A few diabetes papers of interest

i. Islet Long Noncoding RNAs: A Playbook for Discovery and Characterization.

“This review will 1) highlight what is known about lncRNAs in the context of diabetes, 2) summarize the strategies used in lncRNA discovery pipelines, and 3) discuss future directions and the potential impact of studying the role of lncRNAs in diabetes.”

“Decades of mouse research and advances in genome-wide association studies have identified several genetic drivers of monogenic syndromes of β-cell dysfunction, as well as 113 distinct type 2 diabetes (T2D) susceptibility loci (1) and ∼60 loci associated with an increased risk of developing type 1 diabetes (T1D) (2). Interestingly, these studies discovered that most T1D and T2D susceptibility loci fall outside of coding regions, which suggests a role for noncoding elements in the development of disease (3,4). Several studies have demonstrated that many causal variants of diabetes are significantly enriched in regions containing islet enhancers, promoters, and transcription factor binding sites (5,6); however, not all diabetes susceptibility loci can be explained by associations with these regulatory regions. […] Advances in RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) technologies have revealed that mammalian genomes encode tens of thousands of RNA transcripts that have similar features to mRNAs, yet are not translated into proteins (7). […] detailed characterization of many of these transcripts has challenged the idea that the central role for RNA in a cell is to give rise to proteins. Instead, these RNA transcripts make up a class of molecules called noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) that function either as “housekeeping” ncRNAs, such as transfer RNAs (tRNAs) and ribosomal RNAs (rRNAs), that are expressed ubiquitously and are required for protein synthesis or as “regulatory” ncRNAs that control gene expression. While the functional mechanisms of short regulatory ncRNAs, such as microRNAs (miRNAs), small interfering RNAs (siRNAs), and Piwi-interacting RNAs (piRNAs), have been described in detail (810), the most abundant and functionally enigmatic regulatory ncRNAs are called long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) that are loosely defined as RNAs larger than 200 nucleotides (nt) that do not encode for protein (1113). Although using a definition based strictly on size is somewhat arbitrary, this definition is useful both bioinformatically […] and technically […]. While the 200-nt size cutoff has simplified identification of lncRNAs, this rather broad classification means several features of lncRNAs, including abundance, cellular localization, stability, conservation, and function, are inherently heterogeneous (1517). Although this represents one of the major challenges of lncRNA biology, it also highlights the untapped potential of lncRNAs to provide a novel layer of gene regulation that influences islet physiology and pathophysiology.”

“Although the role of miRNAs in diabetes has been well established (9), analyses of lncRNAs in islets have lagged behind their short ncRNA counterparts. However, several recent studies provide evidence that lncRNAs are crucial components of the islet regulome and may have a role in diabetes (27). […] misexpression of several lncRNAs has been correlated with diabetes complications, such as diabetic nephropathy and retinopathy (2931). There are also preliminary studies suggesting that circulating lncRNAs, such as Gas5, MIAT1, and SENCR, may represent effective molecular biomarkers of diabetes and diabetes-related complications (32,33). Finally, several recent studies have explored the role of lncRNAs in the peripheral metabolic tissues that contribute to energy homeostasis […]. In addition to their potential as genetic drivers and/or biomarkers of diabetes and diabetes complications, lncRNAs can be exploited for the treatment of diabetes. For example, although tremendous efforts have been dedicated to generating replacement β-cells for individuals with diabetes (35,36), human pluripotent stem cell–based β-cell differentiation protocols remain inefficient, and the end product is still functionally and transcriptionally immature compared with primary human β-cells […]. This is largely due to our incomplete knowledge of in vivo differentiation regulatory pathways, which likely include a role for lncRNAs. […] Inherent characteristics of lncRNAs have also made them attractive candidates for drug targeting, which could be exploited for developing new diabetes therapies.”

“With the advancement of high-throughput sequencing techniques, the list of islet-specific lncRNAs is growing exponentially; however, functional characterization is missing for the majority of these lncRNAs. […] Tens of thousands of lncRNAs have been identified in different cell types and model organisms; however, their functions largely remain unknown. Although the tools for determining lncRNA function are technically restrictive, uncovering novel regulatory mechanisms will have the greatest impact on understanding islet function and identifying novel therapeutics for diabetes. To date, no biochemical assay has been used to directly determine the molecular mechanisms by which islet lncRNAs function, which highlights both the infancy of the field and the difficulty in implementing these techniques. […] Due to the infancy of the lncRNA field, most of the biochemical and genetic tools used to interrogate lncRNA function have only recently been developed or are adapted from techniques used to study protein-coding genes and we are only beginning to appreciate the limits and challenges of borrowing strategies from the protein-coding world.”

