Annelien Van Dalem1, Simke Demeester1, Eric V Balti1, Katelijn Decochez1, Ilse Weets2,3, Evy Vandemeulebroucke1, Ursule Van de Velde1,4, An Walgraeve1, Nicole Seret5, Christophe De Block6, Johannes Ruige7, Pieter Gillard1,8, Bart Keymeulen1,4, Daniel G Pipeleers1, Frans K Gorus1,9. 1. Diabetes Research Center, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 100, 1090, Brussels, Belgium. 2. Diabetes Research Center, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 100, 1090, Brussels, Belgium. ilse.weets@uzbrussel.be. 3. Department of Clinical Chemistry and Radio-immunology, University Hospital Brussels, Brussels, Belgium. ilse.weets@uzbrussel.be. 4. Department of Diabetology, University Hospital Brussels, Brussels, Belgium. 5. CHC Clinique de L'Espérance, Montegnée, Belgium. 6. Department of Endocrinology, Diabetology and Metabolism, University Hospital Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. 7. Department of Endocrinology, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium. 8. Department of Endocrinology, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 9. Department of Clinical Chemistry and Radio-immunology, University Hospital Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We examined whether measures of glycaemic variability (GV), assessed by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), can complement or replace measures of beta cell function and insulin action in detecting the progression of preclinical disease to type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Twenty-two autoantibody-positive (autoAb(+)) first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with type 1 diabetes who were themselves at high 5-year risk (50%) for type 1 diabetes underwent CGM, a hyperglycaemic clamp test and OGTT, and were followed for up to 31 months. Clamp variables were used to estimate beta cell function (first-phase [AUC5-10 min] and second-phase [AUC120-150 min] C-peptide release) combined with insulin resistance (glucose disposal rate; M 120-150 min). Age-matched healthy volunteers (n = 20) and individuals with recent-onset type 1 diabetes (n = 9) served as control groups. RESULTS: In autoAb(+) FDRs, M 120-150 min below the 10th percentile (P10) of controls achieved 86% diagnostic efficiency in discriminating between normoglycaemic FDRs and individuals with (impending) dysglycaemia. M 120-150 min outperformed AUC5-10 min and AUC120-150 min C-peptide below P10 of controls, which were only 59-68% effective. Among GV variables, CGM above the reference range was better at detecting (impending) dysglycaemia than elevated SMBG (77-82% vs 73% efficiency). Combined CGM measures were equally efficient as M 120-150 min (86%). Daytime GV variables were inversely correlated with clamp variables, and more strongly with M 120-150 min than with AUC5-10 min or AUC120-150 min C-peptide. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: CGM-derived GV and the glucose disposal rate, reflecting both insulin secretion and action, outperformed SMBG and first- or second-phase AUC C-peptide in identifying FDRs with (impending) dysglycaemia or diabetes. Our results indicate the feasibility of developing minimally invasive CGM-based criteria for close metabolic monitoring and as outcome measures in trials.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We examined whether measures of glycaemic variability (GV), assessed by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), can complement or replace measures of beta cell function and insulin action in detecting the progression of preclinical disease to type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Twenty-two autoantibody-positive (autoAb(+)) first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with type 1 diabetes who were themselves at high 5-year risk (50%) for type 1 diabetes underwent CGM, a hyperglycaemic clamp test and OGTT, and were followed for up to 31 months. Clamp variables were used to estimate beta cell function (first-phase [AUC5-10 min] and second-phase [AUC120-150 min] C-peptide release) combined with insulin resistance (glucose disposal rate; M 120-150 min). Age-matched healthy volunteers (n = 20) and individuals with recent-onset type 1 diabetes (n = 9) served as control groups. RESULTS: In autoAb(+) FDRs, M 120-150 min below the 10th percentile (P10) of controls achieved 86% diagnostic efficiency in discriminating between normoglycaemic FDRs and individuals with (impending) dysglycaemia. M 120-150 min outperformed AUC5-10 min and AUC120-150 min C-peptide below P10 of controls, which were only 59-68% effective. Among GV variables, CGM above the reference range was better at detecting (impending) dysglycaemia than elevated SMBG (77-82% vs 73% efficiency). Combined CGM measures were equally efficient as M 120-150 min (86%). Daytime GV variables were inversely correlated with clamp variables, and more strongly with M 120-150 min than with AUC5-10 min or AUC120-150 min C-peptide. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: CGM-derived GV and the glucose disposal rate, reflecting both insulin secretion and action, outperformed SMBG and first- or second-phase AUC C-peptide in identifying FDRs with (impending) dysglycaemia or diabetes. Our results indicate the feasibility of developing minimally invasive CGM-based criteria for close metabolic monitoring and as outcome measures in trials.
Authors: Gabriel I Uwaifo; Erica M Fallon; Jeff Chin; Jane Elberg; Shamik J Parikh; Jack A Yanovski Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Eric V Balti; Evy Vandemeulebroucke; Ilse Weets; Ursule Van De Velde; Annelien Van Dalem; Simke Demeester; Katrijn Verhaeghen; Pieter Gillard; Christophe De Block; Johannes Ruige; Bart Keymeulen; Daniel G Pipeleers; Katelijn Decochez; Frans K Gorus Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2014-11-18 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Lars C Stene; Katherine Barriga; Michelle Hoffman; Jaime Kean; Georgeanna Klingensmith; Jill M Norris; Henry A Erlich; George S Eisenbarth; Marian Rewers Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: Andrea K Steck; Fran Dong; Iman Taki; Michelle Hoffman; Kimber Simmons; Brigitte I Frohnert; Marian J Rewers Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Stephen R Karpen; Jessica L Dunne; Brigitte I Frohnert; Marjana Marinac; Claudia Richard; Sarah E David; Inish M O'Doherty Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2022-07-22 Impact factor: 10.460
Authors: Annelien Van Dalem; Simke Demeester; Eric V Balti; Bart Keymeulen; Pieter Gillard; Bruno Lapauw; Christophe De Block; Pascale Abrams; Eric Weber; Ilse Vermeulen; Pieter De Pauw; Daniël Pipeleers; Ilse Weets; Frans K Gorus Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Michael G Voss; David D Cuthbertson; Mario M Cleves; Ping Xu; Carmella Evans-Molina; Jerry P Palmer; Maria J Redondo; Andrea K Steck; Markus Lundgren; Helena Larsson; Wayne V Moore; Mark A Atkinson; Jay M Sosenko; Heba M Ismail Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2021-08-06 Impact factor: 17.152