K J Joshipura1, M O Andriankaja2, F B Hu3, C S Ritchie4. 1. University of Puerto Rico, Center for Clinical Research and Health Promotion, School of Dental Medicine, Medical Sciences Campus, PO Box 365067, San Juan PR 00936, Puerto Rico; Harvard School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, United States. Electronic address: kaumudi.joshipura@upr.edu. 2. University of Puerto Rico, Center for Clinical Research and Health Promotion, School of Dental Medicine, Medical Sciences Campus, PO Box 365067, San Juan PR 00936, Puerto Rico. Electronic address: oelisoa.andriankaja@gmail.com. 3. Harvard School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, United States. Electronic address: frank.hu@channing.harvard.edu. 4. Birmingham-Atlanta VA Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1530 3rd Avenue South, Birmingham, AL 35294-2041, USA; University of Puerto Rico, Center for Clinical Research and Health Promotion, School of Dental Medicine, Medical Sciences Campus, PO Box 365067, San Juan PR 00936, Puerto Rico. Electronic address: CRitchie@aging.uab.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Impaired glucose tolerance based on 2-h glucose levels is more predictive of future cardiovascular disease and more sensitive in detecting earlier diabetes compared to impaired fasting glucose. However, the 1-h OGTT may be even more sensitive than the 2-h. We assessed the relative value of 1-h OGTT by exploring its relationship with adiposity and other measures of glucose homeostasis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ninety four overweight/obese individuals free of diabetes and major cardiovascular conditions were included in the analyses. We adjusted for age, gender, smoking status and physical activity. One-h OGTT showed similar partial correlations with fasting glucose and 2-h OGTT (r=0.60 and 0.64 respectively). Fasting glucose, fasting insulin and HOMA correlated better with 1-h OGTT (r=0.60, 0.47 and 0.52) than with 2-h OGTT (r=0.50, 0.41, and 0.45). BMI and waist circumference also showed stronger correlation with 1-h (r=0.31, 0.29), compared to 2-h OGTT (r=0.16, 0.16) or fasting glucose (r=0.23, 0.22). Metabolic syndrome was associated similarly with 1-h and 2-h OGTT. CONCLUSIONS: The 1-h OGTT correlates well with both fasting glucose and 2-h OGTT and shows similar or higher associations with obesity measures. The 1-h OGTT has potential utility in epidemiologic studies. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Impaired glucose tolerance based on 2-h glucose levels is more predictive of future cardiovascular disease and more sensitive in detecting earlier diabetes compared to impaired fasting glucose. However, the 1-h OGTT may be even more sensitive than the 2-h. We assessed the relative value of 1-h OGTT by exploring its relationship with adiposity and other measures of glucose homeostasis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ninety four overweight/obese individuals free of diabetes and major cardiovascular conditions were included in the analyses. We adjusted for age, gender, smoking status and physical activity. One-h OGTT showed similar partial correlations with fasting glucose and 2-h OGTT (r=0.60 and 0.64 respectively). Fasting glucose, fasting insulin and HOMA correlated better with 1-h OGTT (r=0.60, 0.47 and 0.52) than with 2-h OGTT (r=0.50, 0.41, and 0.45). BMI and waist circumference also showed stronger correlation with 1-h (r=0.31, 0.29), compared to 2-h OGTT (r=0.16, 0.16) or fasting glucose (r=0.23, 0.22). Metabolic syndrome was associated similarly with 1-h and 2-h OGTT. CONCLUSIONS: The 1-h OGTT correlates well with both fasting glucose and 2-h OGTT and shows similar or higher associations with obesity measures. The 1-h OGTT has potential utility in epidemiologic studies. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
Authors: Saul Genuth; K G M M Alberti; Peter Bennett; John Buse; Ralph Defronzo; Richard Kahn; John Kitzmiller; William C Knowler; Harold Lebovitz; Ake Lernmark; David Nathan; Jerry Palmer; Robert Rizza; Christopher Saudek; Jonathan Shaw; Michael Steffes; Michael Stern; Jaako Tuomilehto; Paul Zimmet Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Elizabeth Selvin; Michael W Steffes; Hong Zhu; Kunihiro Matsushita; Lynne Wagenknecht; James Pankow; Josef Coresh; Frederick L Brancati Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Melania Manco; Simona Panunzi; David P Macfarlane; Alain Golay; Olle Melander; Thomas Konrad; John R Petrie; Geltrude Mingrone Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Oelisoa M Andriankaja; Francisco J Muñoz-Torres; José Vivaldi-Oliver; Brian G Leroux; Maribel Campos; Kaumudi Joshipura; Cynthia M Pérez Journal: J Periodontol Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 6.993
Authors: S F Ehrlich; M M Hedderson; S D Brown; B Sternfeld; L Chasan-Taber; J Feng; J Adams; J Ching; Y Crites; C P Quesenberry; A Ferrara Journal: Diabetes Metab Date: 2017-02-24 Impact factor: 6.041
Authors: Oelisoa M Andriankaja; James J Jiménez; Francisco J Muñoz-Torres; Cynthia M Pérez; José L Vergara; Kaumudi J Joshipura Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 2015-12-11 Impact factor: 8.728
Authors: Josiemer Mattei; José F Rodríguez-Orengo; Martha Tamez; Francheska Corujo; Aida Claudio; Héctor Villanueva; Hannia Campos; Walter C Willett; Katherine L Tucker; Carlos F Ríos-Bedoya Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 3.295