Heba M Ismail1, Carmella Evans-Molina2, Linda A DiMeglio1, Dorothy J Becker3, Ingrid Libman3, Emily K Sims1, David Boulware4, Kevan C Herold5, Lisa Rafkin6, Jay Skyler6, Mario A Cleves7, Jerry Palmer8,9, Jay M Sosenko6. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana. 2. Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana. 3. Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Pittsburgh and Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Bio-statistics, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. 5. Department of Immunobiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 6. Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. 7. Department of Pediatrics, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. 8. Department of Medicine, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington. 9. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In new onset type 1 diabetes (T1D), overall C-peptide measures such as area under the curve (AUC) C-peptide and peak C-peptide are useful for estimating the extent of β-cell dysfunction, and for assessing responses to intervention therapy. However, measures of the timing of C-peptide responsiveness could have additional value. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the contribution of the timing of C-peptide responsiveness during oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) to hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) variation at T1D diagnosis. METHODS: We analyzed data from 85 individuals <18 years with OGTTs and HbA1c measurements at diagnosis. Overall [AUC and peak C-peptide] and timing measures [30-0 minute C-peptide (early); 60 to 120 minute C-peptide sum-30 minutes (late); 120/30 C-peptide; time to peak C-peptide] were utilized. RESULTS: At diagnosis, the mean (±SD) age was 11.2 ± 3.3 years, body mass index (BMI)-z was 0.4 ± 1.1, 51.0% were male. The average HbA1c was 43.54 ± 8.46 mmol/mol (6.1 ± 0.8%). HbA1c correlated inversely with the AUC C-peptide (P < 0.001), peak C-peptide (P < 0.001), early and late C-peptide responses (P < 0.001 each), and 120/30 C-peptide (P < 0.001). Those with a peak C-peptide occurring at ≤60 minutes had higher HbA1c values than those with peaks later (P = 0.003). HbA1c variance was better explained with timing measures added to regression models (R2 = 11.6% with AUC C-peptide alone; R2 = 20.0% with 120/30 C-peptide added; R2 = 13.7% with peak C-peptide alone, R2 = 20.4% with timing of the peak added). Similar associations were seen between the 2-hour glucose and the C-peptide measures. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that the addition of timing measures of C-peptide responsiveness better explains HbA1c variation at diagnosis than standard measures alone.
BACKGROUND: In new onset type 1 diabetes (T1D), overall C-peptide measures such as area under the curve (AUC) C-peptide and peak C-peptide are useful for estimating the extent of β-cell dysfunction, and for assessing responses to intervention therapy. However, measures of the timing of C-peptide responsiveness could have additional value. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the contribution of the timing of C-peptide responsiveness during oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) to hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) variation at T1D diagnosis. METHODS: We analyzed data from 85 individuals <18 years with OGTTs and HbA1c measurements at diagnosis. Overall [AUC and peak C-peptide] and timing measures [30-0 minute C-peptide (early); 60 to 120 minute C-peptide sum-30 minutes (late); 120/30 C-peptide; time to peak C-peptide] were utilized. RESULTS: At diagnosis, the mean (±SD) age was 11.2 ± 3.3 years, body mass index (BMI)-z was 0.4 ± 1.1, 51.0% were male. The average HbA1c was 43.54 ± 8.46 mmol/mol (6.1 ± 0.8%). HbA1c correlated inversely with the AUC C-peptide (P < 0.001), peak C-peptide (P < 0.001), early and late C-peptide responses (P < 0.001 each), and 120/30 C-peptide (P < 0.001). Those with a peak C-peptide occurring at ≤60 minutes had higher HbA1c values than those with peaks later (P = 0.003). HbA1c variance was better explained with timing measures added to regression models (R2 = 11.6% with AUC C-peptide alone; R2 = 20.0% with 120/30 C-peptide added; R2 = 13.7% with peak C-peptide alone, R2 = 20.4% with timing of the peak added). Similar associations were seen between the 2-hour glucose and the C-peptide measures. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that the addition of timing measures of C-peptide responsiveness better explains HbA1c variation at diagnosis than standard measures alone.
Authors: Christine L Chan; Iman Taki; Fran Dong; Michelle Hoffman; Jill M Norris; Georgeanna Klingensmith; Marian J Rewers; Andrea K Steck Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Jay M Sosenko; Susan Geyer; Jay S Skyler; Lisa E Rafkin; Heba M Ismail; Ingrid M Libman; Yuk-Fun Liu; Linda A DiMeglio; Carmella Evans-Molina; Jerry P Palmer Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2017-11-24 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: Andrea K Steck; Helena Elding Larsson; Xiang Liu; Riitta Veijola; Jorma Toppari; William A Hagopian; Michael J Haller; Simi Ahmed; Beena Akolkar; Åke Lernmark; Marian J Rewers; Jeffrey P Krischer Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 3.409
Authors: Francesco Panero; Giulia Novelli; Chiara Zucco; Paolo Fornengo; Massimo Perotto; Olivia Segre; Giorgio Grassi; Paolo Cavallo-Perin; Graziella Bruno Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-11-18 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Andrea K Steck; Xiang Liu; Jeffrey P Krischer; Michael J Haller; Riitta Veijola; Markus Lundgren; Simi Ahmed; Beena Akolkar; Jorma Toppari; William A Hagopian; Marian J Rewers; Helena Elding Larsson Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 6.134