Association of estimated glucose disposal rate and chronic diabetic complications in patients with type 1 diabetes

Introduction The role of insulin resistance in diabetic chronic complications among individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) has not been clearly defined. The aim of this study was to examine the performance of insulin resistance, evaluated using the estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR) for the iden...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism Diabetes & Metabolism, 2021-10, Vol.4 (4), p.e00288-n/a
Hauptverfasser: Lam‐Chung, César Ernesto, Martínez Zavala, Néstor, Ibarra‐Salce, Raúl, Pozos Varela, Francisco Javier, Mena Ureta, Tania S., Berumen Hermosillo, Francisco, Campos Muñoz, Alejandro, Janka Zires, Marcela, Almeda‐Valdes, Paloma
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction The role of insulin resistance in diabetic chronic complications among individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) has not been clearly defined. The aim of this study was to examine the performance of insulin resistance, evaluated using the estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR) for the identification of metabolic syndrome (MS) and diabetic chronic complications. Methods Cross‐sectional study in a tertiary care centre. We included patients of 18 years and older, with at least 6 months of T1D duration. Anthropometric, clinical and biochemical data were collected. Results Seventy patients, 41 (58.6%) women, with a median age of 36.6 years (range 18–65). Mean age of onset and duration of diabetes was 13.5 ± 6.5 and 23.6 ± 12.2 years, respectively. Twenty‐one (30%) patients met the metabolic syndrome (MS) criteria. Patients with MS had lower eGDR compared to patients without (5.17 [3.10–8.65] vs. 8.86 [6.82–9.85] mg/kg/min, respectively, p = .003). Median eGDR in patients with nephropathy, retinopathy and neuropathy compared with those without was 6.75 (4.60–8.20) versus 9.53 (8.57–10.3); p 
ISSN:2398-9238
2398-9238
DOI:10.1002/edm2.288