The Relation of Diabetes Complications to a New Interpretation of Glycaemic Variability from Continuous Glucose Monitoring in People with Type 1 Diabetes

Overview

Journal Diabetes Ther

Specialty Cardiology & Vascular Diseases

Date 2024 Oct 23

PMID 39443335

Authors

Adrian H Heald

Mike Stedman

John Warner Levy

Lleyton Belston

Angela Paisley

Reena Patel

Alison White

Edward Jude

JMartin Gibson

Hellena Habte-Asres

Martin Whyte

Angus Forbes

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: Microvascular and macrovascular complications in type 1 diabetes (T1D) may be linked to endothelial stress due to glycaemic variability. Continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGMs) provide new opportunities to quantify this variability, utilising the amplitude of glucose change summated over time. The aim of this study was to examine whether this determination of glucose variability (GV) is associated with microvascular clinical sequelae.

Methods: Continuous glucose monitoring values were downloaded for 89 type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) individuals for up to 18 months from 2021 to 2023. Data for patient demographics was also taken from the patient record which included Sex, Date of Birth, and Date of Diagnosis. The recorded laboratory glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) test results were also recorded. The glucose management index (GMI) was calculated from average glucose readings for 18 months using the formula GMI (%) = (0.82-(Average glucose/100)). This was then adjusted to give GMI (mmol/mol) = 10.929 * (GMI (%) - 2.15). Average Glucose Fluctuation (AGF) was calculated by adding up the total absolute change value between all recorded results over 18 months and dividing by the number of results minus one. The % Above Critical Threshold (ACT) was calculated by summing the total number of occurrences for each result value. A cumulative 95% limit was then applied to identify the glucose value that only 5% of results exceeded in the overall population. Using this value, we estimated the percentage of total tests that were above the Critical Threshold (ACT).

Results: Results for the 89 individuals (44 men and 45 women) were analysed over 18 months. The mean age of participants was 43 years and the mean duration of diabetes was 18 years. A total of 3.22 million readings were analysed, giving an average of 10.3 mmol/L blood glucose. Those with the largest change in glucose from reading to reading, summated over time, showed the greatest change in eGFR of 3.12 ml/min/1.73 m (p = 0.007). People with a higher proportion of glucose readings > 18 mmol/L showed a fall in eGFR of 2.8 ml/min/1.73 m (p = 0.009) and experienced higher rates of sight-threatening retinopathy (44% of these individuals) (p = 0.01) as did 39% of individuals in the highest tertile of glucose levels (p = 0.008).

Conclusion: Those individuals with T1D in the highest tertile of reading-to-reading glucose change showed the greatest change in eGFR. Those with a higher proportion of glucose readings > 18 mmol/L also showed a fall in eGFR and experienced higher rates of sight-threatening retinopathy, as did people with higher mean glucose. Discussions with T1D individuals could reflect on how the percentage recorded glucose above a critical level and degree of change in glucose are important in avoiding future tissue complications.

References

Nathan D, Genuth S, Lachin J, Cleary P, Crofford O, Davis M . The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993; 329(14):977-86. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199309303291401. View

Nathan D, Cleary P, Backlund J, Genuth S, Lachin J, Orchard T . Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353(25):2643-53. PMC: 2637991. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa052187. View

. Glucose Variability in a 26-Week Randomized Comparison of Mealtime Treatment With Rapid-Acting Insulin Versus GLP-1 Agonist in Participants With Type 2 Diabetes at High Cardiovascular Risk. Diabetes Care. 2016; 39(6):973-81. DOI: 10.2337/dc15-2782. View

Skol A, Jung S, Sokovic A, Chen S, Fazal S, Sosina O . Integration of genomics and transcriptomics predicts diabetic retinopathy susceptibility genes. Elife. 2020; 9. PMC: 7728435. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.59980. View

. The relationship of glycemic exposure (HbA1c) to the risk of development and progression of retinopathy in the diabetes control and complications trial. Diabetes. 1995; 44(8):968-83. View

Giacco F, Brownlee M . Oxidative stress and diabetic complications. Circ Res. 2010; 107(9):1058-70. PMC: 2996922. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.110.223545. View

