Glucose variability assessed by low blood glucose index is predictive of hypoglycemic events in patientswith type 1 diabetes switched to pump therapy

17Citations
Citations of this article
63Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE-To determine whether subgroups of type 1 diabetic patients with different glucose variability indices respond differently to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in terms of reduced hypoglycemic events. RESEARCH DESIGN ANDMETHODSdWe studied 50 adults with long-standing type 1 diabetes switched to CSII because of persistently high A1C or frequent hypoglycemia despite well-managed intensive basal-bolus therapy. We compared A1C, hypoglycemic events, and glucose variability from self-monitoring of blood glucose profiles at baseline and after 6 months of CSII. Regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of response. RESULTS-In multivariate analysis, baseline low blood glucose index (LBGI) was the best independent predictor of hypoglycemia outcome on CSII (R2 = 0.195, P = 0.0013). An ROC curve analysis demonstrated a sensitivity of 70.8% (95% CI 48.9-87.4) and specificity of 73.1% (52.2-88.4) by using the LBGI cutoff of 3.34 as predictor of reduction of hypoglycemia on CSII. By grouping patients by LBGI tertiles, we found a 23.3%reduction in hypoglycemic events (<60 mg/dL [3.3 mmol/L]) in the third tertile (range 4.18-9.34) without change in A1C (P<0.05). Conversely, the first tertile (range 0.62-2.05) demonstrated the greatest A1C reduction,20.99% (P = 0.00001), but with increasing hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS-Baseline LBGI predicts the outcome of type 1 diabetic patients who switch to CSII in terms of hypoglycemia. © 2013 by the American Diabetes Association.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Crenier, L., Abou-Elias, C., & Corvilain, B. (2013). Glucose variability assessed by low blood glucose index is predictive of hypoglycemic events in patientswith type 1 diabetes switched to pump therapy. Diabetes Care, 36(8), 2148–2153. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc12-2058

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free