Open Access

The relationship between glycemic variability and diabetic peripheral neuropathy in type 2 diabetes with well-controlled HbA1c

Contributed equally
Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome20146:139

DOI: 10.1186/1758-5996-6-139

Received: 21 October 2014

Accepted: 11 December 2014

Published: 15 December 2014

Abstract

Background

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is one of the most common microvascular complications of diabetes. Glycemic variability could be an independent risk factor for diabetes complications in addition to average glucose. Type 2 diabetes with well-controlled glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) may have different terms of glycemic variability and vascular complication consequences. The aim of the study is to investigate the relationship between glycemic variability and DPN in type 2 diabetes with well-controlled HbA1c (HbA1c < 7.0%).

Methods

45 type 2 diabetes with well-controlled HbA1c(HbA1c < 7.0%) and with DPN (DM/DPN group) were recruited in the study, and 45 type 2 diabetes with well-controlled HbA1c and without DPN (DM/–DPN group) were set as controls. The two groups were also matched for age and diabetic duration. Blood pressure, body mass index(BMI), insulin sensitivity index (Matsuda index, ISI), total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC), and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) were tested in the two groups. And all patients were monitored using the continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system for consecutive 72 hours. The multiple parameters of glycemic variability included the standard deviation of blood glucose (SDBG), mean of daily differences (MODD) and mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE).

Results

The DM/DPN group had a greater SDBG, MODD and MAGE, when compared to the DM/–DPN group (p < 0.05). BMI, TC, and LDLC of DM/DPN group were lower than those of DM/–DPN group (p < 0.05). The patients with hypoglycemia were comparable between the two groups (p > 0.05). Univariate analysis showed DPN was closely associated with BMI (OR 0.82, CI 0.72–0.94, p = 0.005), TC (OR 0.63, CI 0.42–0.93, p = 0.02), LDLC (OR 0.4, CI 0.20–0.80, p = 0.009), SDBG (OR 2.95, CI 1.55–5.61, p = 0.001), MODD (OR 4.38, CI 1.48–12.93, p = 0.008), MAGE (OR 2.18, CI 1.47–3.24, p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that MAGE (OR 2.05, CI 1.36–3.09, p = 0.001) and BMI (OR 0.85, CI 0.73–0.99, p = 0.033) were significantly correlating with DPN. Glycemic variability, evaluated by MAGE, was the most significantly independent risk factor for DPN.

Conclusions

There was a close relationship between glycemic variability evaluated by MAGE and DPN in type 2 diabetes with well-controlled HbA1c.

Keywords

Glycemic variability Continuous glucose monitoring Diabetic peripheral neuropathy Type 2 diabetes

Background

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is one of the most common microvascular complications of diabetes, and is associated with foot ulceration, ampuation and significant reduction in quality of life [1, 2]. DPN affected up to 50% of all diabetic patients with long duration of disease, and the burden of DPN was found to be considerable [3, 4].

The exact pathophysiological mechanisms of DPN in diabetes remain elusive. The potential mechanisms are associated with a number of modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors, including the degree of hyperglycemia, lipid disorders, high blood pressure, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, diabetes duration, height, and so on [57]. For all diabetic patients, tight glycemic control is vital important for prevention and treatment of the DPN.

The glycemic disorders in diabetes are not solely limited to fasting and postprandial hyperglycemia, but can be extended to the glycemic variability that includes both upward (postprandial glucose increments) and downward (interprandial glucose decrements) changes [8]. Current diabetic treatments are aimed to control fasting and postprandial glucose levels close to the target in order to prevent the development of diabetes-related complications, with glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) being the gold-standard assessment of long-term overall glycemic control. A reasonable HbA1c level, as defined by the American Diabetes Association(ADA), is below or around 7% [9]. In addition to HbA1c, glycemic variability could be an independent risk factor for diabetes complications [10, 11]. Diabetic patients with target value of HbA1c may have different terms of glycemic variability and vascular complication consequences.

Efforts to quantify glycemic variability have relied on intermittent glucose determinations which acquired from the continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system. CGM system can detect glycemic variability in more details than the conventional self-monitoring methods of blood glucose [12, 13]. Glycemic variability parameters could be calculated with complex formulas designed specifically for the CGM data.

The present study was designed to determine the relationship between the relationship between glycemic variability assessed by CGM and diabetic peripheral neuropathy in type 2 diabetes with well-controlled HbA1c (HbA1c < 7.0%).

