Article

Triglyceride-cholesterol imbalance across lipoprotein subclasses predicts diabetic kidney disease and mortality in type 1 diabetes: the FinnDiane Study.

Computational Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
Journal of Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 5.79). 12/2012; DOI: 10.1111/joim.12026
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Circulating cholesterol (C) and triglyceride (TG) levels are associated with vascular injury in type 1 diabetes (T1DM). Lipoproteins are responsible for transporting lipids, and alterations in their subclass distributions may partly explain the increased mortality in individuals with T1DM. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: A cohort of 3544 individuals with T1DM was recruited by the nationwide multicentre FinnDiane Study Group. At baseline, six VLDL, one IDL, three LDL and four HDL subclasses were quantified by proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. At follow-up, the baseline data were analysed for incident micro- or macroalbuminuria (117 cases in 5.3 years), progression from microalbuminuria (63 cases in 6.1 years), progression from macroalbuminuria (109 cases in 5.9 years) and mortality (385 deaths in 9.4 years). Univariate associations were tested by age-matched cases and controls and multivariate lipoprotein profiles were analysed using the self-organizing map (SOM). RESULTS: TG and C levels in large VLDL were associated with incident albuminuria, TG and C in medium VLDL were associated with progression from microalbuminuria, and TG and C in all VLDL subclasses were associated with mortality. Large HDL-C was inversely associated with mortality. Three extreme phenotypes emerged from SOM analysis: (i) low C (<3% mortality), (ii) low TG/C ratio (6% mortality) and (ii) high TG/C ratio (40% mortality) in all subclasses. CONCLUSIONS: TG-C imbalance is a general lipoprotein characteristic in individuals with T1DM and high vascular disease risk. © 2012 The Association for the Publication of the Journal of Internal Medicine.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
92 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The ability to phenotype metabolic profiles in serum has increased substantially in recent years with the advent of metabolomics. Metabolomics is the study of the metabolome, defined as those molecules with an atomic mass less than 1.5 kDa. There are two main metabolomics methods: mass spectrometry (MS) and proton nuclear magnetic resonance (1H NMR) spectroscopy, each with its respective benefits and limitations. MS has greater sensitivity and so can detect many more metabolites. However, its cost (especially when heavy labelled internal standards are required for absolute quantitation) and quality control is sub-optimal for large cohorts. 1H NMR is less sensitive but sample preparation is generally faster and analysis times shorter, resulting in markedly lower analysis costs. 1H NMR is robust, reproducible and can provide absolute quantitation of many metabolites. Of particular relevance to cardio-metabolic disease is the ability of 1H NMR to provide detailed quantitative data on amino acids, fatty acids and other metabolites as well as lipoprotein subparticle concentrations and size. Early epidemiological studies suggest promise, however, this is an emerging field and more data is required before we can determine the clinical utility of these measures to improve disease prediction and treatment. This review describes the theoretical basis of 1H NMR; compares MS and 1H NMR and provides a tabular overview of recent 1H NMR-based research findings in the atherosclerosis field, describing the design and scope of studies conducted to date. 1H NMR metabolomics-CVD related research is emerging, however further large, robustly conducted prospective, genetic and intervention studies are needed to advance research on CVD risk prediction and to identify causal pathways amenable to intervention.
    Atherosclerosis 11/2014; 237(1):287–300. DOI:10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2014.09.024 · 3.71 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prevalence rates of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) are increasing in parallel with the incidence rates of diabetes mellitus. DKD has already become a significant health problem worldwide. Without radical improvements in prevention and treatment, DKD prevalence will continue to climb. The pathogenesis of DKD is complex and multifactorial, with genetic and environmental factors involved. Several nonmodifiable risk factors contribute to DKD, including genetics, sex, age, age at onset, and duration of diabetes. However, there are also several modifiable risk factors that have a strong effect on the risk of DKD. Traditional modifiable factors include glycemic control, blood pressure, lipids, and smoking. Other recently discovered modifiable risk factors include chronic low-grade inflammation, advanced glycation end products, and lack of physical activity. Efficient management of these modifiable risk factors may improve the prognosis of diabetic patients at risk of DKD.
    Advances in chronic kidney disease 05/2014; 21(3):260-266. DOI:10.1053/j.ackd.2014.03.009 · 2.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hyperlipoproteinemia type 3 (HLP3) is caused by impaired removal of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TGRL) leading to accumulation of TGRL remnants with abnormal composition. High levels of these remnants, called β-VLDL, promote lipid deposition in tuberous xanthomas, atherosclerosis, premature coronary artery disease, and early myocardial infarction. Recent genetic and molecular studies suggest more genes than previously appreciated may contribute to the expression of HLP3, both through impaired hepatic TGRL processing or removal and increased TGRL production. HLP3 is often highly amenable to appropriate treatment. Nevertheless, most HLP3 probably goes undiagnosed, in part because of lack of awareness of the relatively high prevalence (about 0.2 % in women and 0.4-0.5 % in men older than 20 years) and largely because of infrequent use of definitive diagnostic methods.
    Current Atherosclerosis Reports 09/2014; 16(9):440. DOI:10.1007/s11883-014-0440-2 · 3.06 Impact Factor