“The discovery of lncRNAs as a novel class of tissue-specific regulatory molecules has spawned an exciting new field of biology that will significantly impact our understanding of pancreas physiology and pathophysiology. As the field continues to grow, there is growing appreciation that lncRNAs will provide many of the missing components to existing molecular pathways that regulate islet biology and contribute to diabetes when they become dysfunctional. However, to date, most of the experimental emphasis on lncRNAs has focused on large-scale discovery using genome-wide approaches, and there remains a paucity of functional analysis.”

ii. Diabetes and Trajectories of Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate: A Prospective Cohort Analysis of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study.

“Diabetes is among the strongest common risk factors for end-stage renal disease, and in industrialized countries, diabetes contributes to ∼50% of cases (3). Less is known about the pattern of kidney function decline associated with diabetes that precedes end-stage renal disease. Identifying patterns of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline could inform monitoring practices for people at high risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression. A better understanding of when and in whom eGFR decline occurs would be useful for the design of clinical trials because eGFR decline >30% is now often used as a surrogate end point for CKD progression (4). Trajectories among persons with diabetes are of particular interest because of the possibility for early intervention and the prevention of CKD development. However, eGFR trajectories among persons with new diabetes may be complex due to the hypothesized period of hyperfiltration by which GFR increases, followed by progressive, rapid decline (5). Using data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, an ongoing prospective community-based cohort of >15,000 participants initiated in 1987 with serial measurements of creatinine over 26 years, our aim was to characterize patterns of eGFR decline associated with diabetes, identify demographic, genetic, and modifiable risk factors within the population with diabetes that were associated with steeper eGFR decline, and assess for evidence of early hyperfiltration.”

“We categorized people into groups of no diabetes, undiagnosed diabetes, and diagnosed diabetes at baseline (visit 1) and compared baseline clinical characteristics using ANOVA for continuous variables and Pearson χ2 tests for categorical variables. […] To estimate individual eGFR slopes over time, we used linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts and random slopes. These models were fit on diabetes status at baseline as a nominal variable to adjust the baseline level of eGFR and included an interaction term between diabetes status at baseline and time to estimate annual decline in eGFR by diabetes categories. Linear mixed models were run unadjusted and adjusted, with the latter model including the following diabetes and kidney disease–related risk factors: age, sex, race–center, BMI, systolic blood pressure, hypertension medication use, HDL, prevalent coronary heart disease, annual family income, education status, and smoking status, as well as each variable interacted with time. Continuous covariates were centered at the analytic population mean. We tested model assumptions and considered different covariance structures, comparing nested models using Akaike information criteria. We identified the unstructured covariance model as the most optimal and conservative approach. From the mixed models, we described the overall mean annual decline by diabetes status at baseline and used the random effects to estimate best linear unbiased predictions to describe the distributions of yearly slopes in eGFR by diabetes status at baseline and displayed them using kernel density plots.”

“Because of substantial variation in annual eGFR slope among people with diagnosed diabetes, we sought to identify risk factors that were associated with faster decline. Among those with diagnosed diabetes, we compared unadjusted and adjusted mean annual decline in eGFR by race–APOL1 risk status (white, black– APOL1 low risk, and black–APOL1 high risk) [here’s a relevant link, US], systolic blood pressure […], smoking status […], prevalent coronary heart disease […], diabetes medication use […], HbA1c […], and 1,5-anhydroglucitol (≥10 and <10 μg/mL) [relevant link, US]. Because some of these variables were only available at visit 2, we required that participants included in this subgroup analysis attend both visits 1 and 2 and not be missing information on APOL1 or the variables assessed at visit 2 to ensure a consistent sample size. In addition to diabetes and kidney disease–related risk factors in the adjusted model, we also included diabetes medication use and HbA1c to account for diabetes severity in these analyses. […] to explore potential hyperfiltration, we used a linear spline model to allow the slope to change for each diabetes category between the first 3 years of follow-up (visit 1 to visit 2) and the subsequent time period (visit 2 to visit 5).”

