 | 1.8 ± 0.8 | 0.11 | 1.8 ± 0.7 | 1.6 ± 0.8 | 0.15 | 1.7 ± 0.6 | 1.9 ± 0.8 | 0.12 | 1.4 ± 0.8 | 1.7 ± 0.7 | 0.40 |
| Ln2-PPI† | 2.8 ± 0.8 | 3.2 ± 0.9 | 0.02 | 3.0 ± 0.8 | 2.8 ± 0.9 | 0.07 | 3.0 ± 0.8 | 3.3 ± 0.9 | 0.10 | 2.4 ± 0.7 | 3.1 ± 0.9 | 0.04 |
| FC | 2.1 ± 0.9 | 2.4 ± 1.3 | 0.22 | 2.4 ± 1.2 | 1.9 ± 1.0 | 0.06 | 2.2 ± 0.9 | 2.6 ± 1.5 | 0.23 | 1.8 ± 1.0 | 2.1 ± 0.9 | 0.44 |
| 2-h FC | 4.9 ± 2.3 | 6.0 ± 2.8 | 0.03 | 5.5 ± 2.6 | 5.2 ± 2.6 | 0.54 | 5.1 ± 2.3 | 6.1 ± 2.9 | 0.10 | 4.5 ± 2.5 | 5.8 ± 2.6 | 0.15 |
| LnHOMA-IR† | 2.9 ± 2.5 | 4.0 ± 3.6 | 0.07 | 3.6 ± 2.9 | 3.0 ± 3.5 | 0.38 | 2.9 ± 1.5 | 4.4 ± 4.0 | 0.02 | 2.9 ± 4.3 | 3.1 ± 2.7 | 0.84 |
| LnHOMA-B† | 21.7 ± 22.8 | 26.0 ± 24.2 | 0.33 | 24.7 ± 25.2 | 21.7 ± 19.2 | 0.55 | 22.1 ± 23.0 | 28.0 ± 28.0 | 0.32 | 20.8 ± 23.1 | 22.6 ± 15.5 | 0.79 |
| II | 1.2 ± 1.3 | 1.6 ± 1.8 | 0.17 | 1.2 ± 1.6 | 1.8 ± 1.6 | 0.10 | 1.1 ± 1.2 | 1.5 ± 2.0 | 0.19 | 1.8 ± 1.7 | 1.8 ± 1.5 | 0.91 |
| MI | 130.8 ± 93.8 | 100.4 ± 90.3 | 0.09 | 127.8 ± 100.0 | 93.4 ± 53.4 | 0.08 | 140.0 ± 100.7 | 108.6 ± 107.8 | 0.06 | 115.3 ± 58.13 | 75.9 ± 24.3 | 0.02 |
| TI | 36.3 ± 16.6 | 40.2 ± 19.8 | 0.37 | 38.2 ± 19.8 | 38.3 ± 14.1 | 0.97 | 38.3 ± 18.4 | 43.5 ± 22.8 | 0.38 | 31.1 ± 9.8 | 33.1 ± 6.9 | 0.59 |
| Basal | 15.4 ± 7.4 | 16.8 ± 8.0 | 0.45 | 15.8 ± 8.1 | 16.7 ± 6.8 | 0.68 | 15.7 ± 7.6 | 16.0 ± 8.7 | 0.89 | 14.7 ± 7.2 | 18.5 ± 6.2 | 0.20 |
| Bolus | 25.1 ± 13.6 | 26.1 ± 17.9 | 0.80 | 26.2 ± 16.7 | 24.1 ± 13.6 | 0.61 | 25.9 ± 15.1 | 26.5 ± 18.6 | 0.91 | 22.9 ± 9.2 | 25.2 ± 17.0 | 0.71 |
†After log transformation for non-normally distributed data. Data are presented as means ± SD. P < 0.05, female patients versus male patients. FPG: fasting plasma glucose (mmol/L), LnFPG: Ln fasting plasma insulin (mU/L), Ln2-PPI:Ln 2-h postprandial insulin (mU/L), FC: fasting plasma C-peptide (pmol/L), 2-hFC: 2-h postprandial C-peptide (pmol/L), MI: Matsuda Index, II: Insulinogenic Index, TI: the total insulin doses per day (IU), Basal: basal insulin dose (IU), and Bolus: bolus insulin dose (IU).
Figure 1The hourly glucose concentrations in older patients (≥60 years) and younger patients (<60 years). Data are presented as means ± SD. A two-way ANOVA was used in the comparison between groups, P < 0.05 and P < 0.01.
