Impact of ubiquinone (coenzyme Q(10)) treatment on glycaemic control, insulin requirement and well-being in patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus

Citation
Je. Henriksen et al., Impact of ubiquinone (coenzyme Q(10)) treatment on glycaemic control, insulin requirement and well-being in patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus, DIABET MED, 16(4), 1999, pp. 312-318
Citations number
36
Categorie Soggetti
Endocrynology, Metabolism & Nutrition
Journal title
DIABETIC MEDICINE
ISSN journal
07423071 → ACNP
Volume
16
Issue
4
Year of publication
1999
Pages
312 - 318
Database
ISI
SICI code
0742-3071(199904)16:4<312:IOU(QT>2.0.ZU;2-9
Abstract
Aim To investigate the effect of ubiquinone (coenzyme Q(10)) on glycaemic c ontrol and insulin requirement in patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus ID M). Methods We investigated 34 patients with Type 1 DM in a randomized, double- blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients received either 100 mg Q(10) or p lacebo daily fur 3 months. The insulin doses were adjusted according to pat ients' home measurements of blood glucose concentrations and reported exper ience of hypoglycaemia. Results At randomization no differences existed between the Q(10) and the p lacebo groups in age, body mass index (BMI), HbA(1c) daily insulin dose or mean daily blood glucose concentration. Serum Q(10) concentration increased in the Q(10) group (mean +/- so: 0.9 +/- 0.2 vs. 2.0 +/- 1.10 mu g/ml, P < 0.005), with no change in the placebo group (0.9 +/- 0.3 vs. 0.9 +/- 0.3 m u g/ml, not significant (NS)). Following intervention no differences existe d between the Q10 and the placebo groups regarding HbA(1c), (7.86 +/- 0.88 vs. 7.84 +/- 0.84%), mean daily blood glucose concentrations (8.06 +/- 1.86 vs. 8.53 +/- 1.88 mM), mean insulin dose (52.1 +/- 13.2 vs. 52.6 +/- 21.4 U), hypoglycaemic episodes (2.0 +/- 1.8 vs. 2.5 +/- 2.1 episodes/week), or cholesterol concentrations 14.8 +/- 0.91 vs. 4.78 /- 1.07 mM 1). Furthermor e, no differences existed in the well-being of the patients reported from a visual analogue scale (physical: 0.67 +/- 0.21 vs. 0.71 +/- 0.18, psycholo gical: 0.70 +/- 0.25 vs. 0.73 +/- 0.24). Conclusion Q(10) treatment does not improve glycaemic control, nor does it reduce insulin requirement, and it can therefore be taken by patients with Type 1 DM without any obvious risk of hypoglycaemia. No major beneficial or unfavourable effects on the investigated parameters could be demonstrated and no major changes in the sense of well-being occurred in the patients.