Materials and methods

Study subjects

Total 312 type 2 diabetes with diabetic peripheral neuropathy were screened and diagnosed at the inpatient department of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University from May 2011 to June 2014. The diagnosis of type 2 diabetes was based on the ADA diagnostic criteria 2011 [14]. The diagnosis of DPN was based on the criteria recommended by The Toronto Diabetic Neuropathy Expert Group [15]. Criteria of confirmed DPN included the presence of a symptom or symptoms or a sign or signs of neuropathy and an abnormality of nerve conduction (NC) tests. Symptoms of DPN included decreased sensation, positive neuropathic sensory symptoms (numbness, prickling or stabbing, burning or aching pain, etc.) predominantly in the toes, feet, or legs. Signs of DPN included symmetric decrease of distal sensation or unequivocally decreased or absent ankle reflexes. Signs were revealed through physical examination with tools: touch sensation was tested with a 10-g monofilament on four sites per foot, pain sensation was tested with a pin, reflexes were tested with a tendon hammer, and vibration sensation was tested with a standard 128-Hz tuning fork. The neuropathic deficit of non-diabetic origin (e.g., caused by peripheral vascular disease, arthritis, malignancy, alcohol abuse, vitamin B deficiency, spinal canal stenosis) was excluded through a careful medical history review, a differential test, or both.

And 45 type 2 diabetic patients with well-controlled HbA1c (HbA1c < 7.0%) and with DPN (DM/DPN group) were chosen and recruited for the further study. At the same time, 45 type 2 diabetic patients with well-controlled HbA1c and without DPN (DM/–DPN group) chosen from outpatient were set as controls. The two groups were also matched for age and diabetic duration. All recruited patients had no acute complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis, or other disorders affecting glucose metabolism such as hyperthyroidism. The study was approved by the institutional review board of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, with written informed consent being obtained from all participants.

Among DM/–DPN group, 10 patients treated with insulin (6 with basal insulin and 4 with pre-mixed insulin), 23 patients treated with oral hypoglycaemic agents(10 with metformin, 5 with sulfonylureas, and 8 with sulfonylureas and metformin), and 12 patients were on lifestyle intervention. Among DM/DPN group, 17 patients treated with insulin (8 with basal insulin and 9 with pre-mixed insulin), 23 patients treated with oral hypoglycaemic agents (8 with metformin, 8 with sulfonylureas, and 7 with sulfonylureas and metformin), and 5 patients were on lifestyle intervention. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥140 mmHg, or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥90 mmHg, or receiving hypertensive treatment were considered as hypertension. 23 patients in DM/–DPN group were presented with hypertension, and 17 patients in DM/DPN group were presented with hypertension.

CGM in all subjects

All subjects were monitored by CGM system (Medtronic MiniMed, Northridge, CA 91325, USA) for 72 hours. The CGM system sensor was inserted in all subjects on day 0 and removed on day 3. Data were downloaded and glucose profiles were evaluated based on the data collected on days 1 and 2. The subjects were instructed to input at least four calibration readings per day and the times of key events. During the study, all subjects had standard meals provided by dietary division. The total calorie intake was 30 kcal/kg per day, with 50% carbohydrates, 15% proteins, and 35% fats. The calorie distribution between breakfast, lunch, and dinner was 20%, 40%, and 40%, respectively. Three daily meals were required to consume at time of 6:30 to 7:30, 11:30 to 12:30, and 18:00 to 19:00, respectively. Patients maintained diabetic treatment as usual, and were instructed to avoid strenuous exercise during the CGM.

The parameters of glycemic variability included the standard deviation of blood glucose (SDBG), mean of daily differences (MODD) and mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE) [16]. MODD that calculated from the absolute difference between paired continuous glucose monitoring values during two successive 24 hour periods was used to assess day-to-day glycemic variability [17]. MAGE, designed to quantify major swings of glycemia and to exclude minor ones, was used for assessing intra-day glycemic variability in this study [18, 19]. Additionally, hypoglycemia was defined as a period with a CGM reading <3.9 mmol/L for at least 15 minutes with an antecedent non-hypoglycemic episode of at least 30 minutes [20].

Insulin sensitivity index determination

After CGM, blood samples were taken at 0, 30, 60, 90 and 120 min for the measurement of plasma glucose and insulin concentrations (glucose unit: mmol/L, insulin unit: miu/L) during 75-g oral glucose test. Insulin sensitivity was estimated using the insulin sensitivity index (ISI) of Matsuda and DeFronzo: ISI = 10000/square root of (Ins0 × Glu0) × (mean glucose × mean insulin during OGTT) [21].

