Natalie D Shaw1,2, Andrew W McHill3,4, Michele Schiavon5, Tairmae Kangarloo1, Piotr W Mankowski3,4, Claudio Cobelli5, Elizabeth B Klerman3,4, Janet E Hall1,2. 1. Reproductive Endocrine Unit, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 2. Clinical Research Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Research Triangle Park, NC. 3. Division of Sleep and Circadian Disorders, The Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston MA. 4. Division of Sleep Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston MA. 5. Department of Information Engineering, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Cross-sectional studies report a correlation between slow wave sleep (SWS) duration and insulin sensitivity (SI) in children and adults. Suppression of SWS causes insulin resistance in adults but effects in children are unknown. This study was designed to determine the effect of SWS fragmentation on SI in children. METHODS:Fourteen pubertal children (11.3-14.1 y, body mass index 29(th) to 97(th) percentile) were randomized to sleep studies and mixed meal (MM) tolerance tests with and without SWS disruption. Beta-cell responsiveness (Φ) andSI were determined using oral minimal modeling. RESULTS: During the disruption night, auditory stimuli (68.1 ± 10.7/night; mean ± standard error) decreased SWS by 40.0 ± 8.0%. SWS fragmentation did not affect fasting glucose (non-disrupted 76.9 ± 2.3 versus disrupted 80.6 ± 2.1 mg/dL), insulin (9.2 ± 1.6 versus 10.4 ± 2.0 μIU/mL), or C-peptide (1.9 ± 0.2 versus 1.9 ± 0.1 ng/mL) levels and did not impair SI (12.9 ± 2.3 versus 10.1 ± 1.6 10(-4) dL/kg/min per μIU/mL) or Φ (73.4 ± 7.8 versus 74.4 ± 8.4 10(-9) min(-1)) to a MM challenge. Only the subjects in the most insulin-sensitive tertile demonstrated a consistent decrease in SI after SWS disruption. CONCLUSION:Pubertal children across a range of body mass indices may be resistant to the adverse metabolic effects of acute SWS disruption. Only those subjects with high SI (i.e., having the greatest "metabolic reserve") demonstrated a consistent decrease in SI. These results suggest that adolescents may have a unique ability to adapt to metabolic stressors, such as acute SWS disruption, to maintain euglycemia. Additional studies are necessary to confirm that this resiliency is maintained in settings of chronic SWS disruption.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Cross-sectional studies report a correlation between slow wave sleep (SWS) duration and insulin sensitivity (SI) in children and adults. Suppression of SWS causes insulin resistance in adults but effects in children are unknown. This study was designed to determine the effect of SWS fragmentation on SI in children. METHODS: Fourteen pubertal children (11.3-14.1 y, body mass index 29(th) to 97(th) percentile) were randomized to sleep studies and mixed meal (MM) tolerance tests with and without SWS disruption. Beta-cell responsiveness (Φ) and SI were determined using oral minimal modeling. RESULTS: During the disruption night, auditory stimuli (68.1 ± 10.7/night; mean ± standard error) decreased SWS by 40.0 ± 8.0%. SWS fragmentation did not affect fasting glucose (non-disrupted 76.9 ± 2.3 versus disrupted 80.6 ± 2.1 mg/dL), insulin (9.2 ± 1.6 versus 10.4 ± 2.0 μIU/mL), or C-peptide (1.9 ± 0.2 versus 1.9 ± 0.1 ng/mL) levels and did not impair SI (12.9 ± 2.3 versus 10.1 ± 1.6 10(-4) dL/kg/min per μIU/mL) or Φ (73.4 ± 7.8 versus 74.4 ± 8.4 10(-9) min(-1)) to a MM challenge. Only the subjects in the most insulin-sensitive tertile demonstrated a consistent decrease in SI after SWS disruption. CONCLUSION: Pubertal children across a range of body mass indices may be resistant to the adverse metabolic effects of acute SWS disruption. Only those subjects with high SI (i.e., having the greatest "metabolic reserve") demonstrated a consistent decrease in SI. These results suggest that adolescents may have a unique ability to adapt to metabolic stressors, such as acute SWS disruption, to maintain euglycemia. Additional studies are necessary to confirm that this resiliency is maintained in settings of chronic SWS disruption.
Authors: Chiara Dalla Man; Marco Campioni; Kenneth S Polonsky; Rita Basu; Robert A Rizza; Gianna Toffolo; Claudio Cobelli Journal: Diabetes Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: N D Shaw; J P Butler; S Nemati; T Kangarloo; M Ghassemi; A Malhotra; J E Hall Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2014-12-09 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Thomas C Chou; Alvhild A Bjorkum; Stephanie E Gaus; Jun Lu; Thomas E Scammell; Clifford B Saper Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Friedhelm Sayk; Christina Teckentrup; Christoph Becker; Dennis Heutling; Peter Wellhöner; Hendrik Lehnert; Christoph Dodt Journal: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Date: 2009-11-11 Impact factor: 3.619
Authors: Dorit Koren; Lorraine E Levitt Katz; Preneet C Brar; Paul R Gallagher; Robert I Berkowitz; Lee J Brooks Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-09-20 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Babak Mokhlesi; Karla A Temple; Ashley H Tjaden; Sharon L Edelstein; Kristen J Nadeau; Tamara S Hannon; Shalini Manchanda; Susan Sam; Elena Barengolts; Kristina M Utzschneider; David A Ehrmann; Eve Van Cauter Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2019-09-15 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: Andrew W McHill; Elizabeth B Klerman; Bridgette Slater; Tairmae Kangarloo; Piotr W Mankowski; Natalie D Shaw Journal: Sleep Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Andrew W McHill; Joseph T Hull; Ciaran J McMullan; Elizabeth B Klerman Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 5.555
Authors: Silva Arslanian; Fida Bacha; Margaret Grey; Marsha D Marcus; Neil H White; Philip Zeitler Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 19.112