“There were 15,517 participants included in the analysis: 13,698 (88%) without diabetes, 634 (4%) with undiagnosed diabetes, and 1,185 (8%) with diagnosed diabetes at baseline. […] At baseline, participants with undiagnosed and diagnosed diabetes were older, more likely to be black or have hypertension and coronary heart disease, and had higher mean BMI and lower mean HDL compared with those without diabetes […]. Income and education levels were also lower among those with undiagnosed and diagnosed diabetes compared with those without diabetes. […] Overall, there was a nearly linear association between eGFR and age over time, regardless of diabetes status […]. The crude mean annual decline in eGFR was slowest among those without diabetes at baseline (decline of −1.6 mL/min/1.73 m2/year [95% CI −1.6 to −1.5]), faster among those with undiagnosed diabetes compared with those without diabetes (decline of −2.1 mL/min/1.73 m2/year [95% CI −2.2 to −2.0][…]), and nearly twice as rapid among those with diagnosed diabetes compared with those without diabetes (decline of −2.9 mL/min/1.73 m2/year [95% CI −3.0 to −2.8][…]). Adjustment for diabetes and kidney disease–related risk factors attenuated the results slightly, but those with undiagnosed and diagnosed diabetes still had statistically significantly steeper declines than those without diabetes (decline among no diabetes −1.4 mL/min/1.73 m2/year [95% CI −1.5 to −1.4] and decline among undiagnosed diabetes −1.8 mL/min/1.73 m2/year [95% CI −2.0 to −1.7], difference vs. no diabetes of −0.4 mL/min/1.73 m2/year [95% CI −0.5 to −0.3; P < 0.001]; decline among diagnosed diabetes −2.5 mL/min/1.73 m2/year [95% CI −2.6 to −2.4], difference vs. no diabetes of −1.1 mL/min/1.73 m2/ year [95% CI −1.2 to −1.0; P < 0.001]). […] The decline in eGFR per year varied greatly across individuals, particularly among those with diabetes at baseline […] Among participants with diagnosed diabetes at baseline, those who were black, had systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg, used diabetes medications, had an HbA1c ≥7% [≥53 mmol/mol], or had 1,5-anhydroglucitol <10 μg/mL were at risk for steeper annual declines than their counterparts […]. Smoking status and prevalent coronary heart disease were not associated with significantly steeper eGFR decline in unadjusted analyses. Adjustment for risk factors, diabetes medication use, and HbA1c attenuated the differences in decline for all subgroups with the exception of smoking status, leaving black race along with APOL1-susceptible genotype, systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg, current smoking, insulin use, and HbA1c ≥9% [≥75 mmol/mol] as the risk factors indicative of steeper decline.”

CONCLUSIONS Diabetes is an important risk factor for kidney function decline. Those with diagnosed diabetes declined almost twice as rapidly as those without diabetes. Among people with diagnosed diabetes, steeper declines were seen in those with modifiable risk factors, including hypertension and glycemic control, suggesting areas for continued targeting in kidney disease prevention. […] Few other community-based studies have evaluated differences in kidney function decline by diabetes status over a long period through mid- and late life. One study of 10,184 Canadians aged ≥66 years with creatinine measured during outpatient visits showed results largely consistent with our findings but with much shorter follow-up (median of 2 years) (19). Other studies of eGFR change in a general population have found smaller declines than our results (20,21). A study conducted in Japanese participants aged 40–79 years found a decline of only −0.4 mL/min/1.73 m2/year over the course of two assessments 10 years apart (compared with our estimate among those without diabetes: −1.6 mL/min/1.73 m2/year). This is particularly interesting, as Japan is known to have a higher prevalence of CKD and end-stage renal disease than the U.S. (20). However, this study evaluated participants over a shorter time frame and required attendance at both assessments, which may have decreased the likelihood of capturing severe cases and resulted in underestimation of decline.”

“The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging also assessed kidney function over time in a general population of 446 men, ranging in age from 22 to 97 years at baseline, each with up to 14 measurements of creatinine clearance assessed between 1958 and 1981 (21). They also found a smaller decline than we did (−0.8 mL/min/year), although this study also had notable differences. Their main analysis excluded participants with hypertension and history of renal disease or urinary tract infection and those treated with diuretics and/or antihypertensive medications. Without those exclusions, their overall estimate was −1.1 mL/min/year, which better reflects a community-based population and our results. […] In our evaluation of risk factors that might explain the variation in decline seen among those with diagnosed diabetes, we observed that black race, systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg, insulin use, and HbA1c ≥9% (≥75 mmol/mol) were particularly important. Although the APOL1 high-risk genotype is a known risk factor for eGFR decline, African Americans with low-risk APOL1 status continued to be at higher risk than whites even after adjustment for traditional risk factors, diabetes medication use, and HbA1c.”

