Clinical Dilemmas in Diabetes. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

Читать онлайн книгу Clinical Dilemmas in Diabetes - Группа авторов страница 11

Clinical Dilemmas in Diabetes - Группа авторов

Скачать книгу

spectrum of prediabetes; however, subjects with isolated IFG may have an altered glucose threshold for insulin secretion without other intrinsic defects in β‐cell function.

      Using human pancreatic tissue obtained at autopsy, obese individuals with IFG have a 40% deficit in relative beta‐cell volume compared to obese individuals with NFG [30]. Additionally, the diabetes‐associated genetic variation in TCF7L2 is associated with impaired insulin secretion [31–33]. The inability of insulin secretion to compensate for a decline in insulin action results in hyperglycemia.

      It is also essential to consider the role of hepatic extraction in the pathophysiology of prediabetes and DM [26]. The peripheral insulin concentration reflects portal insulin secretion, hepatic extraction, distribution, and degradation [34]. Hepatic extraction of secreted insulin has a direct relationship with disposition index. Reduced hepatic extraction in prediabetes and DM may be a compensatory measure to increase circulating insulin. Interestingly, insulin pulse characteristics influence hepatic extraction of insulin, and the diabetes‐associated genetic variation in TCF7L2 is associated with abnormal insulin pulse characteristics [33].

      Furthermore, lack of glucagon suppression contributes to hyperglycemia in subjects with impaired insulin secretion [24]. The diabetes‐associated genetic variation in TCF7L2 is associated with impaired glucagon suppression [31, 35]. In a longitudinal study, defects in α‐cell function with elevated fasting glucagon concentrations were associated with a subsequent decline in β‐cell function [36].

Schematic illustration of postprandial and fasting glucose concentrations are determined by insulin secretion, hepatic insulin extraction, insulin action, glucagon suppression, glucose effectiveness, endogenous glucose production, and the rate of gastric emptying.

      Reproducibility, sensitivity, and specificity of glycemic measurements and the role of oral glucose tolerance testing in clinical practice

      A study that analyzed data from the Second Examination of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) found that the within‐person coefficient of variation was 16.7% (95% CI 15.0–18.3) for 2‐h PG, 5.7% (95% CI 5.3–6.1) for FPG, and only 3.6% (95% CI 3.2–4.0) for HbA1c [37]. A study of non‐diabetic adults reported a reproducibility rate of 65.6% for a 75‐g OGTT repeated twice over a six‐week period [38].

      HbA1c, FPG, and 2‐h PG during a 75‐g OGTT have different sensitivities and specificities in the diagnosis of prediabetes and DM [39]. An analysis of NHANES data from 2005–2010 examined adults without self‐reported DM at baseline with available measurements for HbA1c, FPG, and 2‐h PG [40]. Prediabetes and DM were defined according to the current ADA Guidelines [1]. Using HbA1c thresholds of ≥ 6.5% for DM and ≥ 5.7% for prediabetes resulted in low sensitivity (24.9% and 35.4%, respectively) and high specificity in identifying patients diagnosed with FPG and 2‐h PG. When FPG and HbA1c were used together for diagnosis, the false‐negative rate was 45.7% for DM and 9.2% for prediabetes.

Sensitivity
HbA1c ≥ 6.5% 32.3%
FPG ≥ 126 mg/dL 44.8%
2‐h PG ≥ 200 mg/dL 86.8%
HbA1c ≥ 6.5% and/or FPG ≥ 126 mg/dL 52.2%
FPG ≥ 126 mg/dL and/or 2‐h PG ≥ 200 mg/dL 97.1%
Sensitivity
HbA1c 5.7–6.4% 23.6%
FPG 100–125 mg/dL 69.1%
2‐h PG 140–199 mg/dL 59.5%
HbA1c 5.7–6.4% and/or FPG 100–125 mg/dL 75.6%
FPG 100–125 mg/dL and/or 2‐h PG 140–199 mg/dL 95.8%

      Despite the limitations of the OGTT – including lower reproducibility and reduced patient convenience compared to FPG and HbA1c – the aforementioned

Скачать книгу