Glycemic variability in relation to oral disposition index in the subjects with different stages of glucose tolerance

Tong Chen, Feng Xu, Jian-Bin Su, Xue-Qin Wang, Jin-Feng Chen, Gang Wu, Yan Jin, Xiao-Hua Wang, Tong Chen, Feng Xu, Jian-Bin Su, Xue-Qin Wang, Jin-Feng Chen, Gang Wu, Yan Jin, Xiao-Hua Wang

Abstract

Background: Glucose variability could be an independent risk factor for diabetes complications in addition to average glucose. The deficiency in islet β cell secretion and insulin sensitivity, the two important pathophysiological mechanisms of diabetes, are responsible for glycemic disorders. The oral disposition index evaluated by product of insulin secretion and sensitivity is a useful marker of islet β cell function. The aim of the study is to investigate glycemic variability in relation to oral disposition index in the subjects across a range of glucose tolerance from the normal to overt type 2 diabetes.

Methods: 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed in total 220 subjects: 47 with normal glucose regulation (NGR), 52 with impaired glucose metabolism (IGM, 8 with isolated impaired fasting glucose [IFG], 18 with isolated impaired glucose tolerance [IGT] and 26 with combined IFG and IGT), 61 screen-diagnosed diabetes by isolated 2-h glucose (DM2h) and 60 newly diagnosed diabetes by both fasting and 2-h glucose (DM). Insulin sensitivity index (Matsuda index, ISI), insulin secretion index (ΔI30/ΔG30), and integrated β cell function measured by the oral disposition index (ΔI30/ΔG30 multiplied by the ISI) were derived from OGTT. All subjects were monitored using the continuous glucose monitoring system for consecutive 72 hours. The multiple parameters of glycemic variability included the standard deviation of blood glucose (SD), mean of blood glucose (MBG), high blood glucose index (HBGI), continuous overlapping net glycemic action calculated every 1 h (CONGA1), mean of daily differences (MODD) and mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE).

Results: From the NGR to IGM to DM2h to DM group, the respective values of SD (mean ± SD) (0.9 ± 0.3, 1.5 ± 0.5, 1.9 ± 0.6 and 2.2 ± 0.6 mmol/), MBG (5.9 ± 0.5, 6.7 ± 0.7, 7.7 ± 1.0 and 8.7 ± 1.5 mmol/L), HGBI [median(Q1-Q3)][0.8(0.2-1.2), 2.0(1.2-3.7), 3.8(2.4-5.6) and 6.4(3.2-9.5)], CONGA1 (1.0 ± 0.2, 1.3 ± 0.2, 1.5 ± 0.3 and 1.8 ± 0.4 mmol/L), MODD (0.9 ± 0.3, 1.4 ± 0.4, 1.8 ± 0.7 and 2.1 ± 0.7 mmol/L) and MAGE (2.1 ± 0.6, 3.3 ± 1.0, 4.3 ± 1.4 and 4.8 ± 1.6 mmol/L) were all increased progressively (all p < 0.05), while their oral disposition indices [745(546-947), 362(271-475), 203(134-274) and 91(70-139)] were decreased progressively (p < 0.05). In addition, SD, MBG, HGBI, CONGA1, MODD and MAGE were all negatively associated with the oral disposition index in each group (all p < 0.05) and in the entire data set (r = -0.66, -0.66, -0.72, -0.59, -0.61 and -0.65, respectively, p < 0.05).

Conclusions: Increased glycemic variability parameters are consistently associated with decreased oral disposition index in subjects across the range of glucose tolerance from the NGR to IGM to DM2h to DM group.

Keywords: Continuous glucose monitoring; Glycemic variability; Oral disposition index; Type 2 diabetes.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Hyperbolic relationship between insulin secretion index(ΔI30/ΔG30) and insulin sensitivity index(ISI) in subjects with different stages of glucose tolerance. NGR: normal glucose regulation; IGM: impaired glucose metabolism; DM2h: screen-diagnosed diabetes by isolated 2-h glucose; DM: newly diagnosed diabetes by both fasting and 2-h glucose.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The overall best-fit lines obtained by nonlinear regression analysis between glycemic variability parameters (a: SD, b: MBG, c: HGBI, d: CONGA1, e: MODD and f: MAGE) and oral disposition index. NGR: normal glucose regulation; IGM: impaired glucose metabolism; DM2h: screen-diagnosed diabetes by isolated 2-h glucose; DM: newly diagnosed diabetes by both fasting and 2-h glucose. SD: standard deviation of blood glucose; MBG: mean of blood glucose; HBGI: high blood glucose index; CONGA1: continuous overlapping net glycemic action calculated every 1 h; MODD: mean of daily differences; MAGE: mean amplitude of glycemic excursions.

