| Literature DB >> 21078684 |
D Hofsø1, T Jenssen, J Bollerslev, T Ueland, K Godang, M Stumvoll, R Sandbu, J Røislien, J Hjelmesæth.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The effects of various weight loss strategies on pancreatic beta cell function remain unclear. We aimed to compare the effect of intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery (RYGB) on beta cell function.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21078684 PMCID: PMC3022337 DOI: 10.1530/EJE-10-0804
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Endocrinol ISSN: 0804-4643 Impact factor: 6.664
Participant characteristics at baseline and at 1-year follow-up. Data are given as mean (s.d.) or n (%). AGT is defined by fasting glucose ≥6.1 mmol/l and/or 2 h glucose ≥11.1 mmol/l.
| Control ( | Surgery ( | Lifestyle ( | Surgery ( | Lifestyle ( | Treatment choice | Glucose tolerance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 42.6 (8.7) | 39.0 (9.6) | 43.2 (11.6) | 43.5 (10.3) | 51.3 (8.1)†,‡ | ||
| Gender (female, yes) | 19 (66%) | 23 (67%) | 24 (73%) | 22 (73%) | 15 (68%) | ||
| BMI (kg/m2) | |||||||
| Baseline | 22.6 (1.5) | 47.2 (5.3)† | 43.3 (5.2)†,‡ | 47.3 (6.0)† | 43.5 (4.5)†,‡ | ||
| 1 year | 33.1 (5.1)∥ | 39.6 (6.3)∥ | 33.1 (5.4)∥ | 39.4 (4.0)∥ | <0.001 | 0.740 | |
| HbAlc (%) | |||||||
| Baseline | 5.3 (0.3) | 5.2 (0.3) | 5.3 (0.3) | 5.9 (0.6)†,§ | 5.9 (0.4)†,§ | ||
| 1 year | 5.2 (0.4) | 5.3 (0.3) | 5.4 (0.3)∥ | 5.7 (0.5)∥ | 0.103 | <0.001 | |
| HOMA-S (%) | |||||||
| Baseline | 71.0 (23.9) | 32.0 (24.3)† | 31.8 (14.0)† | 21.0 (7.4)†,§ | 23.8 (8.6)†,§ | ||
| 1 year | 67.1 (33.6)∥ | 43.5 (19.9)∥ | 60.0 (29.9)∥ | 33.1 (15.7)∥ | <0.001 | 0.793 | |
| First phaseest (pM) | |||||||
| Baseline | 1348 (455) | 2693 (906)† | 2406 (942)† | 2238 (931)† | 2096 (1041)†,§ | ||
| 1 year | 2366 (710)∥ | 2077 (903)∥ | 1785 (728)∥ | 1873 (683) | 0.463 | 0.762 | |
| Total AUCIns/Gluc (pmol/mmol) | |||||||
| Baseline | 53.1 (22.4) | 104.4 (36.6)† | 96.5 (42.8)† | 77.4 (34.6)†,§ | 72.9 (28.1)†,§ | ||
| 1 year | 97.2 (32.7) | 78.7 (38.7)∥ | 70.5 (30.6) | 71.0 (26.3) | 0.614 | 0.155 | |
| ΔIns30/ΔGluc30 (pmol/mmol) | |||||||
| Baseline | 147 (96) | 230 (100)† | 216 (123)† | 144 (99)§ | 119 (62)§ | ||
| 1 year | 256 (139) | 249 (167) | 172 (153) | 149 (111) | 0.842 | 0.993 | |
AUC, area under the curve; Ins, insulin; Gluc, glucose. *P value for the effect of treatment choice and glucose tolerance status at baseline on change in the variables, two-way ANOVA. Between-group differences at baseline, one-way ANOVA with post hoc comparison (LSD): †P<0.05 versus control group; ‡P<0.05 versus surgery group in the same glucose tolerance group; and §P<0.05 versus NGT group in the same treatment group. Within group differences, paired samples t-test: ∥P<0.05.
Five subjects were excluded due to negative or extremely high values.
Figure 1Mean glucose, insulin and C-peptide during the OGTT in controls and in morbidly obese subjects at baseline and 1 year after gastric bypass surgery and intensive lifestyle intervention according to glucose tolerance status at baseline. Error bars represent 95% CIs. Independent samples t-tests were used for the comparison of means. *P<0.05, controls versus intervention groups. †P<0.05, surgery versus lifestyle group.
Figure 2Mean HOMA-S plotted against first phaseest in controls and morbidly obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance (A) and abnormal glucose tolerance (B) before and 1 year after gastric bypass and lifestyle intervention. The curve represents the regression line of the natural logarithm of estimated insulin secretion as a linear function of the natural logarithm of estimated insulin sensitivity for all participants with normal glucose tolerance at baseline. The bar graph (C) represents mean value of the corresponding disposition indices. Error bars represent 95% CIs. *P value for the effect of treatment choice and glucose tolerance status at baseline on change in disposition index, two-way ANOVA. †P<0.05, ††P<0.001, 1 year versus baseline, paired samples t-test. ‡P<0.001, between group (surgery versus lifestyle), changes in disposition index within the same glucose tolerance group, ANCOVA with adjusting for gender, age and BMI at baseline and baseline value. §P<0.001, normal glucose tolerance versus abnormal glucose tolerance within the same intervention group at baseline, independent samples t-test.
Figure 3Mean stimulated (A) and fasting (B) proinsulin-to-insulin ratios in controls and morbidly obese subjects with normal and abnormal glucose tolerance before and 1 year after gastric bypass and lifestyle intervention. Error bars represent 95% CIs. *P value for the effect of treatment choice and glucose tolerance status at baseline on change in disposition index, two-way ANOVA. ††P<0.001, 1 year versus baseline, paired samples t-test. ‡P<0.001, between groups (surgery versus lifestyle), changes in disposition index within the same glucose tolerance group, ANCOVA with adjusting for gender, age and BMI at baseline and baseline value. §P<0.001, normal glucose tolerance versus abnormal glucose tolerance within the same intervention group at baseline, independent samples t-test.