Anthropometric indices and laboratory examination

Body mass index (BMI) was calculated (kg/m2). SBP and DBP were taken three times using a sphygmomanometer and then were averaged. Capillary glucose concentrations were measured with Lifescan Surestep blood glucose meter. Plasma glucose levels were measured using the glucose oxidase method. HbA1c was measured by high performance liquid chromatography(HPLC) with D-10 hemoglobin Testing Program (Bio-Rad). The serum insulin assay used magnetic beads-based enzymatic spectrofluorometric immunoassay with automatic enzyme immunoassay apparatus (AIA360, TOSOH). Serum glucose concentrations, total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC), and serum creatinine(Scr) were measured with Hitachi Model 7600 Series Automatic Analyzer. Glomerular filtration rate(GFR) was estimated by using the reexpressed 4-variable Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study equation (eGFR = 175 × (standardized Scr) –1.154 × age–0.203 × 0.742 [if female]) [22].

Statistical analyses

Data analyses were performed using the SPSS16.0 statistical software (SPSS Inc., USA). Continuous variables were expressed as means ± standard deviation (SD) or median (interquartile range) in the case of skewed distributions. Categorical variables were described as frequency (percentage). The Student t-test was applied to compare differences of continuous variables between the two groups, nonparametric test (Mann–Whitney U test) was applied to compare non-normally distributed variables between the two groups, and Chi-squared test was applied to compare categorical variables between the two groups. Two logistic regression analysis were performed to assess the impact of different risk factors on DPN: the univariate analysis were performed to estimate the contribution of clinical risk factors to DPN using the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), and the multivariate logistic regression analysis were conducted to identify independent risk factors for DPN. The risk factors were selected by a forward selection procedure based on increment of R2 in the multivariate logistic regression analysis. p < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

Baseline characteristics in the subjects

As shown in Table 1, age, sex distribution, diabetic duration, SBP, DBP, TG, HDLC, eGFR, HbA1c, and Matsuda ISI were comparable between DM/–DPN and DM/DPN groups (p > 0.05). 22.2% (n = 10) treated with insulin, 51.1%(n = 23) treated with oral hypoglycaemic agents, and 26.7%(n = 12) was on lifestyle intervention in DM/–DPN group; 37.8% (n = 17) treated with insulin, 51.1% (n = 23) treated with oral hypoglycaemic agents, and 11.1% (n = 12) was on lifestyle intervention in DM/DPN group. The two groups were comparable with regard to insulin treatment, oral hypoglycaemic agents, lifestyle intervention and stain medication (p > 0.05). BMI, TC, and LDLC of DM/DPN group were lower than those of DM/–DPN group (p < 0.05). The current drinking and smoking were comparable between the two groups (p > 0.05). The prevalence of hypertension was 51.1% in DM/–DPN group, compared with 37.8% in DM/DPN group (p > 0.05).
Table 1

Comparisons of clinical variables between DM/–DPN and DM/DPN groups

 

DM/–DPN group

DM/DPN group

t/ χ2

p

n

45

45

Age (year)

58.7 ± 6.6

59.8 ± 8.3

0.675

0.501

Female, n (%)

24 (53.3)

20 (44.4)

0.711

0.399

Diabetic duration (year)

5.0 (2.0–8.0)

6.0 (2.0–9.0)

0.413

Insulin treatment, n (%)

10 (22.2)

17 (37.8)

2.593

0.107

Lifestyle intervention, n (%)

12 (26.7)

5 (11.1)

3.554

0.059

Hypertension, n (%)

23 (51.1)

17 (37.8)

1.620

0.203

Stain medication, n (%)

8 (17.8)

13 (28.9)

1.553

0.213

Current drinking, n (%)

20 (44.4)

22 (48.9)

0.179

0.673

Current smoking, n (%)

17 (37.8)

20 (44.4)

0.413

0.520

BMI (kg/m2)

26.2 ± 3.9

23.9 ± 3.3

3.123

0.002

Height (m)

1.68 ± 0.07

1.66 ± 0.08

0.921

0.360

SBP (mmHg)

139 ± 18

134 ± 18

1.317

0.191

DBP (mmHg)

83 ± 12

80 ± 10

1.296

0.198

TG (mmol/L)