Glycemic variations in study subjects before and after intensive insulin therapy treatment. Data are presented as means ± SD. t-test was used to compare the differences between two groups, P < 0.05.
| Items | Total patients | Total patients | Younger (age < 60 years) | Older (age ≥ 60 years) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male (57) | Female (47) |
| Younger (69) | Older (35) |
| Male (41) | Female (28) |
| Male (16) | Female (19) |
| |
| MAGE before CSII | 6.7 ± 2.7 | 6.4 ± 3.1 | 0.55 | 6.7 ± 3.1 | 6.3 ± 2.4 | 0.47 | 6.7 ± 2.8 | 6.7 ± 3.5 | 0.99 | 6.8 ± 2.3 | 5.9 ± 2.4 | 0.27 |
| MAGE after CSII | 3.0 ± 1.9 | 2.9 ± 2.0 | 0.9 | 3.1 ± 2.0 | 2.6 ± 1.8 | 0.21 | 3.1 ± 1.9 | 3.1 ± 2.1 | 0.94 | 2.6 ± 2.0 | 2.6 ± 1.7 | 0.94 |
| MG before CSII | 11.9 ± 2.6 | 12.1 ± 2.6 | 0.63 | 12.2 ± 2.7 | 11.4 ± 2.4 | 0.14 | 12.1 ± 2.6 | 12.3 ± 2.7 | 0.68 | 11.2 ± 2.3 | 11.6 ± 2.5 | 0.58 |
| MG after CSII | 7.3 ± 1.2 | 7.9 ± 1.7 | 0.02 | 7.5 ± 1.2 | 7.8 ± 2.0 | 0.26 | 7.3 ± 1.1 | 7.7 ± 1.3 | 0.13 | 7.2 ± 1.4 | 8.3 ± 2.3 | 0.11 |
| SD before CSII | 2.70 ± 0.96 | 2.58 ± 0.85 | 0.53 | 2.64 ± 0.90 | 2.61 ± 0.94 | 0.88 | 2.62 ± 0.96 | 2.67 ± 0.84 | 0.84 | 2.85 ± 0.98 | 2.41 ± 0.88 | 0.18 |
| SD after CSII | 1.77 ± 0.61 | 1.90 ± 0.75 | 0.31 | 1.81 ± 0.66 | 1.88 ± 0.73 | 0.59 | 1.72 ± 0.61 | 1.93 ± 0.71 | 0.16 | 1.92 ± 0.61 | 1.85 ± 0.84 | 0.78 |
| CV before CSII | 0.23 ± 0.08 | 0.22 ± 0.07 | 0.32 | 0.22 ± 0.08 | 0.23 ± 0.08 | 0.66 | 0.22 ± 0.08 | 0.22 ± 0.08 | 0.99 | 0.26 ± 0.08 | 0.21 ± 0.07 | 0.06 |
| CV after CSII | 0.24 ± 0.07 | 0.24 ± 0.08 | 0.86 | 0.24 ± 0.07 | 0.24 ± 0.07 | 0.87 | 0.23 ± 0.07 | 0.25 ± 0.08 | 0.36 | 0.27 ± 0.06 | 0.22 ± 0.08 | 0.10 |
| AUC before CSII | 2.65 ± 2.09 | 2.59 ± 1.93 | 0.88 | 2.75 ± 2.08 | 2.33 ± 1.85 | 0.3 | 2.8 ± 2.2 | 2.6 ± 2. | 0.67 | 2.1 ± 1.8 | 2.5 ± 1.9 | 0.53 |
| AUC after CSII | 0.21 ± 0.32 | 0.32 ± 0.55 | 0.19 | 0.22 ± 0.32 | 0.35 ± 0.64 | 0.15 | 0.2 ± 0.3 | 0.3 ± 0.4 | 0.38 | 0.3 ± 0.4 | 0.4 ± 0.8 | 0.45 |
| PT (%) before CSII | 63.6 ± 28.1 | 64.4 ± 32.7 | 0.89 | 65.4 ± 30.2 | 60.6 ± 30.0 | 0.43 | 66.5 ± 29.0 | 64.0 ± 32.2 | 0.72 | 55.2 ± 23.9 | 65.2 ± 34.3 | 0.34 |
| PT (%) after CSII | 11.3 ± 12.8 | 16.0 ± 16.5 | 0.09 | 12.5 ± 13.3 | 15.6 ± 17.4 | 0.31 | 10.9 ± 11.8 | 14.9 ± 15.1 | 0.19 | 12.7 ± 15.6 | 18.0 ± 18.8 | 0.38 |
Data are presented as means ± SD. P < 0.05, female patients versus male patients. MAGE: mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (mmol/L), MG: mean glucose (mmol/L), SD: standard deviation (mmol/L), CV: coefficient of variation (%), AUC: area under curve above 10.0 mmol/L (mmol/L per day), PT: the percentage time duration of glucose above 10.0 mmol/L (%).
Figure 2The hourly glucose concentrations calculated from CGM. The hourly glucose concentrations in young patients (<60 years) before (a) and after intensive insulin therapy treatment (b). The hourly glucose concentrations in older patients (≥60 years) before (c) and after intensive insulin therapy treatment (d). Data are presented as means ± SD. A two-way ANOVA was used in the comparison between groups, P < 0.05.