Search

BACKGROUND A growing number of subjects with diabetes take part in physical activities at altitude such as skiing, climbing, and trekking. Exercise under conditions of hypobaric hypoxia poses some unique challenges on subjects with diabetes, and the presence of diabetes can complicate safe and successful participation in mountain activities. Among others, altitude can alter glucoregulation. Furthermore, cold temperatures and altitude can complicate accurate reading of glucose monitoring equipment and storage of insulin. These factors potentially lead to dangerous hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia. Over the last years, more information has become available on this subject. PURPOSE To provide an up-to-date overview of the pathophysiological changes during physical activity at altitude and the potential problems related to diabetes, including the use of (continuous) blood glucose monitors and insulin pumps. To propose practical recommendations for preparations and travel to altitude for subjects with diabetes. DATA SOURCES AND SYNTHESIS We researched PubMed, medical textbooks, and related Internet sites, and extracted human studies and data based on relevance for diabetes, exercise, and altitude. LIMITATIONS Given the paucity of controlled trials regarding diabetes and altitude, we composed a narrative review and filled in areas lacking diabetes-specific studies with data obtained from nondiabetic subjects. CONCLUSIONS Subjects with diabetes can take part in activities at high, and even extreme, altitude. However, careful assessment of diabetes-related complications, optimal preparation, and adequate knowledge of glycemic regulation at altitude and altitude-related complications is needed.

OBJECTIVE To investigate the effect of benfotiamine on urinary albumin excretion (UAE) and the tubular damage marker kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1) in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Patients with type 2 diabetes and UAE equivalent to 15–300 mg/24 h, despite ACE inhibitors (ACE-Is) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of benfotiamine (900 mg/day) (n = 39) or placebo (n = 43). RESULTS Compared with placebo, benfotiamine treatment resulted in significant improvement of thiamine status (P < 0.001). Benfotiamine treatment did not significantly decrease 24-h UAE or 24-h KIM-1 excretion. CONCLUSIONS In patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy, high-dose benfotiamine treatment for 12 weeks in addition to ACE-Is or ARBs did not reduce UAE or KIM-1 excretion, despite improvement of thiamine status.

OBJECTIVE Continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion (CIPII) with an implantable pump has been available for the past 25 years. CIPII, with its specific pharmacodynamic properties, may be a viable treatment alternative to improve glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes for whom other therapies have failed. There have been few studies in which CIPII was compared with subcutaneous insulin treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes with poor glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In an open-label, prospective, crossover, randomized, 16-month study, the effects of CIPII and subcutaneous insulin were compared in 24 patients. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of hypoglycemia. Secondary outcome measures were A1C, and glucose profile, including time in euglycemia, as measured by continuous glucose monitoring. RESULTS The incidence of grade 1 hypoglycemic events was 4.0 ± 2.6 per week with subcutaneous insulin compared with 3.5 ± 2.3 per week during CIPII (P = 0.13). The absolute mean difference in A1C with CIPII compared with subcutaneous treatment was −0.76% (95% CI −1.41 to −0.11) (P = 0.03). Baseline time spent in euglycemia was 45.2 ± 12.6% and increased 10.9% (4.6–17.3) with CIPII compared with subcutaneous treatment (absolute value; P = 0.003). There were no differences in the occurrence rate for severe hypoglycemic events, daily insulin use, or BMI. No pump or catheter malfunction was observed during the study. CONCLUSIONS Although we did not observe a significant reduction in hypoglycemic events, improved glycemic control was achieved with the use of CIPII. We saw a 0.8% decrease in A1C and an 11% increase in the time spent in euglycemia.