“Our results are relevant to the design and conduct of clinical trials. Hard clinical outcomes like end-stage renal disease are relatively rare, and a 30–40% decline in eGFR is now accepted as a surrogate end point for CKD progression (4). We provide data on patient subgroups that may experience accelerated trajectories of kidney function decline, which has implications for estimating sample size and ensuring adequate power in future clinical trials. Our results also suggest that end points of eGFR decline might not be appropriate for patients with new-onset diabetes, in whom declines may actually be slower than among persons without diabetes. Slower eGFR decline among those with undiagnosed diabetes, who are likely early in the course of diabetes, is consistent with the hypothesis of hyperfiltration. Similar to other studies, we found that persons with undiagnosed diabetes had higher GFR at the outset, but this was a transient phenomenon, as they ultimately experienced larger declines in kidney function than those without diabetes over the course of follow-up (2325). Whether hyperfiltration is a universal aspect of early disease and, if not, whether it portends worse long-term outcomes is uncertain. Existing studies investigating hyperfiltration as a precursor to adverse kidney outcomes are inconsistent (24,26,27) and often confounded by diabetes severity factors like duration (27). We extended this literature by separating undiagnosed and diagnosed diabetes to help address that confounding.”

iii. Saturated Fat Is More Metabolically Harmful for the Human Liver Than Unsaturated Fat or Simple Sugars.

OBJECTIVE Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (i.e., increased intrahepatic triglyceride [IHTG] content), predisposes to type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Adipose tissue lipolysis and hepatic de novo lipogenesis (DNL) are the main pathways contributing to IHTG. We hypothesized that dietary macronutrient composition influences the pathways, mediators, and magnitude of weight gain-induced changes in IHTG.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We overfed 38 overweight subjects (age 48 ± 2 years, BMI 31 ± 1 kg/m2, liver fat 4.7 ± 0.9%) 1,000 extra kcal/day of saturated (SAT) or unsaturated (UNSAT) fat or simple sugars (CARB) for 3 weeks. We measured IHTG (1H-MRS), pathways contributing to IHTG (lipolysis ([2H5]glycerol) and DNL (2H2O) basally and during euglycemic hyperinsulinemia), insulin resistance, endotoxemia, plasma ceramides, and adipose tissue gene expression at 0 and 3 weeks.

RESULTS Overfeeding SAT increased IHTG more (+55%) than UNSAT (+15%, P < 0.05). CARB increased IHTG (+33%) by stimulating DNL (+98%). SAT significantly increased while UNSAT decreased lipolysis. SAT induced insulin resistance and endotoxemia and significantly increased multiple plasma ceramides. The diets had distinct effects on adipose tissue gene expression.”

CONCLUSIONS NAFLD has been shown to predict type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease in multiple studies, even independent of obesity (1), and also to increase the risk of progressive liver disease (17). It is therefore interesting to compare effects of different diets on liver fat content and understand the underlying mechanisms. We examined whether provision of excess calories as saturated (SAT) or unsaturated (UNSAT) fats or simple sugars (CARB) influences the metabolic response to overfeeding in overweight subjects. All overfeeding diets increased IHTGs. The SAT diet induced a greater increase in IHTGs than the UNSAT diet. The composition of the diet altered sources of excess IHTGs. The SAT diet increased lipolysis, whereas the CARB diet stimulated DNL. The SAT but not the other diets increased multiple plasma ceramides, which increase the risk of cardiovascular disease independent of LDL cholesterol (18). […] Consistent with current dietary recommendations (3638), the current study shows that saturated fat is the most harmful dietary constituent regarding IHTG accumulation.”

iv. Primum Non Nocere: Refocusing Our Attention on Severe Hypoglycemia Prevention.

“Severe hypoglycemia, defined as low blood glucose requiring assistance for recovery, is arguably the most dangerous complication of type 1 diabetes as it can result in permanent cognitive impairment, seizure, coma, accidents, and death (1,2). Since the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) demonstrated that intensive intervention to normalize glucose prevents long-term complications but at the price of a threefold increase in the rate of severe hypoglycemia (3), hypoglycemia has been recognized as the major limitation to achieving tight glycemic control. Severe hypoglycemia remains prevalent among adults with type 1 diabetes, ranging from ∼1.4% per year in the DCCT/EDIC (Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications) follow-up cohort (4) to ∼8% in the T1D Exchange clinic registry (5).

