ArticleScientific reports2024
Clinical implications and pharmacological considerations of glycemic variability in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Glycemic variability (GV), independently of glycemic control, has emerged as a prognostic marker in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). In this study, we assessed the prognostic value of long-term GV for predicting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in our local population. We also assessed its prognostic value for diabetic microvascular complications (DMC) and its relationships with antidiabetic medications. This was a retrospective cohort study that recruited 680 patients with type 2 DM across 2015-2017. MACE were defined as: the composite of; total death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, hospitalization due to heart failure, and revascularization. GV was calculated for two glycemic control markers: glycated hemoglobin (G-Hb) and fasting blood sugar (FBS); via three metrics- standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), and variability independent from the mean (VIM). Cox proportional hazard models and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used in the statistical analysis. 105 events classified as MACE were identified in 86 patients and 104 DMC in 98 patients in an average follow-up period of 78.43 months. Long-term GV was found to be an independent predictor of MACE, particularly for FBS-CV but not a predictor of DMC. FBS-CV ≥ 17.51% as compared with < 17.51% was a significant and independent predictor of MACE, with HR 1.589 (95% CI; 1.022, 2.472) (P = 0.040). DMC were predicted mainly by the duration of type 2 DM, and by the glycemic control; similarly represented by G-Hb and FBS. Patients on metformin, and dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP) 4 inhibitors, had the lowest GV, as compared with patients whose treatments included insulin/sulphonylureas (P < 0.001). In our population, long-term GV predicted MACE: with FBS-CV superior to the "gold standard" glycemic control marker G-Hb. Further, GV may be explained, partially at least, by the choice of antidiabetic medications: this finding might contribute to the cardiovascular protection attributed to one class rather than another.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.