| Literature DB >> 32523367 |
Shuhei Nakanishi1, Hidenori Hirukawa1, Masashi Shimoda1, Fuminori Tatsumi1, Kenji Kohara1, Atsushi Obata1, Seizo Okauchi1, Junpei Sanada1, Yoshiro Fushimi1, Akiko Mashiko1, Tomoatsu Mune1, Kohei Kaku2, Hideaki Kaneto1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to examine the association between severity of diabetic neuropathy and weight loss during hospitalization in overweight participants with type 2 diabetes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants of this study comprised 193 patients who were hospitalized for type 2 diabetes treatment. The participants were divided into two groups in the study, based on whether or not reduction of bodyweight was at least 3% during hospitalization. Using Cox models, the association between severity of neuropathy and effectiveness of weight loss under a controlled diet was analyzed. Autonomic neuropathy was assessed on patient admission by R-R interval, as measured in an electrocardiogram (CVRR), and sensory neuropathy was assessed using both 128-Hz tuning-fork vibration and Achilles tendon reflex (ATR).Entities:
Keywords: R-R interval as measured in an electrocardiogram; diabetic neuropathy; type 2 diabetes; weight loss
Year: 2020 PMID: 32523367 PMCID: PMC7237107 DOI: 10.2147/DMSO.S252673
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes ISSN: 1178-7007 Impact factor: 3.168
Clinical Characteristics of Study Subjects According to CVRR Category
| All Subjects | Low Tertile | Middle Tertile | High Tertile | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M/F (n) | 116/77 | 30/33 | 38/20 | 41/21 |
| Age (years) | 60.4 ± 12.9 | 64.7 ± 10.8 | 59.7 ± 12.9 | 56.1 ± 13.6† |
| Duration of type 2 diabetes (years) | 12.0 ± 9.5 | 16.3 ± 9.4 | 11.0 ± 8.8* | 8.7 ± 9.0† |
| Hospital stay (days) | 12.3 ± 2.7 | 12.9 ± 3.1 | 12.7 ± 2.6 | 11.4 ± 2.1† |
| Dietary caloric intake (kcal) | 1564 ± 193 | 1508 ± 195 | 1592 ± 189 | 1585 ± 183 |
| BMI on admission (kg/m2) | 26.9 ± 6.2 | 25.8 ± 4.8 | 27.1 ± 6.5 | 27.4 ± 6.3 |
| Body weight on admission (kg) | 71.0 ± 18.7 | 65.3 ± 13.1 | 73.1 ± 22.1 | 73.0 ± 17.9 |
| HbA1c on admission (%) | 9.7 ± 2.1 | 9.9 ± 2.2 | 9.2 ± 1.9 | 9.8 ± 2.2 |
| GA on admission (%) | 24.5 ± 7.9 | 26.4 ± 8.0 | 23.1 ± 8.1 | 23.8 ± 7.5 |
| BMI at discharge (kg/m2) | 26.0 ± 5.9 | 24.9 ± 4.7 | 26.1 ± 6.3 | 26.3 ± 6.1 |
| Body weight at discharge (kg) | 68.4 ± 18.0 | 63.1 ± 12.8 | 70.3 ± 21.5 | 70.3 ± 17.3 |
| GA at discharge (%) | 21.0 ± 5.4 | 23.0 ± 5.7 | 19.2 ± 4.5† | 20.7 ± 5.6 |
| Body weight change (kg) | 2.6 ± 2.9 | 2.2 ± 1.3 | 2.8 ± 1.9 | 2.7 ± 4.3 |
| BMI change (kg/m2) | 0.99 ± 1.06 | 0.88 ± 0.54 | 1.05 ± 0.68 | 1.03 ± 1.55 |
| CVRR (%) | 3.9 ± 2.0 | 1.9 ± 0.6 | 3.7 ± 0.5† | 6.1 ± 1.5† |
| Vibration test (second) | 9.3 ± 3.8 | 7.8 ± 4.0 | 9.5 ± 3.5 | 10.9 ± 3.1† |
| ATR (N/D/A) | 112/14/63 | 28/6/26 | 41/3/14 | 41/4/15 |
| Retinopathy (N/S/P) | 135/37/21 | 31/19/13 | 44/11/3 | 51/6/5 |
| Neuropathy (n) | 64 | 18 | 17 | 26 |
| Nephropathy (Stage 1/2/3/4) | 124/46/17/4 | 38/15/9/1 | 36/16/4/2 | 46/12/3/1 |
| Treatment for diabetes (n) | ||||
| Insulin/SU/Glinides/TZD | 49/48/16/44 | 24/17/6/19 | 13/17/4/9 | 9/14/3/14 |
| BG/α-GI/DPP-4I | 89/32/92 | 31/12/32 | 29/7/32 | 25/11/22 |
| SGLT2I/GLP1RA | 26/18 | 6/7 | 10/2 | 9/8 |
| Treatment for dyslipidemia (n) | 102 | 36 | 29 | 29 |
| Treatment for hypertension (n) | 85 | 34 | 21 | 22 |
Notes: Data are shown as mean ± SD. *P < 0.05 compared to category of low tertile adjusted for age and sex except age. †P < 0.01 compared to category of low tertile adjusted for age, and sex except age. CVRR data in 10 subjects were missing for irregular pulse(s) during examination.
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; GA, glycoalbumin; N/D/A, normal/decreased/absent; N/S/P, none/simple/pre or proliferative; SU, sulfonylureas; TZD, thiazolidinedione; BG, biguanide; α-GI, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors; DPP-4I, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors; SGLT2I, sodium-glucose linked transporter 2 inhibitors; GLP1RA, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist.
Figure 1Adjusted hazard ratios for effective bodyweight loss among patients with type 2 diabetes.
Notes: (A) The participants were divided into tertiles by CVRR on admission. *P<0.05 and †P<0.01 compared to the low tertile. (B) The participants were divided into tertiles by vibration test results on admission. *P<0.05 compared to the low tertile. (C) The participants were divided into three categories “normal,” “decreased,” and “absent,” by ATR on admission.