Diabetes care · 2007
Microvascular diabetes complications in Wolfram syndrome (diabetes insipidus, diabetes mellitus, optic atrophy, and deafness [DIDMOAD]): an age- and duration-matched comparison with common type 1 diabetes.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cano Aline, Molines Laurent, Valéro René, Simonin Gilbert, Paquis-Flucklinger Véronique, Vialettes Bernard, French Group of Wolfram Syndrome
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Some previous studies suggested that patients suffering from Wolfram syndrome or DIDMOAD (diabetes insipidus, diabetes mellitus, optic atrophy, and deafness) might be relatively preserved from diabetic retinopathy and nephropathy. However, these data were not conclusive because either observations were only anecdotic or did not match with control type 1 diabetic populations.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A group of 26 French diabetic patients with DIDMOAD was compared with a population of 52 patients with common type 1 diabetes matched for age at diabetes diagnosis (8.62 +/- 1.84 vs. 8.27 +/- 1.30 years; P = NS) and diabetes duration (12.88 +/- 1.58 vs. 12.87 +/- 1.13 years; P = NS) to study the quality of glycemic control and the incidence of microvascular complications.
RESULTS: Glycemic control was significantly better in the DIDMOAD group than in the type 1 diabetic group (A1C: 7.72 +/- 0.21 vs. 8.99 +/- 0.25%, respectively; P = 0.002), with significant lower daily insulin requirements (0.71 +/- 0.07 vs. 0.88 +/- 0.04 UI x kg(-1) x day(-1), respectively; P = 0.0325). The prevalence of microvascular complications in the DIDMOAD group was half that observed in the type 1 diabetic group, but the difference was not significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes in DIDMOAD patients is more easily controlled despite the presence of other handicaps. This better glycemic control could explain the trend to decreased microvascular diabetes complications observed in previous studies.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A group of 26 French diabetic patients with DIDMOAD was compared with a population of 52 patients with common type 1 diabetes matched for age at diabetes diagnosis (8.62 +/- 1.84 vs. 8.27 +/- 1.30 years; P = NS) and diabetes duration (12.88 +/- 1.58 vs. 12.87 +/- 1.13 years; P = NS) to study the quality of glycemic control and the incidence of microvascular complications.
RESULTS: Glycemic control was significantly better in the DIDMOAD group than in the type 1 diabetic group (A1C: 7.72 +/- 0.21 vs. 8.99 +/- 0.25%, respectively; P = 0.002), with significant lower daily insulin requirements (0.71 +/- 0.07 vs. 0.88 +/- 0.04 UI x kg(-1) x day(-1), respectively; P = 0.0325). The prevalence of microvascular complications in the DIDMOAD group was half that observed in the type 1 diabetic group, but the difference was not significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes in DIDMOAD patients is more easily controlled despite the presence of other handicaps. This better glycemic control could explain the trend to decreased microvascular diabetes complications observed in previous studies.