Glycemic Variability In Type Research Articles

Reducing glycaemic variability in type 1 diabetes self-management with a continuous glucose monitoring system based on wired enzyme technology

This study was designed to investigate the use and impact of a continuous glucose monitoring system (the FreeStyle Navigator) under home-use conditions in the self-management of type 1 diabetes. A 20 day masked phase, when real-time data and alarms were not available, was compared with a subsequent 40 day unmasked phase for a number of specified measures of glycaemic variability. HbA(1c) (measured by DCA 2000) and a hypoglycaemia fear survey were recorded at the start and end of the study. The study included 48 patients with type 1 diabetes (mean age 35.7 +/- 10.9, range 18-61 years; diabetes duration 17.0 +/- 9.5 years). Two patients did not complete the study for personal reasons. Comparing masked (all 20 days) and unmasked (last 20 days) phases, the following reductions were seen: time outside euglycaemia from 11.0 to 9.5 h/day (p = 0.002); glucose SD from 3.5 to 3.2 mmol/l (p < 0.001); hyperglycaemic time (>10.0 mmol/l) from 10.3 to 8.9 h/day (p = 0.0035); mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions (peak to nadir) down by 10% (p < 0.001); high blood glucose index down by 18% (p = 0.0014); and glycaemic risk assessment diabetes equation score down by 12% (p = 0.0013). Hypoglycaemic time (<3.9 mmol/l) decreased from 0.70 to 0.64 h/day without statistical significance (p > 0.05). Mean HbA(1c) fell from 7.6 +/- 1.1% at baseline to 7.1 +/- 1.1% (p < 0.001). In the hypoglycaemia fear survey, the patients tended to take less snacks at night-time after wearing the sensor. Home use of a continuous glucose monitoring system has a positive effect on the self-management of diabetes. Thus, continuous glucose monitoring may be a useful tool to decrease glycaemic variability.

Impact of Prandial Plus Basal vs Basal Insulin on Glycemic Variability in Type 2 Diabetic Patients

To determine whether metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes given an analogue mixture of basal and rapid-acting insulins (insulin lispro protamine suspension plus insulin lispro) would have less glycemic variability than patients given basal insulin glargine. Two post hoc analyses were used to compare 7-point blood glucose profiles from 3 published studies comparing basal plus prandial premixed insulin lispro mixtures with insulin glargine in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. Glycemic variability indices used included standard deviation of mean daily blood glucose, coefficient of variation, M-value, mean amplitude of glycemic excursion, and J-index. Patients on the twice-daily insulin lispro mix 75/25 (75% insulin lispro protamine suspension/25% insulin lispro) plus metformin regimen had significantly lower standard deviation, M-value, and J-index than patients on the insulin glargine plus metformin regimen, but not lower coefficient of variation or mean amplitude of glycemic excursion. Patients on the 3 times daily insulin lispro mix 50/50 (50% insulin lispro protamine suspension/50% insulin insulin lispro) plus metformin regimen had significantly lower values for all 5 indices than patients on the insulin glargine plus metformin regimen. Use of basal plus prandial insulin lispro mixtures at 2 or 3 meals was associated with lower glycemic variability in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes.