BACKGROUND: To describe the morphology of glucose curve during the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and any association with glucose tolerance, insulin action and secretion in obese youth. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHODS: OGTT data of 553 patients were analysed. Subjects were divided in groups based on the morphology (i.e. monophasic, biphasic, triphasic and upward monotonous) of glucose curve. Insulin action was estimated by the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, the insulin sensitivity, the muscle insulin sensitivity and the hepatic insulin resistance indexes (HIRI), and the oral glucose insulin sensitivity (OGIS). Insulin secretion was estimated by the insulinogenic index (IGI). Disposition index, including the insulin secretion-sensitivity index-2, and areas under glucose (AUC(G)) and insulin (AUC(I)) curves were computed. RESULTS: In patients with normal glucose tolerance (n=522), prevalent morphology of the glucose curve was monophasic (n=285, 54%). Monophasic morphology was associated with the highest concentration of 1 h plasma glucose (P<0.0001) and AUC(G) (P<0.0001); biphasic morphology with better insulin sensitivity as estimated by OGIS (P<0.03) and lower AUC(I) (P<0.0001); triphasic morphology with the highest values of HIRI (P<0.02) and IGI (P<0.007). By combining morphologies of glucose and insulin curves or time of the glucose peak, a deeper characterisation of different phenotypes of glucose metabolism emerged. CONCLUSIONS: Morphologies of the glucose curve seem reflecting different metabolic phenotypes of insulin action and secretion, particularly when combined with morphologies of insulin curve or time of glucose peak. Such findings may deserve validation in cohort study, in which glucose metabolism would be estimated by using gold standard techniques.
BACKGROUND: To describe the morphology of glucose curve during the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and any association with glucose tolerance, insulin action and secretion in obese youth. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHODS: OGTT data of 553 patients were analysed. Subjects were divided in groups based on the morphology (i.e. monophasic, biphasic, triphasic and upward monotonous) of glucose curve. Insulin action was estimated by the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, the insulin sensitivity, the muscle insulin sensitivity and the hepatic insulin resistance indexes (HIRI), and the oral glucose insulin sensitivity (OGIS). Insulin secretion was estimated by the insulinogenic index (IGI). Disposition index, including the insulin secretion-sensitivity index-2, and areas under glucose (AUC(G)) and insulin (AUC(I)) curves were computed. RESULTS: In patients with normal glucose tolerance (n=522), prevalent morphology of the glucose curve was monophasic (n=285, 54%). Monophasic morphology was associated with the highest concentration of 1 h plasma glucose (P<0.0001) and AUC(G) (P<0.0001); biphasic morphology with better insulin sensitivity as estimated by OGIS (P<0.03) and lower AUC(I) (P<0.0001); triphasic morphology with the highest values of HIRI (P<0.02) and IGI (P<0.007). By combining morphologies of glucose and insulin curves or time of the glucose peak, a deeper characterisation of different phenotypes of glucose metabolism emerged. CONCLUSIONS: Morphologies of the glucose curve seem reflecting different metabolic phenotypes of insulin action and secretion, particularly when combined with morphologies of insulin curve or time of glucose peak. Such findings may deserve validation in cohort study, in which glucose metabolism would be estimated by using gold standard techniques.
Authors: Heba M Ismail; Ping Xu; Ingrid M Libman; Dorothy J Becker; Jennifer B Marks; Jay S Skyler; Jerry P Palmer; Jay M Sosenko Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2017-09-27 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Heba M Ismail; Mario A Cleves; Ping Xu; Ingrid M Libman; Dorothy J Becker; Jennifer B Marks; Jay S Skyler; Jerry P Palmer; Jay M Sosenko Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2020-09-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Stephanie T Chung; Joon Ha; Anthony U Onuzuruike; Kannan Kasturi; Mirella Galvan-De La Cruz; Brianna A Bingham; Rafeal L Baker; Jean N Utumatwishima; Lilian S Mabundo; Madia Ricks; Arthur S Sherman; Anne E Sumner Journal: Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) Date: 2017-08-06 Impact factor: 3.478
Authors: Caroline K Kramer; Chang Ye; Anthony J G Hanley; Philip W Connelly; Mathew Sermer; Bernard Zinman; Ravi Retnakaran Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Silva Arslanian; Laure El Ghormli; Joon Young Kim; Fida Bacha; Christine Chan; Heba M Ismail; Lorraine E Levitt Katz; Lynne Levitsky; Jeanie B Tryggestad; Neil H White Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Joon Young Kim; Sara F Michaliszyn; Alexis Nasr; SoJung Lee; Hala Tfayli; Tamara Hannon; Kara S Hughan; Fida Bacha; Silva Arslanian Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-06-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Michael Bergman; Muhammad Abdul-Ghani; Ralph A DeFronzo; Melania Manco; Giorgio Sesti; Teresa Vanessa Fiorentino; Antonio Ceriello; Mary Rhee; Lawrence S Phillips; Stephanie Chung; Celeste Cravalho; Ram Jagannathan; Louis Monnier; Claude Colette; David Owens; Cristina Bianchi; Stefano Del Prato; Mariana P Monteiro; João Sérgio Neves; Jose Luiz Medina; Maria Paula Macedo; Rogério Tavares Ribeiro; João Filipe Raposo; Brenda Dorcely; Nouran Ibrahim; Martin Buysschaert Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: Silva A Arslanian; Laure El Ghormli; Joon Young Kim; Ashley H Tjaden; Elena Barengolts; Sonia Caprio; Tamara S Hannon; Kieren J Mather; Kristen J Nadeau; Kristina M Utzschneider; Steven E Kahn Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 19.112