References

    1. Abdul-Ghani MA, Williams K, DeFronzo R, Stern M. Risk of progression to type 2 diabetes based on relationship between postload plasma glucose and fasting plasma glucose. Diabetes Care. 2006;29:1613–1618. doi: 10.2337/dc05-1711.
    1. Abdul-Ghani MA, Tripathy D, DeFronzo RA. Contributions of beta-cell dysfunction and insulin resistance to the pathogenesis of impaired glucose tolerance and impaired fasting glucose. Diabetes Care. 2006;29:1130–1139. doi: 10.2337/dc05-2179.
    1. Festa A, Williams K, Hanley AJ, Haffner SM. Beta-cell dysfunction in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance and early type 2 diabetes: comparison of surrogate markers with first-phase insulin secretion from an intravenous glucose tolerance test. Diabetes. 2008;57:1638–1644. doi: 10.2337/db07-0954.
    1. Abdul-Ghani MA, Williams K, DeFronzo RA, Stern M. What is the best predictor of future type 2 diabetes? Diabetes Care. 2007;30:1544–1548. doi: 10.2337/dc06-1331.
    1. Stumvoll M, Mitrakou A, Pimenta W, Jenssen T, Yki-Järvinen H, Van Haeften T, Renn W, Gerich J. Use of the oral glucose tolerance test to assess insulin release and insulin sensitivity. Diabetes Care. 2000;23:295–301. doi: 10.2337/diacare.23.3.295.
    1. Kim JY, Coletta DK, Mandarino LJ, Shaibi GQ. Glucose response curve and type 2 diabetes risk in Latino adolescents. Diabetes Care. 2012;35:1925–1930. doi: 10.2337/dc11-2476.
    1. Monnier L, Mas E, Ginet C, Michel F, Villon L, Cristol JP, Colette C. Activation of oxidative stress by acute glucose fluctuations compared with sustained chronic hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. JAMA. 2006;295:1681–1687. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.14.1681.
    1. Torimoto K, Okada Y, Mori H, Tanaka Y. Relationship between fluctuations in glucose levels measured by continuous glucose monitoring and vascular endothelial dysfunction in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2013;12:1. doi: 10.1186/1475-2840-12-1.
    1. Sartore G, Chilelli NC, Burlina S, Lapolla A. Association between glucose variability as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and diabetic retinopathy in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Acta Diabetol. 2013;50:437–442. doi: 10.1007/s00592-013-0459-9.
    1. Klonoff DC, Buckingham B, Christiansen JS, Montori VM, Tamborlane WV, Vigersky RA, Wolpert H. Endocrine Society. Continuous glucose monitoring: an Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96:2968–2979. doi: 10.1210/jc.2010-2756.
    1. Chinese Diabetes Society. Chinese clinical guideline for continuous glucose monitoring (2012) Chin Med J (Engl) 2012;125:4167–4174.
    1. Hill NR, Oliver NS, Choudhary P, Levy JC, Hindmarsh P, Matthews DR. Normal reference range for mean tissue glucose and glycemic variability derived from continuous glucose monitoring for subjects without diabetes in different ethnic groups. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13:921–928. doi: 10.1089/dia.2010.0247.
    1. American Diabetes Association. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:S62–S69.
    1. Matsuda M, DeFronzo RA. Insulin sensitivity indices obtained from oral glucose tolerance testing: comparison with the euglycemic insulin clamp. Diabetes Care. 1999;22:1462–1470. doi: 10.2337/diacare.22.9.1462.
    1. Oka R, Yagi K, Sakurai M, Nakamura K, Moriuchi T, Miyamoto S, Nohara A, Kawashiri MA, Takeda Y, Yamagishi M. Insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity on the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in middle-aged Japanese. Endocr J. 2012;59:55–64. doi: 10.1507/endocrj.EJ11-0157.
    1. McDonnell CM, Donath SM, Vidmar SI, Werther GA, Cameron FJ. A novel approach to continuous glucose analysis utilizing glycemic variation. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2005;7:253–263. doi: 10.1089/dia.2005.7.253.
    1. Kovatchev BP, Cox DJ, Kumar A, Gonder-Frederick L, Clarke WL. Algorithmic evaluation of metabolic control and risk of severe hypoglycemia in type 1 and type 2 diabetes using self-monitoring blood glucose data. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2003;5:817–828. doi: 10.1089/152091503322527021.
