Diabetics: Tight blood
sugar today means healthy feet
tomorrow
Newswise — People with diabetes
who keep their blood sugar in check today will probably have a far
lower chance of developing foot pain or other nerve damage tomorrow,
according to new research results from a national study.
In fact, the study shows that the
positive effects of tight blood glucose control can be seen more
than a decade later. At the end of the study period, patients who
had controlled their blood sugar tightly ever since the start of the
study were 51 percent less likely to have nerve problems than
patients who started the study at the same time but did not have the
initial 5 year period of intensive blood sugar control.
The study, published in the February issue of the journal Diabetes
Care, involved 1,441 people with Type 1 diabetes, also known as
juvenile diabetes. Although patients with the more common Type 2
form of diabetes were not involved, the results may have
implications for the 18 million Americans with Type 2 diabetes.
Two-thirds of all people with
diabetes have some degree of nerve problems, or neuropathy, related
to their diabetes. The most common sign is numbness or pain in the
feet and legs, which can progress over time to cause disability.
Neuropathy plays a major role in 80,000 foot and leg amputations in
American diabetics each year.
“This is an exciting finding that
adds credence to the idea of metabolic memory, or the concept that
there can be a durable effect from early and sustained efforts to
keep blood sugar low,” says senior author Eva Feldman, M.D., Ph.D.,
the DeJong Professor of Neurology at the University of Michigan
Medical School and director of the U-M Neuropathy Center. “It
suggests that good glucose control clearly protects patients over
the long term.”
The new study marks the first time
that tight blood sugar control has been shown to have a long-term
effect on the chance that a person with diabetes will develop
neuropathy. Similar findings have been made for two other frequent
complications of diabetes, retinopathy (eye disease) and nephropathy
(kidney disease).
The new findings come from the
Epidemiology of Diabetes Intervention and Complications (EDIC) study
that grew out of the national Diabetes Control and Complications
Trial (DCCT). Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and
Digestive & Kidney Diseases, the DCCT began in the 1980s by randomly
assigning people with Type 1 diabetes to either tight blood-sugar
control using three insulin injections per day or an insulin pump,
or to more typical blood sugar control for the time, using one to
two insulin injections a day. The latter group was later encouraged
to adopt tight blood sugar control, and the EDIC study tracked all
patients’ health.
The new paper reports results from
eight years of neuropathy assessments under the EDIC study, among
1,441 DCCT participants who had no symptoms or signs of neuropathy
at the end of the DCCT.
The symptoms and signs were
assessed using a standardized questionnaire developed and validated
by U-M researchers from the Michigan Diabetes Research and Training
Center. Called the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument, the
questionnaire is completed by both patients — who report symptoms
such as tingling, pain, numbness, and sensitivity — and by
physicians, who complete a physical examination of the patients’
feet, including sensitivity to touch and vibration, and the presence
of calluses and sores that the patients might not be able to feel
because of nerve damage.
Such foot problems can become
infected and lead to open wounds that can be hard to heal because of
other aspects of diabetes. Unhealed infections, if bad enough, can
lead to decisions to amputate toes, feet and legs. This “domino
effect” starting with neuropathy and leading to infection and
amputation is the reason that current guidelines call for people
with diabetes to have annual foot exams.
Feldman, who led the analysis
along with research nurse Catherine Martin, M.S., notes that the
study looked at the percentage of participants who had any positive
sign of neuropathy on their questionnaire or their foot examination
each year of the EDIC study, and then separated them according to
which DCCT group (tight glucose control or regular control) they had
been in.
This allowed them to track the
impact of prior tight glucose control, even though all the
participants were encouraged to control their blood sugar tightly
once they entered the EDIC phase of the project. Test results taken
each year show that the two groups achieved very similar blood-sugar
control in the later years of the EDIC study, with levels of a
measure called A1C around 8 percent for both groups.
After the first year, 28 percent
of the regular-control patients showed signs of neuropathy on their
physical exam, though only 4.7 percent reported symptoms on their
questionnaires. By contrast, 17.8 percent of the tight-control
patients had neuropathy signs on their foot exams, and 1.8 percent
reported symptoms. The difference between the two groups was highly
statistically significant.
Over time, the difference between
the two groups continued to be significant, although the percentage
of both groups that showed signs or reported symptoms of neuropathy
increased over time. By the end of the eighth year of follow-up,
almost 7 percent of the participants who had been in the
regular-control group reported feeling symptoms of neuropathy,
compared with about 3.5 percent of the tight-control patients. And
at the end of eight years, more than 26 percent of regular-control
participants had signs of neuropathy on their physical exam,
compared with just over 20 percent of tight-control participants.
The researchers calculated
statistical likelihoods for these measures. In all, participants who
had begun with tight blood-sugar control and stuck with it were 51
percent less likely to report symptoms of neuropathy, and 43 percent
less likely to show signs of it, than those who had started out with
regular blood-sugar control and then gone to tight control. There
were also differences between the two groups in the incidence of
open sores requiring medical or surgical treatment, and in incidence
of amputation.
In all, says Feldman, the results
reinforce a key message for all of today’s diabetes patients, though
Type 2 diabetics tend to have other health problems that can
interfere with the protective effects of tight sugar control. That
message: Check your blood sugar levels regularly, and take steps to
keep them under tight control, with few extremes of low or high
sugar.
Meanwhile, Feldman and others are
searching for the reason why nerve cells are damaged by high blood
sugar, and why it might be more beneficial to start tight glucose
control early. The EDIC sites have received an NIDDK grant to make
more precise measurements of neuropathy signs among EDIC
participants. And U-M is offering five diabetic neuropathy clinical
trials for different types of patients. For more on participating in
such research, patients can visit www.med.umich.edu/pfund, the
Program for Understanding Neurological Diseases. Reference: Diabetes
Care, Vol 29, No. 2, pp. 340-344.