Diabetes mellitus classification.

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS.
Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia (Impact Factor: 1.12). 08/2010; 95(2):e40-6. DOI: 10.1590/S0066-782X2010001200025
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The right classification for diabetes mellitus (DM) allows a more adequate treatment and comprises four categories: type 1 DM, type 2 DM, other types, and gestational diabetes. In some cases, there might be a superposition of situations, especially with regard to the DM that initiates in the young adult or is initially presented with diabetic ketoacidosis intermediately to type 1 and 2 DM. Thus, additions to the classic classification system have been proposed as assessing the presence of autoimmunity (antibody) and b cell function (C-peptide) to precisely define the subtypes. The aim of this literature review was to analyze these diagnostic indexes` performance in the DM classification and to describe subtypes with details. The antibodies against pancreas confirm autoimmunity, and the antibody against insulin is more accurate before 5 years old, while the anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase is more accurate after 20 years old, a test which remains positive for a longer period. The measurement of C-peptide evaluates the pancreatic insulin reserve, and the most largely used methods of stimulation are the measurement after meals or after intravenous glucagon. C-peptide values < 1.5 ng/ml define a patient with absent pancreatic function and, above this value, patients with preserved function. When the presence of antibodies (A+) directed to the pancreas is combined to its insulin secretion capability (β+), it is possible to subdivide DM`s classification in type 1A (A+β-) and 1B (A+β-); and type 2A (A+β+) and 2B (A-β+), which allows a more precise classification and treatment besides opening horizons for the understanding of DM pathogenesis.


Available from: Sandra Pinho Silveiro, Feb 26, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Alterations in PI3K-AKT-mTOR signaling have been implicated in diabetes. This study assessed whether disruption of PRAS40, a substrate of AKT and component of mTORC1, would alter glucose homeostasis and prevent hyperglycemia in the streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetes mouse model. PRAS40 ablation resulted in a mild lowering of blood glucose levels and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C), a lowered insulin requirement, and improved glucose tolerance in untreated PRAS40 gene knockout (PRAS40(-/-)) as compared to wild-type (PRAS40(+/+)) mice. Diabetes was then induced in these mice using STZ at 50mg/kg/day over five days. Following STZ-treatment, PRAS40(-/-) mice exhibited significantly lower blood glucose and HbA1C levels than PRAS40(+/+) mice. Liver tissue of PRAS40(-/-) mice and shPRAS40 Hep3B cells showed increased activation of AKT (p-AKT T308) and mTORC1 (p-p70S6K) signaling as well as decreased p-AKT (S473) and increased p-IRS1 (S612) protein levels. Altered tissue gene expression of several glucose transporters (GLUT) and increased hepatic GLUT4 protein levels were observed in PRAS40(-/-) as compared to PRAS40(+/+) mice. In summary, PRAS40 deletion significantly attenuates hyperglycemia in STZ-induced PRAS40(-/-) mice through increased hepatic AKT and mTORC1 signaling, a lowered serum insulin requirement, and altered hepatic GLUT4 levels. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    Biochemical pharmacology 04/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.bcp.2015.04.016 · 4.65 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension represent two common conditions worldwide. Their frequent association with cardiovascular diseases makes management of hypertensive patients with T2DM an important clinical priority. Carvedilol and renal denervation are two promising choices to reduce plasma glucose levels and blood pressure in hypertensive patients with T2DM to reduce future complications and improve clinical outcomes and prognosis. Pathophysiological mechanisms of both options are under investigation, but one of the most accepted is an attenuation in sympathetic nervous system activity which lowers blood pressure and improves insulin sensitivity. Choice of these therapeutic approaches should be individualized based on specific characteristics of each patient. Further investigations are needed to determine when to consider their use in clinical practice.
    08/2014; 5(4):536-45. DOI:10.4239/wjd.v5.i4.536
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AIM: To evaluate the influence of age of onset and duration of diabetes on the positivity of glutamic acid decarboxylase antibody (GADA) in South-Brazilian type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) patients. METHODS: GADA was evaluated in 92 patients with type 1 diabetes, in 147 gestational DM patients, and in 59 subjects with normal glucose tolerance. RESULTS: Type 1 patients with positive GADA (N = 44, 48%) were older at the onset of diabetes (22 ± 9 versus 18 ± 10 y, P = 0.043) and had a shorter DM duration (12 ± 8 versus 19 ± 9 y, P < 0.001), as compared with negative GADA patients. A logistic regression with antibody positivity as the dependent variable and diabetes duration as the independent variable, showed that the shorter diabetes duration was related to the presence of the antibody with an odds ratio (OR) = 5.6; (CI 95% = 2.1-14.6); P < 0.001. Another model, with age at diagnosis as the independent variable, did not show any association with antibody positivity. However, analysing only men, a shorter DM duration (OR = 6.5; CI = 1.7-24.0; P = 0.006), and also a higher age at diagnosis (OR = 5.5; CI = 1.5-21.0; P = 0.01) were significantly related to the antibody positivity. The performance of GADA was similar in up to 15 y of duration of DM (P = 0.78), but significantly diminished with higher duration (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: GADA testing is a helpful tool in the diagnosis of type 1 DM starting in young adults and older individuals. Even though the positivity rate declines along the course of disease, it still provides useful information up to 15 y after the diabetes diagnosis.
    Annals of Clinical Biochemistry 04/2013; 50(3). DOI:10.1177/0004563212474560 · 2.08 Impact Factor