Patterns of metabolic progression to type 1 diabetes in the Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1
ABSTRACT There is little information regarding the pattern of metabolic deterioration before the onset of type 1 diabetes. The goal of this study was to utilize data from the Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 (DPT-1) to obtain a picture of the metabolic progression to type 1 diabetes over a period of approximately 2.5 years before its diagnosis.
Fifty-four DPT-1 participants (22 in the parenteral trial and 32 in the oral trial) were studied. All had oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) at 6-month intervals from approximately 30 to 6 months before diagnosis. The vast majority also had OGTTs at diagnosis. Changes in OGTT glucose and C-peptide indexes from 30 to 6 months before diagnosis were examined by calculating slopes of the indexes for each individual over that time period. Changes from 6 months before diagnosis to diagnosis were examined by paired comparisons of the OGTT metabolic indexes between the time points.
Glucose levels increased gradually from 30 to 6 months before diagnosis in both the parenteral and oral groups (P < 0.001 for all indexes). Area under the curve (AUC) C-peptide (P < 0.05) and AUC C-peptide-to-AUC glucose ratio (P < 0.001) values decreased in the oral group; peak C-peptide-to-2-h glucose ratio values decreased in both groups (P < 0.001). In participants who also had OGTTs at diagnosis, AUC C-peptide (parenteral group, P < 0.05) and peak C-peptide (oral group, P < 0.05) values decreased from the last 6 months before diagnosis; stimulated C-peptide-to-glucose ratio values decreased in both groups (P < 0.001). Conversely, fasting C-peptide levels increased in both groups (oral group, P < 0.01). Fasting C-peptide-to-fasting glucose ratio values remained constant throughout the 30-month follow-up.
These data indicate that over a period of at least 2 years, glucose tolerance gradually deteriorates as stimulated C-peptide levels slowly decline in a substantial number of individuals who develop type 1 diabetes. However, fasting C-peptide levels are maintained, even at diagnosis.
DMW - Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 05/2014; 139(21):1100-4. DOI:10.1055/s-0034-1370059 · 0.55 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: AIMS: Non-diabetic children with multiple islet autoantibodies were recruited to a secondary prevention trial. The objective was to determine the predictive value of baseline (1) HbA1c and metabolic variables derived from intravenous (IvGTT) and oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTT), (2) insulin resistance and (3) number, type and levels of islet autoantibodies, for progression to type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Children [n = 50, median 5.1 (4-17.9) years] with autoantibodies to glutamate decarboxylase (GAD65A) and at least one of insulinoma-associated protein 2 (IA-2A), insulin or ZnT8 transporter (ZnT8RA, ZnT8WA, ZnT8QA) were screened with IvGTT and OGTT and followed for a minimum of 2 years. RESULTS: Baseline first phase insulin response (sum of serum-insulin at 1 and 3 min during IvGTT; FPIR) ≤3 μU/mL [HR 4.42 (CI 1.40-14.0) p = 0.011] and maximal plasma glucose ≥11.1 mmol/L measured at 30, 60 and/or 90 min during OGTT [HR 6.13 (CI 1.79-21.0) p = 0.0039] were predictors for progression to diabetes. The combination of FPIR from IvGTT and maximal plasma glucose during OGTT predicted diabetes in 10/12 children [HR 9.17 (CI 2.0-42.0) p = 0.0043]. High-level IA-2A, but not number of autoantibodies, correlated to dysglycemia during OGTT (p = 0.008) and to progression to type 1 diabetes [HR 4.98 (CI 1.09-22.0) p = 0.039]. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline FPIR, maximal plasma glucose ≥11.1 at 30, 60 or 90 min during OGTT and high-level IA-2A need to be taken into account when randomizing islet autoantibody positive non-diabetic children to secondary prevention.Acta Diabetologica 11/2014; DOI:10.1007/s00592-014-0680-1 · 3.68 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To identify the risk-predictive baseline profile patterns of demographic, genetic, immunologic, and metabolic markers and synthesize these patterns for risk prediction.PLoS ONE 06/2014; 9(6):e91095. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0091095 · 3.53 Impact Factor