1.6 (1.0–2.9)

1.1 (0.8–1.9)

0.057

TC (mmol/L)

5.0 ± 1.3

4.4 ± 1.0

2.482

0.015

HDLC (mmol/L)

1.2 ± 0.3

1.1 ± 0.3

1.815

0.073

LDLC (mmol/L)

2.7 ± 0.8

2.3 ± 0.6

2.839

0.006

eGFR (ml/min/1.73 m2)

110 ± 26

105 ± 22

0.706

0.482

Matsuda ISI

94(69–145)

110 (58–153)

0.707

HbA1c (%)

6.4 ± 0.4

6.5 ± 0.4

1.576

0.119

Hypoglycemia, n (%)

3 (6.7)

6 (13.3)

1.111

0.292

SDBG (mmol/L)

2.1 ± 0.6

2.8 ± 0.9

3.800

<0.001

MODD (mmol/L)

1.9 ± 0.3

2.2 ± 0.6

2.873

0.005

MAGE (mmol/L)

4.5 ± 0.9

5.8 ± 1.6

2.839

<0.001

Normally distributed values in the table are given as the mean ± SD, non-normally distributed values are given as the median (25% and 75% interquartiles), and categorical variables are given as frequency (percentage).

DM/–DPN group: well-controlled type 2 diabetes without DPN; DM/DPN group: well-controlled type 2 diabetes with DPN.

BMI: body mass index; SBP/DBP: systolic/diastolic blood pressure; TC: total cholesterol; TG: triglyceride; HDLC: high density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDLC: low density lipoprotein cholesterol; HbA1c: glycosylated hemoglobin A1c; ISI: insulin sensitivity index; eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate; SDBG: standard deviation of blood glucose; MODD: mean of daily differences; MAGE: mean amplitude of glycemic excursions.

Glycemic variability in the subjects

The glycemic variability parameters from CGM data were shown in Table 1. The DM/DPN group had a greater SDBG (2.8 ± 0.9 vs. 2.1 ± 0.6 mmol/L, p < 0.001), MODD(2.2 ± 0.6 vs. 1.9 ± 0.3 mmol/L, p = 0.005) and MAGE (5.8 ± 1.6 vs. 4.5 ± 0.9 mmol/L, p < 0.001), when compared to the DM/–DPN group. 6.7% (n = 3) in DM/–DPN group had a total of 4 hypoglycemic events, meanwhile 13.3% (n = 6) in DM/DPN group had a total of 10 hypoglycemic events (6.7% vs. 13.3%, p > 0.05).

Relationships between multiple risk factors and DPN by univariate and multivariate analysis

In this study, the univariate analysis showed DPN was closely associated with BMI(OR 0.82, CI 0.72–0.94, p = 0.005), TC (OR 0.63, CI 0.42–0.93, p = 0.02), LDLC (OR 0.4, CI 0.20–0.80, p = 0.009), SDBG (OR 2.95, CI 1.55–5.61, p = 0.001), MODD (OR 4.38, CI 1.48–12.93, p = 0.008), MAGE(OR 2.18, CI 1.47–3.24, p < 0.001). And DPN failed to associate with age, diabetic duration, hypertension, insulin treatment, lifestyle intervention, stain medication, current drinking, current smoking, TG, HDLC, HbA1c, eGFR, Matsuda ISI (p > 0.05) (Table 2). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that MAGE(OR 2.05, CI 1.36–3.09, p = 0.001) and BMI(OR 0.85, CI 0.73–0.99, p = 0.033) were significantly correlating with DPN(Nagelkerke R2 = 0.317) (Table 2). Glycemic variability, evaluated by MAGE, was the most significantly independent risk factor for DPN.
Table 2

Relationships between multiple risk factors and DPN, by univariate and multivariate analysis

Variable

Univariate analysis (OR; 95% CI)

p

Multivariate analysis (OR; 95% CI)

p

Age (year)

1.02 (0.96–1.08)

0.497

 

Female, n (%)

1.43 (0.62–3.28)

0.400

 

Diabetic duration (year)

1.05 (0.97–1.15)

0.224

 

Insulin treatment, n (%)

2.13 (0.84–5.36)

0.111

 

Lifestyle intervention, n (%)

0.34 (0.11–1.08)

0.067

 

Hypertension, n (%)

0.58 (0.25–1.35)

0.205

 

Stain medication, n (%)

1.88 (0.69–5.11)

0.216

 

