BACKGROUND: To compare glycemic variability (GV) indices between patients with fibrocalculous pancreatic diabetes (FCPD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). METHODS: We measured GV indices using CGM (iPro™2 Professional CGM, Medtronic, USA) data in 61 patients each with FCPD and T2D who were matched for glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and duration of diabetes. GlyCulator2 software was used to estimate the CGM-derived measures of GV (SD, mean amplitude of glycemic excursion [MAGE], continuous overall net glycemic action [CONGA], absolute means of daily differences [MODD], M value, and coefficient of variance [%CV]), hypoglycemia (time spent below 70 mg/dL, AUC below 70 mg/dL, glycemic risk assessment diabetes equation hypoglycemia, Low Blood Glucose Index), and hyperglycemia (time spent above 180 mg/dL at night [TSA > 180], AUC above 180 mg/dL [AUC > 180], glycemic risk assessment diabetes equation hyperglycemia, High Blood Glucose Index [HBGI], and J index). The correlation of GV indices with HbA1c, duration of diabetes, and demographic and biochemical parameters were also assessed. RESULTS: All the CGM-derived measures of GV (SD, MAGE, CONGA, MODD, and %CV), except M value, were significantly higher in the FCPD group than in the T2D group (P < 0.05). Measures of hyperglycemia (TSA >180, AUC >180, HBGI, and J index) were significantly higher in the FCPD group than in the T2D group (P < 0.05). The measures of hypoglycemia were not significantly different between the two groups. All the hyperglycemia indices showed a positive correlation with HbA1c in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: FCPD is associated with higher GV than is T2D. The findings of higher postprandial glycemic excursions in patients with FCPD could have potential therapeutic implications.
BACKGROUND: To compare glycemic variability (GV) indices between patients with fibrocalculous pancreatic diabetes (FCPD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). METHODS: We measured GV indices using CGM (iPro™2 Professional CGM, Medtronic, USA) data in 61 patients each with FCPD and T2D who were matched for glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and duration of diabetes. GlyCulator2 software was used to estimate the CGM-derived measures of GV (SD, mean amplitude of glycemic excursion [MAGE], continuous overall net glycemic action [CONGA], absolute means of daily differences [MODD], M value, and coefficient of variance [%CV]), hypoglycemia (time spent below 70 mg/dL, AUC below 70 mg/dL, glycemic risk assessment diabetes equation hypoglycemia, Low Blood Glucose Index), and hyperglycemia (time spent above 180 mg/dL at night [TSA > 180], AUC above 180 mg/dL [AUC > 180], glycemic risk assessment diabetes equation hyperglycemia, High Blood Glucose Index [HBGI], and J index). The correlation of GV indices with HbA1c, duration of diabetes, and demographic and biochemical parameters were also assessed. RESULTS: All the CGM-derived measures of GV (SD, MAGE, CONGA, MODD, and %CV), except M value, were significantly higher in the FCPD group than in the T2D group (P < 0.05). Measures of hyperglycemia (TSA >180, AUC >180, HBGI, and J index) were significantly higher in the FCPD group than in the T2D group (P < 0.05). The measures of hypoglycemia were not significantly different between the two groups. All the hyperglycemia indices showed a positive correlation with HbA1c in both groups. CONCLUSIONS:FCPD is associated with higher GV than is T2D. The findings of higher postprandial glycemic excursions in patients with FCPD could have potential therapeutic implications.
Authors: Chris Woodmansey; Andrew P McGovern; Katherine A McCullough; Martin B Whyte; Neil M Munro; Ana C Correa; Piers A C Gatenby; Simon A Jones; Simon de Lusignan Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Riddhi Dasgupta; Felix K Jebasingh; Shajith Anoop; Santhya Seenivasan; Mathews Edatharayil Kurian; Flory Christina; Gracy Varghese; Pamela Christudoss; K U Lijesh; Deepu David; Sudipta Dhar Chowdhury; Thomas V Paul; Nihal Thomas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-12 Impact factor: 3.752