Heba M Ismail1, Ping Xu2, Ingrid M Libman3, Dorothy J Becker3, Jennifer B Marks4, Jay S Skyler4, Jerry P Palmer5, Jay M Sosenko4. 1. Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh, 4401 Penn Ave, FP 8129, Pittsburgh, PA, 15224, USA. heba.ismail2@chp.edu. 2. Pediatrics Epidemiology Center, College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. 3. Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh, 4401 Penn Ave, FP 8129, Pittsburgh, PA, 15224, USA. 4. Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Diabetes Research Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. 5. VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Nutrition, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to examine: (1) whether specific glucose-response curve shapes during OGTTs are predictive of type 1 diabetes development; and (2) the extent to which the glucose-response curve is influenced by insulin secretion. METHODS: Autoantibody-positive relatives of people with type 1 diabetes whose baseline OGTT met the definition of a monophasic or biphasic glucose-response curve were followed for the development of type 1 diabetes (n = 2627). A monophasic curve was defined as an increase in OGTT glucose between 30 and 90 min followed by a decline of ≥ 0.25 mmol/l between 90 and 120 min. A biphasic response curve was defined as a decrease in glucose after an initial increase, followed by a second increase of ≥ 0.25 mmol/l. Associations of type 1 diabetes risk with glucose curve shapes were examined using cumulative incidence curve comparisons and proportional hazards regression. C-peptide responses were compared with and without adjustments for potential confounders. RESULTS: The majority of participants had a monophasic curve at baseline (n = 1732 [66%] vs n = 895 [34%]). The biphasic group had a lower cumulative incidence of type 1 diabetes (p < 0.001), which persisted after adjustments for age, sex, BMI z score and number of autoantibodies (p < 0.001). Among the monophasic group, the risk of type 1 diabetes was greater for those with a glucose peak at 90 min than for those with a peak at 30 min; the difference persisted after adjustments (p < 0.001). Compared with the biphasic group, the monophasic group had a lower early C-peptide (30-0 min) response, a lower C-peptide index (30-0 min C-peptide/30-0 min glucose), as well as a greater 2 h C-peptide level (p < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Those with biphasic glucose curves have a lower risk of progression to type 1 diabetes than those with monophasic curves, and the risk among the monophasic group is increased when the glucose peak occurs at 90 min than at 30 min. Differences in glucose curve shapes between the monophasic and biphasic groups appear to be related to C-peptide responses.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to examine: (1) whether specific glucose-response curve shapes during OGTTs are predictive of type 1 diabetes development; and (2) the extent to which the glucose-response curve is influenced by insulin secretion. METHODS: Autoantibody-positive relatives of people with type 1 diabetes whose baseline OGTT met the definition of a monophasic or biphasic glucose-response curve were followed for the development of type 1 diabetes (n = 2627). A monophasic curve was defined as an increase in OGTT glucose between 30 and 90 min followed by a decline of ≥ 0.25 mmol/l between 90 and 120 min. A biphasic response curve was defined as a decrease in glucose after an initial increase, followed by a second increase of ≥ 0.25 mmol/l. Associations of type 1 diabetes risk with glucose curve shapes were examined using cumulative incidence curve comparisons and proportional hazards regression. C-peptide responses were compared with and without adjustments for potential confounders. RESULTS: The majority of participants had a monophasic curve at baseline (n = 1732 [66%] vs n = 895 [34%]). The biphasic group had a lower cumulative incidence of type 1 diabetes (p < 0.001), which persisted after adjustments for age, sex, BMI z score and number of autoantibodies (p < 0.001). Among the monophasic group, the risk of type 1 diabetes was greater for those with a glucose peak at 90 min than for those with a peak at 30 min; the difference persisted after adjustments (p < 0.001). Compared with the biphasic group, the monophasic group had a lower early C-peptide (30-0 min) response, a lower C-peptide index (30-0 min C-peptide/30-0 min glucose), as well as a greater 2 h C-peptide level (p < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Those with biphasic glucose curves have a lower risk of progression to type 1 diabetes than those with monophasic curves, and the risk among the monophasic group is increased when the glucose peak occurs at 90 min than at 30 min. Differences in glucose curve shapes between the monophasic and biphasic groups appear to be related to C-peptide responses.
Authors: Muhammad A Abdul-Ghani; Valeriya Lyssenko; Tiinamaija Tuomi; Ralph A Defronzo; Leif Groop Journal: Diabetes Metab Res Rev Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 4.876
Authors: Jeffrey L Mahon; Jay M Sosenko; Lisa Rafkin-Mervis; Heidi Krause-Steinrauf; John M Lachin; Clinton Thompson; Polly J Bingley; Ezio Bonifacio; Jerry P Palmer; George S Eisenbarth; Joseph Wolfsdorf; Jay S Skyler Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2008-09-24 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: Jay M Sosenko; Jerry P Palmer; Lisa E Rafkin; Jeffrey P Krischer; David Cuthbertson; Carla J Greenbaum; George Eisenbarth; Jay S Skyler Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-12-23 Impact factor: 17.152
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: 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: Maria J Redondo; Jay Sosenko; Ingrid Libman; Jennifer J F McVean; Mustafa Tosur; Mark A Atkinson; Dorothy Becker; Susan Geyer Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 5.958
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: Maria J Redondo; Brandon M Nathan; Laura M Jacobsen; Emily Sims; Laura E Bocchino; Alberto Pugliese; Desmond A Schatz; Mark A Atkinson; Jay Skyler; Jerry Palmer; Susan Geyer; Jay M Sosenko Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 10.122
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