Maria S Remedi1,2,3, Mareen Thomas4, Colin G Nichols2,3, Bess A Marshall2,3,4. 1. Department of Medicine, Washington University Medical School, St. Louis, Missouri. 2. Department of Cell Biology and Physiology, Washington University Medical School, St. Louis, Missouri. 3. Center for the Investigation of Membrane Excitability Diseases, Washington University Medical School, St. Louis, Missouri. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Washington University Medical School, St. Louis, Missouri.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with early onset diabetes because of defects in glucose-stimulated insulin secretion (GSIS) may respond better to sulfonylureas than insulin treatment. Such patients include those with monogenic disorders, who can be differentiated from autoimmune type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) by genetic testing. Genetic testing is expensive and unknown defects in GSIS would not be diagnosed. AIMS: We propose a sulfonylurea challenge test to identify patients who have been clinically diagnosed with T1DM, but those who maintain a preferentially sulfonylurea-responsive insulin secretion. MATERIALS & METHODS: A total of 3 healthy controls, 2 neonatal diabetes mellitus (NDM) subjects, 3 antibody-positive (Ab+T1DM), and 12 antibody-negative (Ab-T1DM) subjects with type 1 diabetes, were given an intravenous bolus of glucose followed by an oral dose of glipizide. RESULTS: Healthy controls showed a robust C-peptide increase after both glucose and glipizide, but NDM subjects showed a large increase in C-peptide only following glipizide. As expected, 2 of 3 Ab+T1DM, as well as 11 of 12 Ab-T1DM showed no response to either glucose or glipizide. However, 1 Ab-T1DM and 1 Ab+T1DM showed a small C-peptide response to glucose and a marked positive response to glipizide, suggesting defects in GSIS rather than typical autoimmune diabetes. DISCUSSION: These data demonstrate the feasibility of the sulfonylurea challenge test, and suggest that responder individuals may be identified. CONCLUSIONS: We propose that this sulfonylurea challenge test should be explored more extensively, as it may prove useful as a clinical and scientific tool.
BACKGROUND:Patients with early onset diabetes because of defects in glucose-stimulated insulin secretion (GSIS) may respond better to sulfonylureas than insulin treatment. Such patients include those with monogenic disorders, who can be differentiated from autoimmune type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) by genetic testing. Genetic testing is expensive and unknown defects in GSIS would not be diagnosed. AIMS: We propose a sulfonylurea challenge test to identify patients who have been clinically diagnosed with T1DM, but those who maintain a preferentially sulfonylurea-responsive insulin secretion. MATERIALS & METHODS: A total of 3 healthy controls, 2 neonatal diabetes mellitus (NDM) subjects, 3 antibody-positive (Ab+T1DM), and 12 antibody-negative (Ab-T1DM) subjects with type 1 diabetes, were given an intravenous bolus of glucose followed by an oral dose of glipizide. RESULTS: Healthy controls showed a robust C-peptide increase after both glucose and glipizide, but NDM subjects showed a large increase in C-peptide only following glipizide. As expected, 2 of 3 Ab+T1DM, as well as 11 of 12 Ab-T1DM showed no response to either glucose or glipizide. However, 1 Ab-T1DM and 1 Ab+T1DM showed a small C-peptide response to glucose and a marked positive response to glipizide, suggesting defects in GSIS rather than typical autoimmune diabetes. DISCUSSION: These data demonstrate the feasibility of the sulfonylurea challenge test, and suggest that responder individuals may be identified. CONCLUSIONS: We propose that this sulfonylurea challenge test should be explored more extensively, as it may prove useful as a clinical and scientific tool.
Authors: Ewan R Pearson; Isabelle Flechtner; Pål R Njølstad; Maciej T Malecki; Sarah E Flanagan; Brian Larkin; Frances M Ashcroft; Iwar Klimes; Ethel Codner; Violeta Iotova; Annabelle S Slingerland; Julian Shield; Jean-Jacques Robert; Jens J Holst; Penny M Clark; Sian Ellard; Oddmund Søvik; Michel Polak; Andrew T Hattersley Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-08-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J V Sagen; E R Pearson; A Johansen; G Spyer; O Søvik; O Pedersen; P R Njølstad; A T Hattersley; T Hansen Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Siri Atma W Greeley; Susan E Tucker; Helen I Worrell; Kinga B Skowron; Graeme I Bell; Louis H Philipson Journal: Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 3.243
Authors: Maria Sara Remedi; Harley T Kurata; Alexis Scott; F Thomas Wunderlich; Eva Rother; Andre Kleinridders; Ailing Tong; Jens C Brüning; Joseph C Koster; Colin G Nichols Journal: Cell Metab Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 27.287
Authors: Anna L Gloyn; Michael N Weedon; Katharine R Owen; Martina J Turner; Bridget A Knight; Graham Hitman; Mark Walker; Jonathan C Levy; Mike Sampson; Stephanie Halford; Mark I McCarthy; Andrew T Hattersley; Timothy M Frayling Journal: Diabetes Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Bess A Marshall; Rebecca P Green; Jennifer Wambach; Neil H White; Maria S Remedi; Colin G Nichols Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Tarig Babiker; Natascia Vedovato; Kashyap Patel; Nicholas Thomas; Roisin Finn; Roope Männikkö; Ali J Chakera; Sarah E Flanagan; Maggie H Shepherd; Sian Ellard; Frances M Ashcroft; Andrew T Hattersley Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 10.122