One the greatest risk factors for severe hypoglycemia is impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (6), which increases risk up to sixfold (7,8). Hypoglycemia unawareness results from deficient counterregulation (9), where falling glucose fails to activate the autonomic nervous system to produce neuroglycopenic symptoms that normally help patients identify and respond to episodes (i.e., sweating, palpitations, hunger) (2). An estimated 20–25% of adults with type 1 diabetes have impaired hypoglycemia awareness (8), which increases to more than 50% after 25 years of disease duration (10).

Screening for hypoglycemia unawareness to identify patients at increased risk of severe hypoglycemic events should be part of routine diabetes care. Self-identified impairment in awareness tends to agree with clinical evaluation (11). Therefore, hypoglycemia unawareness can be easily and effectively screened […] Interventions for hypoglycemia unawareness include a range of behavioral and medical options. Avoiding hypoglycemia for at least several weeks may partially reverse hypoglycemia unawareness and reduce risk of future episodes (1). Therefore, patients with hypoglycemia and unawareness may be advised to raise their glycemic and HbA1c targets (1,2). Diabetes technology can play a role, including continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) to optimize insulin delivery, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to give technological awareness in the absence of symptoms (14), or the combination of the two […] Aside from medical management, structured or hypoglycemia-specific education programs that aim to prevent hypoglycemia are recommended for all patients with severe hypoglycemia or hypoglycemia unawareness (14). In randomized trials, psychoeducational programs that incorporate increased education, identification of personal risk factors, and behavior change support have improved hypoglycemia unawareness and reduced the incidence of both nonsevere and severe hypoglycemia over short periods of follow-up (17,18) and extending up to 1 year (19).”

“Given that the presence of hypoglycemia unawareness increases the risk of severe hypoglycemia, which is the strongest predictor of a future episode (2,4), the implication that intervention can break the life-threatening and traumatizing cycle of hypoglycemia unawareness and severe hypoglycemia cannot be overstated. […] new evidence of durability of effect across treatment regimen without increasing the risk for long-term complications creates an imperative for action. In combination with existing screening tools and a body of literature investigating novel interventions for hypoglycemia unawareness, these results make the approach of screening, recognition, and intervention very compelling as not only a best practice but something that should be incorporated in universal guidelines on diabetes care, particularly for individuals with type 1 diabetes […] Hyperglycemia is […] only part of the puzzle in diabetes management. Long-term complications are decreasing across the population with improved interventions and their implementation (24). […] it is essential to shift our historical obsession with hyperglycemia and its long-term complications to equally emphasize the disabling, distressing, and potentially fatal near-term complication of our treatments, namely severe hypoglycemia. […] The health care providers’ first dictum is primum non nocere — above all, do no harm. ADA must refocus our attention on severe hypoglycemia as an iatrogenic and preventable complication of our interventions.”

v. Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor combined with intravitreal steroids for diabetic macular oedema.


The combination of steroid and anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) intravitreal therapeutic agents could potentially have synergistic effects for treating diabetic macular oedema (DMO). On the one hand, if combined treatment is more effective than monotherapy, there would be significant implications for improving patient outcomes. Conversely, if there is no added benefit of combination therapy, then people could be potentially exposed to unnecessary local or systemic side effects.


To assess the effects of intravitreal agents that block vascular endothelial growth factor activity (anti‐VEGF agents) plus intravitreal steroids versus monotherapy with macular laser, intravitreal steroids or intravitreal anti‐VEGF agents for managing DMO.”

“There were eight RCTs (703 participants, 817 eyes) that met our inclusion criteria with only three studies reporting outcomes at one year. The studies took place in Iran (3), USA (2), Brazil (1), Czech Republic (1) and South Korea (1). […] When comparing anti‐VEGF/steroid with anti‐VEGF monotherapy as primary therapy for DMO, we found no meaningful clinical difference in change in BCVA [best corrected visual acuity] […] or change in CMT [central macular thickness] […] at one year. […] There was very low‐certainty evidence on intraocular inflammation from 8 studies, with one event in the anti‐VEGF/steroid group (313 eyes) and two events in the anti‐VEGF group (322 eyes). There was a greater risk of raised IOP (Peto odds ratio (OR) 8.13, 95% CI 4.67 to 14.16; 635 eyes; 8 RCTs; moderate‐certainty evidence) and development of cataract (Peto OR 7.49, 95% CI 2.87 to 19.60; 635 eyes; 8 RCTs; moderate‐certainty evidence) in eyes receiving anti‐VEGF/steroid compared with anti‐VEGF monotherapy. There was low‐certainty evidence from one study of an increased risk of systemic adverse events in the anti‐VEGF/steroid group compared with the anti‐VEGF alone group (Peto OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.86; 103 eyes).”

