Login Register Cart 0
Generic placeholder image

Current Diabetes Reviews

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1573-3998
ISSN (Online): 1875-6417

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Journal Insight Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Research Article

Comparative Effectiveness of Oral Hypoglycemic Agents for Glycemic Control and Glycemic Variability in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Using Flash Glucose Monitoring

In Press, (this is not the final "Version of Record"). Available online 16 January, 2024
Author(s): Poongothai Venkatachalapathy, Karthik Kumar Dos Alagarswamy Mohandoss, Murali Munisamy and Mohan Sellappan*
Published on: 16 January, 2024

Article ID: e160124225706

DOI: 10.2174/0115733998267817231227102553

Price: $95

Abstract

Aim: The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) as monotherapy, dual and quadruple therapy for glycemic control (GC) and glycemic variability (GV) in patients with type-2 diabetes (T2DM) using flash glucose monitoring system (FGM).

Background: Diabetes management largely relies on HbA1c monitoring. Glycemic variability (GV) has been an evolving glycemic target for preventing complications related to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Objective: The purpose of the study was to compare glycemic control (GC) measures and glycemic variability (GV) measures among study groups and to study the relationships between GC and GV indices.

Methods: Retrospectively, FGM data were collected from 50 T2DM patients. The patients were classified based on prescribed number of OHAs as monotherapy [group 1: dipeptidyl peptidase- 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (n=10), group 2: sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (n=10), group 3: sulphonylureas (n=10), group 4: dual therapy (n=10), and group 5: quadruple therapy (n=10)]. Measures of GC and GV were evaluated.

Results: Significant differences between study groups were observed in GC and GV measurements. The SGLT2 inhibitors monotherapy group demonstrated optimal GC [eA1c (%): 6.5 ± 2.2; MBG: 140.80 ± 63.94; TIR: 60.60 ± 19.96] and GV (SD: 42.38 ± 34.57; CV: 27.85 ± 6.68; MAGE: 96.76 ± 52.47; MODD: 33.96 ± 22.91) in comparison to other study groups. On using Pearson correlation analysis, mean blood glucose (MBG) and mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (MAGE) showed moderate correlation (r = 0.742)(r2 = 0.551), depicting distinct glucose variabilities at the same mean blood glucose levels.

Conclusion: The monotherapy group of SGLT2 inhibitors demonstrated glucose-lowering effects with reduced glycemic variability. Hence, optimum glycemic control is associated with decreased glycemic variability.

[1]
International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas. (9th ed.), Brussels, Belgium 2019.
[2]
Saboo B, Chawla M, Jha S, et al. Consensus and recommendations on continuous glucose monitoring. J Diabetology 2019; 10(1): 4-14.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jod.jod_45_18]
[3]
Garber AJ, Abrahamson MJ, Barzilay JI, et al. Consensus statement by the American association of clinical endocrinologists and American college of endocrinology on the comprehensive type 2 diabetes management algorithm – 2019 executive summary. Endocr Pract 2019; 25(1): 69-101.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4158/CS-2018-0535] [PMID: 30742570]
[4]
Chehregosha H, Khamseh ME, Malek M, Hosseinpanah F, Ismail-Beigi F. A view beyond HbA1c: Role of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Ther 2019; 10(3): 853-63.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13300-019-0619-1] [PMID: 31037553]
[5]
Kohnert K-D, Vogt L, Salzseider E. Advances in understanding glucose variability and the role of continuous glucose monitoring. Eur J Endocrinol 2010; 6(1): 53-6.
[6]
Ceriello A, Monnier L, Owens D. Glycaemic variability in diabetes: Clinical and therapeutic implications. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2019; 7(3): 221-30.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30136-0] [PMID: 30115599]
[7]
Penckofer S, Quinn L, Byrn M, Ferrans C, Miller M, Strange P. Does glycemic variability impact mood and quality of life? Diabetes Technol Ther 2012; 14(4): 303-10.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/dia.2011.0191] [PMID: 22324383]
[8]
Unnikrishnan AG, Purandare VB. Ambulatory glucose profile as an educational tool in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. IJMRHS 2020; 8(2): 734-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20200032]
[9]
Li Y, Xu L, Shen J, et al. Effects of short-term therapy with different insulin secretagogues on glucose metabolism, lipid parameters and oxidative stress in newly diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2010; 88(1): 42-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2009.12.017] [PMID: 20060192]
[10]
Bao YQ, Zhou J, Zhou M, et al. Glipizide controlled‐release tablets, with or without acarbose, improve glycaemic variability in newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 2010; 37(5-6): 564-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1681.2010.05361.x] [PMID: 20082624]
[11]
Suh S, Kim JH. Glycemic variability: How do we measure it and why is it important? Diabetes Metab J 2015; 39(4): 273-82.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4093/dmj.2015.39.4.273] [PMID: 26301188]
[12]
Pagacz K, Stawiski K, Szadkowska A, Mlynarski W, Fendler W. GlyCulator2: An update on a web application for calculation of glycemic variability indices. Acta Diabetol 2018; 55(8): 877-80.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00592-018-1140-0] [PMID: 29651558]
[13]
The DCCT Research Group. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT). Design and methodologic considerations for the feasibility phase. Diabetes 1986; 35(5): 530-45.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/diab.35.5.530] [PMID: 2869996]
[14]
Hsia DS, Grove O, Cefalu WT. An update on SGLT2 inhibitors for the treatment of diabetes mellitus. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 2017; 24(1): 73-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MED.0000000000000311] [PMID: 27898586]
[15]
Chao EC. SGLT-2 inhibitors: A new mechanism for glycemic control. Clin Diabetes 2014; 32(1): 4-11.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/diaclin.32.1.4] [PMID: 26246672]
[16]
Hirsch IB, Sherr JL, Hood KK. Connecting the dots: Validation of time in range metrics with microvascular outcomes. Diabetes Care 2019; 42(3): 345-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dci18-0040] [PMID: 30787056]
[17]
Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM, et al. Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: Recommendations from the international consensus on time in range. Diabetes Care 2019; 42(8): 1593-603.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dci19-0028] [PMID: 31177185]
[18]
Suzuki D, Yamada H, Yoshida M, et al. Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors improved time‐in‐range without increasing hypoglycemia in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes: A retrospective, single‐center, pilot study. J Diabetes Investig 2020; 11(5): 1230-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jdi.13240] [PMID: 32100964]
[19]
Kaviarasan S, Muniandy S, Qvist R, Ismail IS. F(2)-isoprostanes as novel biomarkers for type 2 diabetes: A review. J Clin Biochem Nutr 2009; 45(1): 1-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3164/jcbn.08-266] [PMID: 19590700]
[20]
Service FJ. Glucose variability. Diabetes 2013; 62(5): 1398-404.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/db12-1396] [PMID: 23613565]
[21]
Jin SM, Kim TH, Bae JC, et al. Clinical factors associated with absolute and relative measures of glycemic variability determined by continuous glucose monitoring: An analysis of 480 subjects. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2014; 104(2): 266-72.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2014.02.003] [PMID: 24630619]
[22]
Yoo S, Chin SO, Lee SA, Koh G. Factors associated with glycemic variability in patients with type 2 diabetes: Focus on oral hypoglycemic agents and cardiovascular risk factors. Endocrinol Metab 2015; 30(3): 352-60.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3803/EnM.2015.30.3.352] [PMID: 26248860]
[23]
Chiba K, Nomoto H, Nakamura A, Cho KY, Yamashita K, Shibayama Y. Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors reduce day-to-day glucose variability in patients with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Investig 2020; 12(2): 176-83.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jdi.13335] [PMID: 32593203]
[24]
Nathan DM, Kuenen J, Borg R, Zheng H, Schoenfeld D, Heine RJ. Translating the A1C assay into estimated average glucose values. Diabetes Care 2008; 31(8): 1473-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc08-0545] [PMID: 18540046]
[25]
Vigersky RA, McMahon C. The relationship of hemoglobin a1c to time-in-range in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2019; 21(2): 81-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/dia.2018.0310] [PMID: 30575414]
[26]
Borg R, Kuenen JC, Carstensen B, et al. Associations between features of glucose exposure and A1C: the A1C-Derived Average Glucose (ADAG) study. Diabetes 2010; 59(7): 1585-90.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/db09-1774] [PMID: 20424232]
[27]
Vasilakou D, Karagiannis T, Athanasiadou E, Mainou M, Liakos A, Bekiari E. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2013; 159(4): 262-74.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-159-4-201308200-00007] [PMID: 24026259]
[28]
Shao SC, Chang KC, Lin SJ, et al. Favorable pleiotropic effects of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors: Head-to-head comparisons with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes patients. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2020; 19(1): 17.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12933-020-0990-2] [PMID: 32050968]
[29]
Taylor PJ, Lange K, Thompson CH, Gary W, Brinkworth GD. Association of glycemic variability and the anti-glycemic medication effect score in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Manag 2018; 8(5): 117-21.
[30]
Kohnert K, Heinke P, Vogt L, Zander E, Fritzsche G, Augstein P. Reduced glucose variability is associated with improved quality of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: A 12-month observational study. J Endocrinol Metab 2011; 1(2): 64-72.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/jem21w]

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
© 2025 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy