Literature DB >> 29602622

The application of simple metrics in the assessment of glycaemic variability.

L Monnier1, C Colette2, D R Owens3.   

Abstract

The assessment of glycaemic variability (GV) remains a subject of debate with many indices proposed to represent either short- (acute glucose fluctuations) or long-term GV (variations of HbA1c). For the assessment of short-term within-day GV, the coefficient of variation for glucose (%CV) defined as the standard deviation adjusted on the 24-h mean glucose concentration is easy to perform and with a threshold of 36%, recently adopted by the international consensus on use of continuous glucose monitoring, separating stable from labile glycaemic states. More complex metrics such as the Low Blood Glucose Index (LBGI) or High Blood Glucose Index (HBGI) allow the risk of hypo or hyperglycaemic episodes, respectively to be assessed although in clinical practice its application is limited due to the need for more complex computation. This also applies to other indices of short-term intraday GV including the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE), Shlichtkrull's M-value and CONGA. GV is important clinically as exaggerated glucose fluctuations are associated with an enhanced risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes due primarily to hypoglycaemia. In contrast, there is at present no compelling evidence that elevated short-term GV is an independent risk factor of microvascular complications of diabetes. Concerning long-term GV there are numerous studies supporting its association with an enhanced risk of cardiovascular events. However, this association raises the question as to whether the impact of long-term variability is not simply the consequence of repeated exposure to short-term GV or ambient chronic hyperglycaemia. The renewed emphasis on glucose monitoring with the introduction of continuous glucose monitoring technologies can benefit from the introduction and application of simple metrics for describing GV along with supporting recommendations.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Assessment; Glycaemic variability; Impact

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29602622     DOI: 10.1016/j.diabet.2018.02.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Metab        ISSN: 1262-3636            Impact factor:   6.041


  24 in total

1.  New Paradigm of Personalized Glycemic Control Using Glucose Temporal Density Histograms.

Authors:  Uriel Trahtemberg; Tova Hallas; Yehonatan Segman; Ella Sheiman; Michal Shasha; Kobi Nissim; Yosef Joseph Segman
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2019-01-08

2.  Real-World Experience With Automated Insulin Pump Technology in Veterans With Type 1 Diabetes.

Authors:  Morolake Amole; Loren Whyte; Hans K Ghayee; Fernando Bril; Kenneth Cusi; Julio Leey-Casella
Journal:  Fed Pract       Date:  2021-11

3.  Glycemic Variability Within 1 Year Following Surgery for Stage II-III Colon Cancer.

Authors:  Natalie Rasmussen Mandolfo; Ann M Berger; Leeza Struwe; Kathleen M Hanna; Whitney Goldner; Kelsey Klute; Sean Langenfeld; Marilyn Hammer
Journal:  Biol Res Nurs       Date:  2021-10-05       Impact factor: 2.318

4.  Relationship between interstitial glucose variability in ambulatory glucose profile and standardized continuous glucose monitoring metrics; a pilot study.

Authors:  Akemi Tokutsu; Yosuke Okada; Keiichi Torimoto; Yoshiya Tanaka
Journal:  Diabetol Metab Syndr       Date:  2020-08-12       Impact factor: 3.320

5.  Efficacy and Safety of Use of the Fasting Algorithm for Singaporeans With Type 2 Diabetes (FAST) During Ramadan: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Zheng Kang Lum; Zi Rui Khoo; Wei Yann See Toh; Shaikh Abdul Kader Kamaldeen; Abdul Shakoor; Keith Yu Kei Tsou; Daniel Ek Kwang Chew; Rinkoo Dalan; Sing Cheer Kwek; Noorani Othman; Joyce Xia Lian; Raden Nurheryany Bte Sunari; Joyce Yu-Chia Lee
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 5.166

6.  Visit-to-Visit Glycemic Variability and Risks of Cardiovascular Events and All-Cause Mortality: The ALLHAT Study.

Authors:  Justin B Echouffo-Tcheugui; Songzhu Zhao; Guy Brock; Roland A Matsouaka; David Kline; Joshua J Joseph
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2019-01-18       Impact factor: 19.112

Review 7.  Review of methods for detecting glycemic disorders.

Authors:  Michael Bergman; Muhammad Abdul-Ghani; Ralph A DeFronzo; Melania Manco; Giorgio Sesti; Teresa Vanessa Fiorentino; Antonio Ceriello; Mary Rhee; Lawrence S Phillips; Stephanie Chung; Celeste Cravalho; Ram Jagannathan; Louis Monnier; Claude Colette; David Owens; Cristina Bianchi; Stefano Del Prato; Mariana P Monteiro; João Sérgio Neves; Jose Luiz Medina; Maria Paula Macedo; Rogério Tavares Ribeiro; João Filipe Raposo; Brenda Dorcely; Nouran Ibrahim; Martin Buysschaert
Journal:  Diabetes Res Clin Pract       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 5.602

8.  Glycemic Variability Assessment with a 14-Day Continuous Glucose Monitoring System: When and How Long to Measure MAGE (Mean Amplitude of Glucose Excursion) for Optimal Reliability?

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

9.  Use of flash glucose monitoring for post-bariatric hypoglycaemia diagnosis and management.

Authors:  Carolina B Lobato; Sofia S Pereira; Marta Guimarães; Tiago Morais; Pedro Oliveira; Jorge P M de Carvalho; Mário Nora; Mariana P Monteiro
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-07-06       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 10.  A View Beyond HbA1c: Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Authors:  Haleh Chehregosha; Mohammad E Khamseh; Mojtaba Malek; Farhad Hosseinpanah; Faramarz Ismail-Beigi
Journal:  Diabetes Ther       Date:  2019-04-29       Impact factor: 2.945

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.