“One study compared anti‐VEGF/steroid versus macular laser therapy. At one year investigators did not report a meaningful difference between the groups in change in BCVA […] or change in CMT […]. There was very low‐certainty evidence suggesting an increased risk of cataract in the anti‐VEGF/steroid group compared with the macular laser group (Peto OR 4.58, 95% 0.99 to 21.10, 100 eyes) and an increased risk of elevated IOP in the anti‐VEGF/steroid group compared with the macular laser group (Peto OR 9.49, 95% CI 2.86 to 31.51; 100 eyes).”

“Authors’ conclusions

Combination of intravitreal anti‐VEGF plus intravitreal steroids does not appear to offer additional visual benefit compared with monotherapy for DMO; at present the evidence for this is of low‐certainty. There was an increased rate of cataract development and raised intraocular pressure in eyes treated with anti‐VEGF plus steroid versus anti‐VEGF alone. Patients were exposed to potential side effects of both these agents without reported additional benefit.”

vi. Association between diabetic foot ulcer and diabetic retinopathy.

“More than 25 million people in the United States are estimated to have diabetes mellitus (DM), and 15–25% will develop a diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) during their lifetime [1]. DFU is one of the most serious and disabling complications of DM, resulting in significantly elevated morbidity and mortality. Vascular insufficiency and associated neuropathy are important predisposing factors for DFU, and DFU is the most common cause of non-traumatic foot amputation worldwide. Up to 70% of all lower leg amputations are performed on patients with DM, and up to 85% of all amputations are preceded by a DFU [2, 3]. Every year, approximately 2–3% of all diabetic patients develop a foot ulcer, and many require prolonged hospitalization for the treatment of ensuing complications such as infection and gangrene [4, 5].

Meanwhile, a number of studies have noted that diabetic retinopathy (DR) is associated with diabetic neuropathy and microvascular complications [610]. Despite the magnitude of the impact of DFUs and their consequences, little research has been performed to investigate the characteristics of patients with a DFU and DR. […] the aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of DR in patients with a DFU and to elucidate the potential association between DR and DFUs.”

“A retrospective review was conducted on DFU patients who underwent ophthalmic and vascular examinations within 6 months; 100 type 2 diabetic patients with DFU were included. The medical records of 2496 type 2 diabetic patients without DFU served as control data. DR prevalence and severity were assessed in DFU patients. DFU patients were compared with the control group regarding each clinical variable. Additionally, DFU patients were divided into two groups according to DR severity and compared. […] Out of 100 DFU patients, 90 patients (90%) had DR and 55 (55%) had proliferative DR (PDR). There was no significant association between DR and DFU severities (R = 0.034, p = 0.734). A multivariable analysis comparing type 2 diabetic patients with and without DFUs showed that the presence of DR [OR, 226.12; 95% confidence interval (CI), 58.07–880.49; p < 0.001] and proliferative DR [OR, 306.27; 95% CI, 64.35–1457.80; p < 0.001), higher HbA1c (%, OR, 1.97, 95% CI, 1.46–2.67; p < 0.001), higher serum creatinine (mg/dL, OR, 1.62, 95% CI, 1.06–2.50; p = 0.027), older age (years, OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.06–1.17; p < 0.001), higher pulse pressure (mmHg, OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00–1.06; p = 0.025), lower cholesterol (mg/dL, OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92–0.97; p < 0.001), lower BMI (kg/m2, OR, 0.87, 95% CI, 0.75–1.00; p = 0.044) and lower hematocrit (%, OR, 0.80, 95% CI, 0.74–0.87; p < 0.001) were associated with DFUs. In a subgroup analysis of DFU patients, the PDR group had a longer duration of diabetes mellitus, higher serum BUN, and higher serum creatinine than the non-PDR group. In the multivariable analysis, only higher serum creatinine was associated with PDR in DFU patients (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.05–1.78; p = 0.021).


Diabetic retinopathy is prevalent in patients with DFU and about half of DFU patients had PDR. No significant association was found in terms of the severity of these two diabetic complications. To prevent blindness, patients with DFU, and especially those with high serum creatinine, should undergo retinal examinations for timely PDR diagnosis and management.”


August 29, 2018 - Posted by | Diabetes, Epidemiology, Genetics, Medicine, Molecular biology, Nephrology, Ophthalmology, Statistics, Studies

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: