HbA1c variability as an independent risk factor for diabetic retinopathy in type 1 diabetes: A german/austrian multicenter analysis on 35,891 patients

77Citations
Citations of this article
67Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to analyze the effect of HbA1c variability on the occurrence of diabetic retinopathy in type 1 diabetes patients. Patients and Methods: 35,891 patients with childhood, adolescent or adult onset of type 1 diabetes from a large multicentre survey, the German/Austrian prospective documentation system (DPV), were analysed. Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine whether intra-individual HbA1c variability expressed as variation coefficient is an independent risk factor for the occurrence of diabetic retinopathy. Results: Kaplan-Meier curves stratified by median HbA1c and variation coefficient revealed that retinopathy-free survival probability is lower when both median HbA1c and HbA1c variability are above the 50th percentile. Cox regression models confirmed this finding: After adjustment for age at diabetes onset, gender and median HbA1c, HbA1c variability was independently associated with the occurrence of diabetic retinopathy. Time-covariate interactions used to model nonproportionality indicated an effect decreasing with duration of diabetes for both median HbA1c and HbA1c variability. Predictive accuracy increased significantly when adding HbA1c variability to the Cox regression model. Conclusions: In patients with type 1 diabetes, HbA 1c variability adds to the risk of diabetic retinopathy independently of average metabolic control. © 2014 Hermann et al.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hermann, J. M., Hammes, H. P., Rami-Merhar, B., Rosenbauer, J., Schütt, M., Siegel, E., & Holl, R. W. (2014). HbA1c variability as an independent risk factor for diabetic retinopathy in type 1 diabetes: A german/austrian multicenter analysis on 35,891 patients. PLoS ONE, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091137

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 23

72%

Professor / Associate Prof. 4

13%

Researcher 3

9%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 35

83%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3

7%

Neuroscience 2

5%

Social Sciences 2

5%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 3

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free