    1. Molnar GD, Taylor WF, Ho MM. Day-to-day variation of continuously monitored glycaemia: a further measure of diabetic instability. Diabetologia. 1972;8:342–348. doi: 10.1007/BF01218495.
    1. Service FJ, Molnar GD, Rosevear JW, Ackerman E, Gatewood LC, Taylor WF. Mean amplitude of glycemic excursions, a measure of diabetic instability. Diabetes. 1970;19:644–655.
    1. Zhou J, Li H, Ran X, Yang W, Li Q, Peng Y, Li Y, Gao X, Luan X, Wang W, Jia W. Establishment of normal reference ranges for glycemic variability in Chinese subjects using continuous glucose monitoring. Med Sci Monit. 2011;17:CR9–CR13. doi: 10.12659/MSM.881318.
    1. Utzschneider KM, Prigeon RL, Faulenbach MV, Tong J, Carr DB, Boyko EJ, Leonetti DL, McNeely MJ, Fujimoto WY, Kahn SE. Oral disposition index predicts the development of future diabetes above and beyond fasting and 2-h glucose levels. Diabetes Care. 2009;32:335–341.
    1. Retnakaran R, Shen S, Hanley AJ, Vuksan V, Hamilton JK, Zinman B. Hyperbolic relationship between insulin secretion and sensitivity on oral glucose tolerance test. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2008;16(8):1901–1907. doi: 10.1038/oby.2008.307.
    1. Monnier L, Colette C, Owens DR. Glycemic variability: the third component of the dysglycemia in diabetes. Is it important? How to measure it? J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008;2:1094–1100.
    1. Borg R, Kuenen JC, Carstensen B, Zheng H, Nathan DM, Heine RJ, Nerup J, Borch-Johnsen K, Witte DR. ADAG Study Group. Real-life glycaemic profiles in non-diabetic individuals with low fasting glucose and normal HbA1c: the A1C-Derived Average Glucose (ADAG) study. Diabetologia. 2010;53:1608–1611. doi: 10.1007/s00125-010-1741-9.
    1. Wang C, Lv L, Yang Y, Chen D, Liu G, Chen L, Song Y, He L, Li X, Tian H, Jia W, Ran X. Glucose fluctuations in subjects with normal glucose tolerance, impaired glucose regulation and newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2012;76:810–815. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2265.2011.04205.x.
    1. Kildegaard J, Christensen TF, Hejlesen OK. Sources of glycemic variability–what type of technology is needed? J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009;3:986–991.
    1. Kohnert KD, Heinke P, Fritzsche G, Vogt L, Augstein P, Salzsieder E. Evaluation of the mean absolute glucose change as a measure of glycemic variability using continuous glucose monitoring data. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013;15:448–454. doi: 10.1089/dia.2012.0303.
    1. Rodbard D. New and improved methods to characterize glycemic variability using continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11:551–565. doi: 10.1089/dia.2009.0015.
    1. Rodbard D, Bailey T, Jovanovic L, Zisser H, Kaplan R, Garg SK. Improved quality of glycemic control and reduced glycemic variability with use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11:717–723. doi: 10.1089/dia.2009.0077.
    1. Rodbard D. Interpretation of continuous glucose monitoring data: glycemic variability and quality of glycemic control. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11:S55–S67.
    1. Fritzsche G, Kohnert KD, Heinke P, Vogt L, Salzsieder E. The use of a computer program to calculate the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13:319–325. doi: 10.1089/dia.2010.0108.
    1. Pratley RE, Weyer C. The role of impaired early insulin secretion in the pathogenesis of Type II diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia. 2001;44:929–945. doi: 10.1007/s001250100580.
    1. Fukushima M, Suzuki H, Seino Y. Insulin secretion capacity in the development from normal glucose tolerance to type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2004;66:S37–S43.
    1. Del Prato S. Loss of early insulin secretion leads to postprandial hyperglycaemia. Diabetologia. 2003;46:M2–M8.
    1. Bergman RN. Orchestration of glucose homeostasis: from a small acorn to the California oak. Diabetes. 2007;56:1489–1501. doi: 10.2337/db07-9903.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다