Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 410078, Changsha, People's Republic of China.
Hunan Key Laboratory of Pharmacogenetics, Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Central South University, 410078, Changsha, People's Republic of China.
Endocrine. 2019 Jun;64(3):536-543. doi: 10.1007/s12020-019-01893-1. Epub 2019 Mar 13.
The prognostic impact of visit-to-visit glycemic variability on clinical outcomes in patients with different glycemic control and type 2 diabetes remains obscure. We investigated glucose variability and clinical outcomes for patients in the groups of Good glycemic control (GC), Insufficient glycemic control (IC), and Poor glycemic control (PC) in a prospective cohort study.
By using data from Action in Diabetes and Vascular disease: preterAx and diamicroN-MR Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE), 930 patients were enrolled from 61 centers in China and grouped into GC, IC, and PC according to their glycated hemoglobin A1 (HbA1) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). Visit-to-visit glycemic variability was defined using the coefficient of variation (CV) of five measurements of HbA1 and FPG taken 3-24 months after treatment. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were employed to estimate adjusted hazard ratio (aHR).
Among 930 patients in the intensive glucose control, 82, 538, and 310 patients were assigned to GC, IC, and PC, respectively. During the median of 4.8 years of follow-up, 322 patients were observed hypoglycemia and 244 patients experienced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The CV of HbA1 and FPG was significantly lower for GC (6.0 ± 3.8, 11.2 ± 6.2) than IC (8.3 ± 5.6, 17.9 ± 10.6) and PC (9.5 ± 6.3, 19.3 ± 10.8). High glycemic variability was associated with a greater risk of MACE (aHR: 2.21; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.61-3.03; p < 0.001) and hypoglycemia (aHR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.04-1.79; p = 0.025) than low glycemic variability in total patients. The consistent trend was also found in subgroups of GC, IC, and PC.
This prospective cohort study showed that glycemic variability was significantly lower for GC than IC and PC. Furthermore, glycemic variability was associated with the risk of MACE and hypoglycemia in total patients and subgroups of different glycemic control.
在不同血糖控制和 2 型糖尿病患者中,血糖波动与临床结局的预后相关性尚不清楚。我们通过前瞻性队列研究,对血糖良好控制(GC)、血糖控制不佳(IC)和血糖控制差(PC)三组患者的血糖波动和临床结局进行了研究。
利用来自亚洲糖尿病前瞻性观察研究(ADVANCE)的资料,我们从中国 61 个中心共入选 930 例患者,根据糖化血红蛋白(HbA1)和空腹血糖(FPG)将患者分为 GC、IC 和 PC 三组。HbA1 和 FPG 治疗后 3-24 个月内测量的 5 次血糖的变异系数(CV)定义为血糖波动。采用多变量 Cox 比例风险模型来估计调整后的危险比(aHR)。
在强化血糖控制的 930 例患者中,82 例、538 例和 310 例患者分别被分到 GC、IC 和 PC 三组。在中位 4.8 年的随访期间,有 322 例患者发生低血糖,244 例患者发生主要不良心血管事件(MACE)。GC 组的 HbA1 和 FPG 的 CV 明显低于 IC 组(6.0±3.8、11.2±6.2)和 PC 组(9.5±6.3、19.3±10.8)(均 P<0.001)。高血糖波动与 MACE(aHR:2.21;95%置信区间(CI):1.61-3.03;P<0.001)和低血糖(aHR:1.36;95%CI:1.04-1.79;P=0.025)的风险增加显著相关,这一趋势在 GC、IC 和 PC 组亚组中也一致存在。
本前瞻性队列研究表明,GC 组的血糖波动明显低于 IC 和 PC 组。此外,血糖波动与总人群以及不同血糖控制亚组的 MACE 和低血糖风险相关。