Current drinking, n (%)

1.20 (0.52–2.74)

0.673

 

Current smoking, n (%)

1.32 (0.57–3.06)

0.521

 

BMI (kg/m2)

0.82 (0.72–0.94)

0.005

0.85(0.73–0.99)

0.033

Height (m)

0.97 (0.92–1.03)

0.356

 

TG (mmol/L)

0.80 (0.62–1.04)

0.097

 

TC (mmol/L)

0.63 (0.42–0.93)

0.020

 

HDLC (mmol/L)

0.26 (0.06–1.16)

0.078

 

LDLC (mmol/L)

0.40 (0.20–0.80)

0.009

 

eGFR (ml/min/1.73 m2)

1.00 (0.98–1.01)

0.478

 

Matsuda ISI

1.04 (0.59–1.85)

0.891

 

HbA1c (%)

2.45 (0.79–7.64)

0.122

 

Hypoglycemia, n (%)

2.15 (0.50–9.21)

0.301

 

SDBG (mmol/L)

2.95 (1.55–5.61)

0.001

 

MODD (mmol/L)

4.38 (1.48–12.93)

0.008

 

MAGE (mmol/L)

2.18 (1.47–3.24)

<0.001

2.05 (1.36–3.09)

0.001

Results are given as odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (OR; 95% CI).

Nagelkerke R2 = 0.317 in multivariate analysis.

Discussion

HbA1c is not correlated with glycemic variability in well-controlled type 2 diabetes [23], and diabetic patients with target value of HbA1c may have different terms of glycemic variability. Hay et al. [24] reported that excessive postprandial glycemic excursions were common in well-controlled patients with type 2 diabetes treated with a sulfonylurea with or without metformin. Our previous study also showed that a segment of type 2 diabetes treated with insulin and with well-controlled HbA1c demonstrated elevated glycemic excursions [25]. In the present study DPN patients with well-controlled HbA1c showed a higher glycemic variability, compared to the matched type 2 diabetes with well-controlled HbA1c and without DPN.

We also evaluated and compared the effect of the control of glycemic variability on the development of DPN in well-controlled type 2 diabetes in the study. The results showed that there were close relationships between glycemic variability parameters and DPN in type 2 diabetes. Several previous studies showed the fasting plasma glucose(FPG) and HbA1c variability and the risk of microvascular complications in diabetes [2629], but seldom studies showed glycemic variability accessed by CGM and microvascular complications [30, 31]. Takao et al. [26, 27] revealed that in type 2 diabetes FPG variability can predict diabetic retinopathy development and progression independently of the mean FPG or HbA1c. Lin et al. [28] showed annual FPG and HbA1c variability had a strong association with diabetic nephropathy in type 2 diabetes. Kilpatrick et al. [29] in their study showed that variability in HbA1c added to the mean value in predicting of retinopathy and nephropathy in type 1 diabetes. Sartore et al. [30] showed that glycemic variability, expressed by CGM-derived indicators of short-lived glycemic fluctuations, was an important part of glycemic control in relation to the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. In a pilot study, Oyibo et al. [31] showed patients with painful neuropathy had greater glycemic excursions and possibly poorer diabetes control, compared with patients with painless neuropathy. Our study strengthens the evidence base that glycemic variability, accessed by CGM, is associated with microvascular complications among type 2 diabetes. And to our knowledge, this is the first study to document that glycemic variability accessed by CGM may play an important role in the development of DPN in type 2 diabetes, in spite of these patients with well-controlled HbA1c.

In the present study multivariate regression analysis showed that glycemic variability, evaluated by MAGE, was the most significantly correlating with DPN (OR 2.05, CI 1.36–3.09, p = 0.001). MAGE was considered as a well-validated index of glycemic variability in the paper of Monnier et al. [19], and activation of the oxidative stress by MAGE and overproduction of mitochondrial superoxide may play an axile role in the pathogenesis of diabetic complications [32, 33]. Several studies had demonstrated the association between glycemic variability evaluated by MAGE and macrovascular complications. Torimoto et al. [34] documented that MAGE played a significant role in vascular endothelial dysfunction and in progression of atherosclerosis in type 2 diabetes. Su et al. [35] documented MAGE was associated with the presence and severity of coronary artery disease in type 2 diabetes. MAGE may be an important predictor of mortality and major adverse cardiac event (MACE) in elderly patients after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) [36], and elevated admission MAGE appeared more important than admission glucose and prior long-term abnormal glycometabolic status in predicting 1-year MACE in patients with AMI [37]. In our study, the close association between MAGE and DPN(microvascular complication) was documented. Increased MAGE could result in an increased risk for both microvascular and macrovascular complications.