Scott E, Januszewski A, OConnell R, Fulcher G, Scott R, Kesaniemi A . Long-Term Glycemic Variability and Vascular Complications in Type 2 Diabetes: Post Hoc Analysis of the FIELD Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020; 105(10). DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa361. View

Suh S, Kim J . Glycemic Variability: How Do We Measure It and Why Is It Important?. Diabetes Metab J. 2015; 39(4):273-82. PMC: 4543190. DOI: 10.4093/dmj.2015.39.4.273. View

Bragd J, Adamson U, Backlund L, Lins P, Moberg E, Oskarsson P . Can glycaemic variability, as calculated from blood glucose self-monitoring, predict the development of complications in type 1 diabetes over a decade?. Diabetes Metab. 2008; 34(6 Pt 1):612-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.diabet.2008.04.005. View

10.

Kilpatrick E, Rigby A, Atkin S . Effect of glucose variability on the long-term risk of microvascular complications in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2009; 32(10):1901-3. PMC: 2752912. DOI: 10.2337/dc09-0109. View

11.

Leelarathna L, Evans M, Neupane S, Rayman G, Lumley S, Cranston I . Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Type 1 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2022; 387(16):1477-1487. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2205650. View

12.

Quagliaro L, Piconi L, Assaloni R, Martinelli L, Motz E, Ceriello A . Intermittent high glucose enhances apoptosis related to oxidative stress in human umbilical vein endothelial cells: the role of protein kinase C and NAD(P)H-oxidase activation. Diabetes. 2003; 52(11):2795-804. DOI: 10.2337/diabetes.52.11.2795. View

13.

. Glucose tolerance and mortality: comparison of WHO and American Diabetes Association diagnostic criteria. The DECODE study group. European Diabetes Epidemiology Group. Diabetes Epidemiology: Collaborative analysis Of Diagnostic criteria in Europe. Lancet. 1999; 354(9179):617-21. View

14.

Heinemann L, Freckmann G, Muller-Wieland D, Kellerer M . Critical Reappraisal of the Time-in-Range: Alternative or Useful Addition to Glycated Hemoglobin?. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019; 14(5):922-927. PMC: 7753853. DOI: 10.1177/1932296819883885. View

15.

Beck R, Connor C, Mullen D, Wesley D, Bergenstal R . The Fallacy of Average: How Using HbA Alone to Assess Glycemic Control Can Be Misleading. Diabetes Care. 2017; 40(8):994-999. PMC: 5521971. DOI: 10.2337/dc17-0636. View

16.

Deckert T, Poulsen J, Larsen M . Prognosis of diabetics with diabetes onset before the age of thirty-one. I. Survival, causes of death, and complications. Diabetologia. 1978; 14(6):363-70. DOI: 10.1007/BF01228130. View

17.

Lu J, Ma X, Zhou J, Zhang L, Mo Y, Ying L . Association of Time in Range, as Assessed by Continuous Glucose Monitoring, With Diabetic Retinopathy in Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2018; 41(11):2370-2376. DOI: 10.2337/dc18-1131. View

18.

Pieber T, Marso S, McGuire D, Zinman B, Poulter N, Emerson S . DEVOTE 3: temporal relationships between severe hypoglycaemia, cardiovascular outcomes and mortality. Diabetologia. 2017; 61(1):58-65. PMC: 6002964. DOI: 10.1007/s00125-017-4422-0. View

19.

Bergenstal R, Beck R, Close K, Grunberger G, Sacks D, Kowalski A . Glucose Management Indicator (GMI): A New Term for Estimating A1C From Continuous Glucose Monitoring. Diabetes Care. 2018; 41(11):2275-2280. PMC: 6196826. DOI: 10.2337/dc18-1581. View

20.

Livingstone R, Boyle J, Petrie J . How tightly controlled do fluctuations in blood glucose levels need to be to reduce the risk of developing complications in people with Type 1 diabetes?. Diabet Med. 2019; 37(4):513-521. DOI: 10.1111/dme.13911. View