Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Glycaemic instability is an underestimated problem in Type II diabetes.
Clin Sci (Lond). 2006 Aug; 111(2):119-26.CS

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to assess the level of glycaemic control by the measurement of 24 h blood glucose profiles and standard blood analyses under identical nutritional and physical activity conditions in patients with Type II diabetes and healthy normoglycaemic controls. A total of 11 male patients with Type II diabetes and 11 healthy matched controls participated in a 24 h CGMS (continuous subcutaneous glucose-monitoring system) assessment trial under strictly standardized dietary and physical activity conditions. In addition, fasting plasma glucose, insulin and HbA(1c) (glycated haemoglobin) concentrations were measured, and an OGTT (oral glucose tolerance test) was performed to calculate indices of whole-body insulin sensitivity, oral glucose tolerance and/or glycaemic control. In the healthy control group, hyperglycaemia (blood glucose concentration >10 mmol/l) was hardly present (2+/-1% or 0.4+/-0.2/24 h). However, in the patients with Type II diabetes, hyperglycaemia was experienced for as much as 55+/-7% of the time (13+/-2 h over 24 h) while using the same standardized diet. Breakfast-related hyperglycaemia contributed most (46+/-7%; P<0.01 as determined by ANOVA) to the total amount of hyperglycaemia and postprandial glycaemic instability. In the diabetes patients, blood HbA(1c) content correlated well with the duration of hyperglycaemia and the postprandial glucose responses (P<0.05). In conclusion, CGMS determinations show that standard measurements of glycaemic control underestimate the amount of hyperglycaemia prevalent during real-life conditions in Type II diabetes. Given the macro- and micro-vascular damage caused by postprandial hyperglycaemia, CGMS provides an excellent tool to evaluate alternative therapeutic strategies to reduce hyperglycaemic blood glucose excursions.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Movement Sciences, Nutrition and Toxicology Research Institute Maastricht (NUTRIM), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. S.Praet@mmc.nlNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

16613586

Citation

Praet, Stephan F E., et al. "Glycaemic Instability Is an Underestimated Problem in Type II Diabetes." Clinical Science (London, England : 1979), vol. 111, no. 2, 2006, pp. 119-26.
Praet SF, Manders RJ, Meex RC, et al. Glycaemic instability is an underestimated problem in Type II diabetes. Clin Sci (Lond). 2006;111(2):119-26.
Praet, S. F., Manders, R. J., Meex, R. C., Lieverse, A. G., Stehouwer, C. D., Kuipers, H., Keizer, H. A., & van Loon, L. J. (2006). Glycaemic instability is an underestimated problem in Type II diabetes. Clinical Science (London, England : 1979), 111(2), 119-26.
Praet SF, et al. Glycaemic Instability Is an Underestimated Problem in Type II Diabetes. Clin Sci (Lond). 2006;111(2):119-26. PubMed PMID: 16613586.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Glycaemic instability is an underestimated problem in Type II diabetes. AU - Praet,Stephan F E, AU - Manders,Ralph J F, AU - Meex,Ruth C R, AU - Lieverse,A G, AU - Stehouwer,Coen D A, AU - Kuipers,Harm, AU - Keizer,Hans A, AU - van Loon,Luc J C, PY - 2006/4/15/pubmed PY - 2007/10/16/medline PY - 2006/4/15/entrez SP - 119 EP - 26 JF - Clinical science (London, England : 1979) JO - Clin Sci (Lond) VL - 111 IS - 2 N2 - The aim of the present study was to assess the level of glycaemic control by the measurement of 24 h blood glucose profiles and standard blood analyses under identical nutritional and physical activity conditions in patients with Type II diabetes and healthy normoglycaemic controls. A total of 11 male patients with Type II diabetes and 11 healthy matched controls participated in a 24 h CGMS (continuous subcutaneous glucose-monitoring system) assessment trial under strictly standardized dietary and physical activity conditions. In addition, fasting plasma glucose, insulin and HbA(1c) (glycated haemoglobin) concentrations were measured, and an OGTT (oral glucose tolerance test) was performed to calculate indices of whole-body insulin sensitivity, oral glucose tolerance and/or glycaemic control. In the healthy control group, hyperglycaemia (blood glucose concentration >10 mmol/l) was hardly present (2+/-1% or 0.4+/-0.2/24 h). However, in the patients with Type II diabetes, hyperglycaemia was experienced for as much as 55+/-7% of the time (13+/-2 h over 24 h) while using the same standardized diet. Breakfast-related hyperglycaemia contributed most (46+/-7%; P<0.01 as determined by ANOVA) to the total amount of hyperglycaemia and postprandial glycaemic instability. In the diabetes patients, blood HbA(1c) content correlated well with the duration of hyperglycaemia and the postprandial glucose responses (P<0.05). In conclusion, CGMS determinations show that standard measurements of glycaemic control underestimate the amount of hyperglycaemia prevalent during real-life conditions in Type II diabetes. Given the macro- and micro-vascular damage caused by postprandial hyperglycaemia, CGMS provides an excellent tool to evaluate alternative therapeutic strategies to reduce hyperglycaemic blood glucose excursions. SN - 0143-5221 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/16613586/Glycaemic_instability_is_an_underestimated_problem_in_Type_II_diabetes_ L2 - https://portlandpress.com/clinsci/article-lookup/doi/10.1042/CS20060041 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -