What role for metformin in type 1 diabetes?

2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (7) ◽  
pp. 78-80 ◽  

Tight glycaemic control is key to reducing the risk of cardiovascular and microvascular complications in people with type 1 diabetes.1 Standard treatment involves optimising insulin therapy to achieve an HbA1c level of 48mmol/mol (6.5%) or lower. Although not licensed for use in type 1 diabetes, metformin is included in some clinical guidelines as adjuvant therapy for people with type 1 diabetes who are overweight and wish to improve glycaemic control while minimising the dose of insulin.1,2 The REMOVAL study is the largest trial to date that has investigated the longer-term effects of metformin in people with type 1 diabetes.3 Here, we consider the role of metformin in individuals with type 1 diabetes in light of these results and other study findings.

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Paterson ◽  
Kirstine J. Bell ◽  
Susan M. O’Connell ◽  
Carmel E. Smart ◽  
Amir Shafat ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 66-71
Author(s):  
L. L. Bolotskaya ◽  
Yu. Yu. Golubkina ◽  
A. A. Tolkacheva ◽  
L. N. Nikankina

Introduction. The results of a 25-year observational program to assess the effect of glycated hemoglobin variability on the development of microvascular complications in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus are presented.Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) variability on the development of microvascular complications in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM1) and disease duration of 25 years.Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis of the database of patients with DM1 was performed from the moment of the disease manifestation until the time of the last visit. Determination of HbA1c level is carried out using parameters certified in accordance with the National Standard for Glycohemoglobin Standardization (NGSP) or the International Federation of Clinical Chemists (IFCC). HbA1c variability was determinated by average current HbA1c, average of longitudinal HbA1c (from the manifestation to the last visit – 2019), median and maximum of difference in changes of HbA1c (median and max∆HbA1c). Statistical analysis was performed by IBM SPSS Statistics ver.22. A statistically significant difference is the value p < 0.05.Results. A total of 88 patients were enrolled in this study, they were divided in 3 groups depending on the registered microvascular complications (MVC): without MVC (n = 38), isolated MVC (retinopathy or nephropathy) (n = 25) and multiple MVC (retinopathy and nephropathy) (n = 25). Clinical characteristics [median (25; 75 percentile)]: age of manifestation of DM1 is 9 years (5; 12), age of patients at the time of the last visit is 33 years (29; 35), duration of DM1 is 24 years (20; 27), body mass index 24 kg/m2 (21; 25). Medication: basal-bolus insulin therapy (n = 82) or pump insulin therapy (n = 6). The average level of longitudinal HbA1c for the three groups was: 8% (7.6; 8.9), 8.5% (7.9; 8.9), 8.6% (7.8; 10), p = 0.2. Average of current (at the time of the last visit) HbA1c – 8.2% (7.2; 9.0), 8.1% (7.5; 9.0), 8.4% (7.3; 9.7), p = 0.4. Statistically significant differences were determined in the group without complications and in the group with multiple complications between the levels of maxΔ HbA1c 2.3% (1.8; 2.8) vs 4.7% (3.2; 5.6), p < 0.0001 and median Δ HbA1c 0.7% (0.6; 0.9) vs 1.4% (1; 1.7), р < 0.0001. There were no statistically significant relationships between the maximum and medianΔ HbA1c in the groups without complications and in the group with isolated complications.Conclusions: Longitudinal HbA1c and current HbA1c are not associated with the development of microvascular complications. The potential role in the development of microvascular complications was determined for the maximum and median Δ HbA1c.


Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
pp. 3558
Author(s):  
Dieter Furthner ◽  
Andreas Lukas ◽  
Anna Maria Schneider ◽  
Katharina Mörwald ◽  
Katharina Maruszczak ◽  
...  

Carbohydrate counting (CHC) is the established form of calculating bolus insulin for meals in children with type 1 diabetes (T1DM). With the widespread use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) observation time has become gapless. Recently, the impact of fat, protein and not only carbohydrates on prolonged postprandial hyperglycaemia have become more evident to patients and health-care professionals alike. However, there is no unified recommendation on how to calculate and best administer additional bolus insulin for these two macronutrients. The aim of this review is to investigate: the scientific evidence of how dietary fat and protein influence postprandial glucose levels; current recommendations on the adjustment of bolus insulin; and algorithms for insulin application in children with T1DM. A PubMed search for all articles addressing the role of fat and protein in paediatric (sub-)populations (<18 years old) and a mixed age population (paediatric and adult) with T1DM published in the last 10 years was performed. Conclusion: Only a small number of studies with a very low number of participants and high degree of heterogeneity was identified. While all studies concluded that additional bolus insulin for (high) fat and (high) protein is necessary, no consensus on when dietary fat and/or protein should be taken into calculation and no unified algorithm for insulin therapy in this context exists. A prolonged postprandial observation time is necessary to improve individual metabolic control. Further studies focusing on a stratified paediatric population to create a safe and effective algorithm, taking fat and protein into account, are necessary.


2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liliana Indelicato ◽  
Vincenzo Calvo ◽  
Marco Dauriz ◽  
Arianna Negri ◽  
Carlo Negri ◽  
...  

Diabetes Care ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 28 (9) ◽  
pp. 2170-2175 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. J. Glastras ◽  
M. E. Craig ◽  
C. F. Verge ◽  
A. K. Chan ◽  
J. M. Cusumano ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document