Ethan Paddock1, Maximilian G Hohenadel2, Paolo Piaggi2, Pavithra Vijayakumar2, Robert L Hanson2, William C Knowler2, Jonathan Krakoff2, Douglas C Chang3. 1. Phoenix Epidemiology and Clinical Research Branch, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 4212 N. 16th Street, Phoenix, AZ, 85016, USA. paddock.ethan@gmail.com. 2. Phoenix Epidemiology and Clinical Research Branch, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 4212 N. 16th Street, Phoenix, AZ, 85016, USA. 3. Phoenix Epidemiology and Clinical Research Branch, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 4212 N. 16th Street, Phoenix, AZ, 85016, USA. changdc@mail.nih.gov.
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Elevated 2-h plasma glucose concentration (2 h-PG) during a 75 g OGTT predict the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, 1-h plasma glucose concentration (1 h-PG) is associated with insulin secretion and may be a better predictor of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to investigate the association between 1 h-PG and 2 h-PG using gold standard methods for measuring insulin secretion and action. We also compared 1 h-PG and 2 h-PG as predictors of type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This analysis included adult volunteers without diabetes, predominantly Native Americans of Southwestern heritage, who were involved in a longitudinal epidemiological study from 1965 to 2007, with a baseline OGTT that included measurement of 1 h-PG. Group 1 (n = 716) underwent an IVGTT and hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic clamp for measurement of acute insulin response (AIR) and insulin-stimulated glucose disposal (M), respectively. Some members of Group 1 (n = 490 of 716) and members of a second, larger, group (Group 2; n = 1946) were followed-up to assess the development of type 2 diabetes (median 9.0 and 12.8 years follow-up, respectively). RESULTS: Compared with 2 h-PG (r = -0.281), 1 h-PG (r = -0.384) was more closely associated with AIR, whereas, compared with 1 h-PG (r = -0.340), 2 h-PG (r = -0.408) was more closely associated with M. Measures of 1 h-PG and 2 h-PG had similar abilities to predict type 2 diabetes, which did not change when both were included in the model. A 1 h-PG cut-off of 9.3 mmol/l provided similar levels of sensitivity and specificity as a 2 h-PG cut-off of 7.8 mmol/l; the latter is used to define impaired glucose tolerance, a recognised predictor of type 2 diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: The 1 h-PG was associated with important physiological predictors of type 2 diabetes and was as effective as 2 h-PG for predicting type 2 diabetes mellitus. The 1 h-PG is, therefore, an alternative method of identifying individuals with an elevated risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Elevated 2-h plasma glucose concentration (2 h-PG) during a 75 g OGTT predict the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, 1-h plasma glucose concentration (1 h-PG) is associated with insulin secretion and may be a better predictor of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to investigate the association between 1 h-PG and 2 h-PG using gold standard methods for measuring insulin secretion and action. We also compared 1 h-PG and 2 h-PG as predictors of type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This analysis included adult volunteers without diabetes, predominantly Native Americans of Southwestern heritage, who were involved in a longitudinal epidemiological study from 1965 to 2007, with a baseline OGTT that included measurement of 1 h-PG. Group 1 (n = 716) underwent an IVGTT and hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic clamp for measurement of acute insulin response (AIR) and insulin-stimulated glucose disposal (M), respectively. Some members of Group 1 (n = 490 of 716) and members of a second, larger, group (Group 2; n = 1946) were followed-up to assess the development of type 2 diabetes (median 9.0 and 12.8 years follow-up, respectively). RESULTS: Compared with 2 h-PG (r = -0.281), 1 h-PG (r = -0.384) was more closely associated with AIR, whereas, compared with 1 h-PG (r = -0.340), 2 h-PG (r = -0.408) was more closely associated with M. Measures of 1 h-PG and 2 h-PG had similar abilities to predict type 2 diabetes, which did not change when both were included in the model. A 1 h-PG cut-off of 9.3 mmol/l provided similar levels of sensitivity and specificity as a 2 h-PG cut-off of 7.8 mmol/l; the latter is used to define impaired glucose tolerance, a recognised predictor of type 2 diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: The 1 h-PG was associated with important physiological predictors of type 2 diabetes and was as effective as 2 h-PG for predicting type 2 diabetes mellitus. The 1 h-PG is, therefore, an alternative method of identifying individuals with an elevated risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Authors: R L Hanson; R E Pratley; C Bogardus; K M Narayan; J M Roumain; G Imperatore; A Fagot-Campagna; D J Pettitt; P H Bennett; W C Knowler Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2000-01-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Akram Alyass; Peter Almgren; Mikael Akerlund; Jonathan Dushoff; Bo Isomaa; Peter Nilsson; Tiinamaija Tuomi; Valeriya Lyssenko; Leif Groop; David Meyre Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2014-10-08 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Ethan Paddock; Helen C Looker; Paolo Piaggi; William C Knowler; Jonathan Krakoff; Douglas C Chang Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-04-05 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: Elie Antoun; Negusse T Kitaba; Philip Titcombe; Kathryn V Dalrymple; Emma S Garratt; Sheila J Barton; Robert Murray; Paul T Seed; Joanna D Holbrook; Michael S Kobor; David Ts Lin; Julia L MacIsaac; Graham C Burdge; Sara L White; Lucilla Poston; Keith M Godfrey; Karen A Lillycrop Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2020-11-05 Impact factor: 11.069