Literature DB >> 9950788

Glucose production during an IVGTT by deconvolution: validation with the tracer-to-tracee clamp technique.

P Vicini1, J J Zachwieja, K E Yarasheski, D M Bier, A Caumo, C Cobelli.   

Abstract

Recently, a new method, based on a two-compartment minimal model and deconvolution [A. Caumo and C. Cobelli. Am. J. Physiol 264 (Endocrinol. Metab. 37): E829-E841, 1993; P. Vicini, G. Sparacino, A. Caumo, and C. Cobelli. Comput. Meth. Prog. Biomed. 52: 147-156, 1997], has been proposed to estimate endogenous glucose production (EGP) from labeled intravenous glucose tolerance test (IVGTT) data. Our aim here is to compare this EGP profile with that independently obtained with the reference method, based on the tracer-to-tracee ratio (TTR) clamp. An insulin-modified (0.03 U/kg body wt infused over 5 min) [6,6-2H2]glucose-labeled IVGTT (0.33 g/kg of glucose) was performed in 10 normal subjects. A second tracer ([U-13C]glucose) was also infused during the test in a variable fashion to clamp endogenous glucose TTR. The TTR clamp was quite successful. As a result, the EGP profile, reconstructed from [U-13C]glucose data with the models of Steele and Radziuk, were almost superimposable. The deconvolution-obtained EGP profile, calculated from [6,6-2H2]glucose data, showed remarkable agreement with that obtained from the TTR clamp. Some differences between the two profiles were noted in the estimated basal EGP and in the initial modalities of EGP inhibition. A high interindividual variability was also observed with both methods in the resumption of EGP to baseline; variability was high in both the timing and the extent of resumption. In conclusion, the use of the two-compartment minimal model of the IVGTT and deconvolution allows the estimation of a profile of EGP that is in very good agreement with that independently obtained with a TTR clamp.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 9950788     DOI: 10.1152/ajpendo.1999.276.2.E285

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Physiol        ISSN: 0002-9513


  7 in total

Review 1.  Essential elements of the native glucoregulatory system, which, if appreciated, may help improve the function of glucose controllers in the intensive care unit setting.

Authors:  Leon DeJournett
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2010-01-01

2.  Diabetes: Models, Signals, and Control.

Authors:  Claudio Cobelli; Chiara Dalla Man; Giovanni Sparacino; Lalo Magni; Giuseppe De Nicolao; Boris P Kovatchev
Journal:  IEEE Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2009-01-01

Review 3.  Insulin resistance and the polycystic ovary syndrome revisited: an update on mechanisms and implications.

Authors:  Evanthia Diamanti-Kandarakis; Andrea Dunaif
Journal:  Endocr Rev       Date:  2012-10-12       Impact factor: 19.871

4.  Metabolic aspects of pig-to-monkey (Macaca fascicularis) islet transplantation: implications for translation into clinical practice.

Authors:  A Casu; R Bottino; A N Balamurugan; H Hara; D J van der Windt; N Campanile; C Smetanka; D K C Cooper; M Trucco
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2007-10-25       Impact factor: 10.122

5.  Estimating Enhanced Endogenous Glucose Production in Intensive Care Unit Patients with Severe Insulin Resistance.

Authors:  Anane Yahia; Ákos Szlávecz; Jennifer L Knopp; Normy Norfiza Abdul Razak; Asma Abu Samah; Geoff Shaw; J Geoffrey Chase; Balazs Benyo
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2021-06-02

6.  Impact of short term consumption of diets high in either non-starch polysaccharides or resistant starch in comparison with moderate weight loss on indices of insulin sensitivity in subjects with metabolic syndrome.

Authors:  Gerald E Lobley; Grietje Holtrop; David M Bremner; A Graham Calder; Eric Milne; Alexandra M Johnstone
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2013-06-10       Impact factor: 5.717

7.  Model-Based Interspecies Scaling of Glucose Homeostasis.

Authors:  Oskar Alskär; Mats O Karlsson; Maria C Kjellsson
Journal:  CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol       Date:  2017-09-28
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.