Should diabetes treatment optimize glycemic variability?

How high is high? Is 90 high? Is 110 high? How long at 120 causes complications? How much extra risk for 3 hours at 130? Is it the same as 260 for 1 minute? The official recommendations for GCK MODY (avg 5.5-7.5% A1c) is no treatment necessary and no known extra mortality risk.

For me, there is quite a bit I think isn’t known about that subject. Not for certain.

I hope the dozen articles I have shared from my collection are sufficient facts to satisfy readers over our opinions :slight_smile:

Since I already covered that the GV oxidative stress theory has been disproven (so far) for T1Ds and T2Ds, let’s do the last theory, glycation: High GV has no significant effect on T2Ds. For T1Ds, its effect on Glycated Hemoglobin (HbA1c) is extremely minor the lower your mean glucose is. If your average glucose is 140mg/dL, then the difference between low and high variability on A1c is only 0.27%.

High GV has significant effects on glycation only at mean glucose levels far higher than most would find reasonable or properly managed:

Here’s an article showing variability has no effect on quality of life: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26285951

And here is one showing hypoglycemia is a much greater concern than glucose variability:

There is one good study from this year that shows fasting GV predicts cardiovascular, mortality, and hypoglycemic risk.
They blame the cardiovascular & mortality risk on increased hypoglycemia, however. For those who think more hypos “do not automatically lead to negative consequences”, such a claim should be surprising.

The most up-to-date review of all this research was published in The Lancet in August. I’d upload it but doesn’t seem I can attach PDFs.
It is not free, but here is the link: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(18)30136-0/fulltext

There are some other minor studies, like one showing how children with variability in the normoglycemic range (but not persistent hyperglycemia) lose cognitive function. Because of more hypos? :thinking:

But I hope I have been thorough enough already with the major research :slight_smile:
Happy Reading!