Several variables such as obesity, increased height, presence of hypertension, antidiabetic treatment type, current smoking and drinking, lipid disorders (such as elevated TC, TG and LDLC), identified as predictors of DPN in other populations [6, 7], did not emerge as independent predictors in the present study. According to our results patients with DPN had a significantly lower BMI, TC and LDLC, and lower BMI was the independent risk for DPN in the multivariate regression analysis. Lean (lower BMI), lower TC or LDLC may imply imbalance of nutrition in patients with DPN, which may not benefit to the rehabilitation of DPN. And moderate BMI and balanced nutrition may promote the rehabilitation of DPN. Lower BMI may be a new potential independent risk factor for DPN. There was a controversy in the relationship between insulin therapy and presence of DPN. Katulanda et al. [38] showed there was a significant association between the use of insulin and presence of DPN. Pop-Busui et al. [39] showed a glycemic control therapy with insulin-sensitizing significantly reduced the incidence of DPN compared with insulin-providing therapy among patients with type 2 diabetes followed for up to 4 years during the study. Our study showed that presence of DPN did not associated with insulin therapy. The reason may be that the study populations were different in sample, ethnicity, diabetic duration, glycemic status, and so on.

It should be pointed out that our study had some limitations. First, the most obvious limitation of the study was the cross-sectional statistical analysis, which only analyzed the relationship between magnitude of glycemic variability and DPN, and could not analyze long-term of glycemic variability and DPN. Second, it needs a follow-up study to investigate the admission MAGE in the role of the improvement of DPN. If the result is positive, it could further strength the close relationship between glycemic variability and DPN. Third, we could not assess the relationship between oxidative stress or inflammation and glycemic variability. Fourth, although we provided standard meals for patients and maintained the patients’ diabetic treatment as usual during the CGM system monitoring period, some factors, such as physical activity and emotional stress, etc., which may affect levels of glycemic variability, could not all be prevented.

Conclusion

In summary, DPN patients with well-controlled HbA1c showed a higher glycemic variability, compared with well-controlled type 2 diabetes without DPN. And glycemic variability, evaluated by MAGE, was the significantly independent risk factor for DPN in type 2 diabetes with well-controlled HbA1c (HbA1c < 7.0%).

Notes

Abbreviations

DPN: 

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy

BMI: 

Body mass index

SBP/DBP: 

Systolic/diastolic blood pressure

TC: 

Total cholesterol

TG: 

Triglyceride

HDLC: 

High density lipoprotein cholesterol

LDLC: 

Low density lipoprotein cholesterol

HbA1c: 

Glycosylated hemoglobin A1c

ISI: 

Insulin sensitivity index

eGFR: 

Estimated glomerular filtration rate

SDBG: 

Standard deviation of blood glucose

MODD: 

Mean of daily differences

MAGE: 

Mean amplitude of glycemic excursions.

Declarations

Funding

The study was funded by the Scientific Research Program of Nantong (No. HS2012028).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Endocrinology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University
(2)
Department of Clinical Laboratory, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University

References

  1. Carrington AL, Shaw JE, Van Schie CH, Abbott CA, Vileikyte L, Boulton AJ: Can motor nerve conduction velocity predict foot problems in diabetic subjects over a 6-year outcome period?. Diabetes Care. 2002, 25: 2010-2015. 10.2337/diacare.25.11.2010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Boulton AJ, Malik RA, Arezzo JC, Sosenko JM: Diabetic somatic neuropathies. Diabetes Care. 2004, 27: 1458-1486. 10.2337/diacare.27.6.1458.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Boulton AJ, Vinik AI, Arezzo JC, Bril V, Feldman EL, Freeman R, Malik RA, Maser RE, Sosenko JM, Ziegler D, American Diabetes Association: Diabetic neuropathies: a statement by the american diabetes association. Diabetes Care. 2005, 28: 956-962. 10.2337/diacare.28.4.956.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Tesfaye S, Vileikyte L, Rayman G, Sindrup S, Perkins B, Baconja M, Vinik A, Boulton A, on behalf of the Toronto Expert Panel on Diabetic Neuropathy: Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: consensus recommendations on diagnosis, assessment and management. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2011, 27: 629-638. 10.1002/dmrr.1225.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Candrilli SD, Davis KL, Kan HJ, Lucero MA, Rousculp MD: Prevalence and the associated burden of illness of symptoms of diabetic peripheral neuropathy and diabetic retinopathy. J Diabetes Complicat. 2007, 21: 306-314. 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2006.08.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Wang DD, Bakhotmah BA, Hu FB, Alzahrani HA: Prevalence and correlates of diabetic peripheral neuropathy in a saudi arabic population: a cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2014, 9: e106935-10.1371/journal.pone.0106935.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Won JC, Kwon HS, Kim CH, Lee JH, Park TS, Ko KS, Cha BY: Prevalence and clinical characteristics of diabetic peripheral neuropathy in hospital patients with Type 2 diabetes in Korea. Diabet Med. 2012, 29: e290-e296. 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2012.03697.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Monnier L, Colette C, Owens DR: Integrating glycaemic variability in the glycaemic disorders of type 2 diabetes: a move towards a unified glucose tetrad concept. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2009, 25: 393-402. 10.1002/dmrr.962.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Brownlee M, Hirsch IB: Glycemic variability: a hemoglobin A1c-independent risk factor for diabetic complications. JAMA. 2006, 295: 1707-1708. 10.1001/jama.295.14.1707.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Nalysnyk L, Hernandez-Medina M, Krishnarajah G: Glycaemic variability and complications in patients with diabetes mellitus: evidence from a systematic review of the literature. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2010, 12: 288-298. 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2009.01160.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. American Diabetes Association: Standards of medical care in diabetes—2011. Diabetes Care. 2011, 34: S11-S61.PubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Klonoff DC, Buckingham B, Christiansen JS, Montori VM, Tamborlane WV, Vigersky RA, Wolpert H, Endocrine Society: Continuous glucose monitoring: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011, 96: 2968-2979. 10.1210/jc.2010-2756.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Mauras N, Fox L, Englert K, Beck RW: Continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes. Endocrine. 2013, 43: 41-50. 10.1007/s12020-012-9765-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. American Diabetes Association: Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2011, 34: S62-S69.PubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Tesfaye S, Boulton AJ, Dyck PJ, Freeman R, Horowitz M, Kempler P, Lauria G, Malik RA, Spallone V, Vinik A, Bernardi L, Valensi P, Toronto Diabetic Neuropathy Expert Group: Diabetic neuropathies: update on definitions, diagnostic criteria, estimation of severity, and treatments. Diabetes Care. 2010, 33: 2285-2293. 10.2337/dc10-1303.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hill NR, Oliver NS, Choudhary P, Levy JC, Hindmarsh P, Matthews DR: Normal reference range for mean tissue glucose and glycemic variability derived from continuous glucose monitoring for subjects without diabetes in different ethnic groups. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011, 13: 921-928. 10.1089/dia.2010.0247.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Zhou J, Jia W, Bao Y, Ma X, Lu W, Li H, Hu C, Xiang K: Glycemic variability and its responses to intensive insulin treatment in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Med Sci Monit. 2008, 14: CR552-CR558.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Zhou J, Li H, Ran X, Yang W, Li Q, Peng Y, Li Y, Gao X, Luan X, Wang W, Jia W: Establishment of normal reference ranges for glycemic variability in Chinese subjects using continuous glucose monitoring. Med Sci Monit. 2011, 17: CR9-CR13.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Monnier L, Mas E, Ginet C, Michel F, Villo LN, Cristol JP, Colette C: Activation of oxidative stress by acute glucose fluctuations compared with sustained chronic hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. JAMA. 2006, 295: 1681-1687. 10.1001/jama.295.14.1681.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kubiak T, Hermanns N, Schreckling HJ, Kulzer B, Haak T: Assessment of hypoglycaemia awareness using continuous glucose monitoring. Diabet Med. 2004, 21: 487-490. 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2004.1136.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Matsuda M, DeFronzo RA: Insulin sensitivity indices obtained from oral glucose tolerance testing: comparison with the euglycemic insulin clamp. Diabetes Care. 1999, 22: 1462-1470. 10.2337/diacare.22.9.1462.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Levey AS, Coresh J, Greene T, Stevens LA, Zhang YL, Hendriksen S, Kusek JW, Van Lente F, Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration: Using standardized serum creatinine values in the modification of diet in renal disease study equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med. 2006, 145: 247-254. 10.7326/0003-4819-145-4-200608150-00004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kohnert KD, Augstein P, Heinke P, Zander E, Peterson K, Freyse EJ, Salzsieder E: Chronic hyperglycemia but not glucose variability determines HbA1c levels in well-controlled patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2007, 77: 420-426. 10.1016/j.diabres.2007.01.021.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hay LC, Wilmshurst EG, Fulcher G: Unrecognized hypo- and hyperglycemia in well-controlled patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: the results of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2003, 5: 19-26. 10.1089/152091503763816427.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Su JB, Wang XQ, Chen JF, Wu G, Jin Y: Glycemic variability in insulin treated type 2 diabetes with well-controlled hemoglobin A1c and its response to further treatment with acarbose. Chin Med J (Engl). 2011, 124: 144-147.Google Scholar
  26. Takao T, Ide T, Yanagisawa H, Kikuchi M, Kawazu S, Matsuyama Y: The effect of fasting plasma glucose variability on the risk of retinopathy in type 2 diabetic patients: retrospective long-term follow-up. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010, 89: 296-302. 10.1016/j.diabres.2010.03.027.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Takao T, Ide T, Yanagisawa H, Kikuchi M, Kawazu S, Matsuyama Y: The effects of fasting plasma glucose variability and time-dependent glycemic control on the long-term risk of retinopathy in type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011, 91: e40-e42. 10.1016/j.diabres.2010.10.009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kilpatrick ES, Rigby AS, Atkin SL: A1C variability and the risk of microvascular complications in type 1 diabetes: data from the diabetes control and complications trial. Diabetes Care. 2008, 31: 2198-2202. 10.2337/dc08-0864.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lin CC, Chen CC, Chen FN, Li CI, Liu CS, Lin WY, Yang SY, Lee CC, Li TC: Risks of diabetic nephropathy with variation in hemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose. Am J Med. 2013, 126: 1017e1-1017e10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Sartore G, Chilelli NC, Burlina S, Lapolla A: Association between glucose variability as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and diabetic retinopathy in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Acta Diabetol. 2013, 50: 437-442. 10.1007/s00592-013-0459-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Oyibo SO, Prasad YD, Jackson NJ, Jude EB, Boulton AJ: The relationship between blood glucose excursions and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a pilot study. Diabet Med. 2002, 19: 870-873. 10.1046/j.1464-5491.2002.00801.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Brownlee M: Biochemistry and molecular cell biology of diabetic complications. Nature. 2001, 414: 813-820. 10.1038/414813a.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Brownlee M: The pathophysiology of diabetic complications: a unifying mechanism. Diabetes. 2005, 54: 1615-1625. 10.2337/diabetes.54.6.1615.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Torimoto K, Okada Y, Mori H, Tanaka Y: Relationship between fluctuations in glucose levels measured by continuous glucose monitoring and vascular endothelial dysfunction in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2013, 12: 1-10.1186/1475-2840-12-1.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Su G, Mi S, Tao H, Li Z, Yang H, Zheng H, Zhou Y, Ma C: Association of glycemic variability and the presence and severity of coronary artery disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2011, 10: 19-10.1186/1475-2840-10-19.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Su G, Mi SH, Li Z, Tao H, Yang HX, Zheng H: Prognostic value of early in-hospital glycemic excursion in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2013, 12: 33-10.1186/1475-2840-12-33.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Su G, Mi SH, Tao H, Li Z, Yang HX, Zheng H, Zhou Y, Tian L: Impact of admission glycemic variability, glucose, and glycosylated hemoglobin on major adverse cardiac events after acute myocardial infarction. Diabetes Care. 2013, 36: 1026-1032. 10.2337/dc12-0925.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Katulanda P, Ranasinghe P, Jayawardena R, Constantine GR, Sheriff MH, Matthews DR: The prevalence, patterns and predictors of diabetic peripheral neuropathy in a developing country. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2012, 4: 21-10.1186/1758-5996-4-21.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Pop-Busui R, Lu J, Brooks MM, Albert S, Althouse AD, Escobedo J, Green J, Palumbo P, Perkins BA, Whitehouse F, Jones TL, BARI 2D Study Group: Impact of glycemic control strategies on the progression of diabetic peripheral neuropathy in the bypass angioplasty revascularization investigation 2 diabetes (BARI 2D) cohort. Diabetes Care. 2013, 36: 3208-3215. 10.2337/dc13-0012.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Xu et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement