Association between thyrotropin levels and insulin sensitivity in euthyroid obese adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Thyrotropin (TSH) levels display a positive association with body mass index (BMI), and the prevalence of isolated hyperthyrotropinemia is higher in obese adolescents compared to their normal weight controls. However, the metabolic significance of the higher TSH in obese adolescents is less clear. The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between TSH concentrations and insulin sensitivity, lipids, and adipokines in euthyroid, non-diabetic, obese adolescents. METHODS: Thirty-six euthyroid, non-diabetic, obese adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18 years underwent a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test. Insulin sensitivity (Si) and pancreatic ß-cell function as assessed by disposition index (DI) were measured using the oral glucose minimal model approach. Cholesterol (total, low-density lipoprotein [LDL-C], and high-density lipoprotein [HDL-C]), triglycerides (TG), interleukin-6 (IL-6), total and high molecular weight (HMW) adiponectin, and retinol binding protein-4 (RBP4) were also determined. Associations between measures of thyroid function and Si, DI, lipids, and adipokines were computed using Pearson's correlation coefficient and multiple regression analysis. RESULTS: The mean age of the subjects was 14.3±1.88 years, and the mean BMI was 32.5±4.65 kg/m2; 97% were non-Hispanic white and 47% were male. The mean TSH was 2.7±1.2 mIU/L. Increasing serum TSH was correlated with decreasing Si (log Si) in the entire cohort (p=0.03), but this relationship persisted only in males (p=0.02). The correlation between TSH and Si in males remained significant after adjusting for BMI (p=0.02). There was no correlation between TSH and pancreatic ß-cell function as assessed by DI (p=0.48). TSH correlated positively with LDL-C (p=0.04) and IL-6 (p=0.03), but these associations vanished or weakened after adjusting for BMI (LDL-C p-value=0.44; IL-6 p-value=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a sex-specific association between TSH and insulin sensitivity in euthyroid, non-diabetic, obese adolescent males. Prospective studies are warranted to explore further this sexual dimorphism in the relationship between thyroid function and insulin sensitivity and to determine if obese adolescents with insulin resistance receiving thyroid supplements for hypothyroidism would benefit from targeting TSH levels in the lower half of normal range.

Cholecalciferol supplementation does not influence ß-cell function and insulin action in obese adolescents: a prospective double-blind randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in the extraskeletal effects of vitamin D, particularly in the obese state with regard to the development of insulin resistance and diabetes. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine the effect of 2 doses of cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) supplementation on insulin action (Si) and pancreatic ß-cell function in obese adolescents. METHODS: We performed a 12-wk double-blind, randomized comparison of the effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on Si and ß-cell function in obese Caucasian adolescents (body mass index > 95(th) percentile). The subjects were randomly assigned to receive either 400 IU/d (n = 25) or 2000 IU/d (n = 26) of vitamin D3. Each subject underwent a 7-sample 75 g oral glucose tolerance test, with glucose, insulin, and C-peptide measurements, to calculate Si and ß-cell function as assessed by the disposition index (DI), with use of the oral minimal model before and after supplementation. A total of 51 subjects aged 15.0 ± 1.9 y were enrolled. Included for analysis at follow-up were a total of 46 subjects (20 male and 26 female adolescents), 23 in each group. RESULTS: Initial serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] was 24.0 ± 8.1 µg/L. There was no correlation between 25(OH)D concentrations and Si or DI. There was a modest but significant increase in 25(OH)D concentration in the 2000 IU/d group (3.1 ± 6.5 µg/L, P = 0.04) but not in the 400 IU/d group (P = 0.39). There was no change in Si or DI following vitamin D3 supplementation in either of the treatment groups (all P > 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: The current study shows no effect from vitamin D3 supplementation, irrespective of its dose, on ß-cell function or insulin action in obese nondiabetic adolescents with relatively good vitamin D status. Whether obese adolescents with vitamin D deficiency and impaired glucose metabolism would respond differently to vitamin D3 supplementation remains unclear and warrants further studies. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00858247.

Common genetic variation in GLP1R and insulin secretion in response to exogenous GLP-1 in nondiabetic subjects: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 receptor is encoded by GLP1R. The effect of genetic variation at this locus on the response to GLP-1 is unknown. This study assessed the effect of GLP1R polymorphisms on insulin secretion in response to hyperglycemia and to infused GLP-1 in nondiabetic subjects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Eighty-eight healthy individuals (aged 26.3 +/- 0.6 years, fasting glucose 4.83 +/- 0.04 mmol/l) were studied using a hyperglycemic clamp. GLP-1 was infused for the last 2 h of the study (0.75 pmol/kg/min over 121-180 min, 1.5 pmol/kg/min over 181-240 min). beta-Cell responsivity (Phi(Total)) was measured using a C-peptide minimal model. The effect of 21 tag single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in GLP1R on Phi(Total) was examined. RESULTS: Two SNPs (rs6923761 and rs3765467) were nominally associated with altered beta-cell responsivity in response to GLP-1 infusion. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in GLP1R may alter insulin secretion in response to exogenous GLP-1. Future studies will determine whether such variation accounts for interindividual differences in response to GLP-1-based therapy.

The effect of DPP-4 inhibition with sitagliptin on incretin secretion and on fasting and postprandial glucose turnover in subjects with impaired fasting glucose.

OBJECTIVE: Low glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) concentrations have been observed in impaired fasting glucose (IFG). It is uncertain whether these abnormalities contribute directly to the pathogenesis of IFG and impaired glucose tolerance. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors raise incretin hormone concentrations enabling an examination of their effects on glucose turnover in IFG. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied 22 subjects with IFG using a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group design. At the time of enrollment, subjects ate a standardized meal labelled with [1-(13)C]-glucose. Infused [6-(3)H] glucose enabled measurement of systemic meal appearance (MRa). Infused [6,6-(2)H(2)] glucose enabled measurement of endogenous glucose production (EGP) and glucose disappearance (Rd). Subsequently, subjects were randomized to 100 mg of sitagliptin daily or placebo. After an 8-week treatment period, the mixed meal was repeated. RESULTS: As expected, subjects with IFG who received placebo did not experience any change in glucose concentrations. Despite raising intact GLP-1 concentrations, treatment with sitagliptin did not alter either fasting or postprandial glucose, insulin or C-peptide concentrations. Postprandial EGP (18.1 +/- 0.7 vs 17.6 +/- 0.8 micromol/kg per min, P = 0.53), Rd (55.6 +/- 4.3 vs 58.9 +/- 3.3 micromol/kg per min, P = 0.47) and MRa (6639 +/- 377 vs 6581 +/- 316 micromol/kg per 6 h, P = 0.85) were unchanged. Sitagliptin was associated with decreased total GLP-1 implying decreased incretin secretion. CONCLUSIONS: DPP-4 inhibition did not alter fasting or postprandial glucose turnover in people with IFG. Low incretin concentrations are unlikely to be involved in the pathogenesis of IFG.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibition by vildagliptin and the effect on insulin secretion and action in response to meal ingestion in type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the mechanism by which dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors lower postprandial glucose concentrations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We measured insulin secretion and action as well as glucose effectiveness in 14 subjects with type 2 diabetes who received vildagliptin (50 mg b.i.d.) or placebo for 10 days in random order separated by a 3-week washout. On day 9 of each period, subjects ate a mixed meal. Insulin sensitivity (S(I)), glucose effectiveness, and beta-cell responsivity indexes were estimated using the oral glucose and C-peptide minimal models. At 300 min 0.02 unit/kg insulin was administered intravenously. RESULTS: Vildagliptin reduced postprandial glucose concentrations (905 +/- 94 vs. 1,008 +/- 104 mmol/6 h, P = 0.02). Vildagliptin did not alter net S(I) (7.71 +/- 1.28 vs. 6.41 +/- 0.84 10(-4) dl x kg(-1) x min(-1) x muU(-1) x ml(-1), P = 0.13) or glucose effectiveness (0.019 +/- 0.002 vs. 0.018 +/- 0.002 dl x kg(-1) x min(-1), P = 0.65). However, the net beta-cell responsivity index was increased (35.7 +/- 5.2 vs. 28.9 +/- 5.2 10(-9) min(-1), P = 0.03) as was total disposition index (381 +/- 48 vs. 261 +/- 35 10(-14) dl x kg(-1) x min(-2) x pmol(-1) x l(-1), P = 0.006). Vildagliptin lowered postprandial glucagon concentrations (27.0 +/- 1.1 vs. 29.7 +/- 1.5 microg x l(-1) x 6 h(-1), P = 0.03), especially after administration of exogenous insulin (81.5 +/- 6.4 vs. 99.3 +/- 5.6 ng/l, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Vildagliptin lowers postprandial glucose concentrations by stimulating insulin secretion and suppressing glucagon secretion but not by altered insulin action or glucose effectiveness. A novel observation is that vildagliptin alters alpha-cell responsiveness to insulin administration, but the significance of this action is as yet unclear.

Chronic care model and shared care in diabetes: randomized trial of an electronic decision support system.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a specialist telemedicine intervention for improving diabetes care using the chronic care model (CCM). PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: As part of the CCM, 97 primary care physicians at 6 primary care practices in Rochester, MN, referred 639 patients to an on-site diabetes educator between July 1, 2001, and December 31, 2003. On first referral, physicians were centrally randomized to receive a telemedicine intervention (specialty advice and evidence-based messages regarding medication management for cardiovascular risk) or no intervention, keeping outcome assessors and data analysts blinded to group assignment. After each subsequent clinical encounter, endocrinologists reviewed an abstract from the patient's electronic medical record and provided management recommendations and supporting evidence to intervention physicians via e-mail. Control physicians received e-mail with periodic generic information about cardiovascular risk reduction in diabetes. Outcome measures included diabetes care processes (diabetes test completion), outcomes (metabolic and cardiovascular risk factors, estimated coronary artery disease risk), and patient costs (payer perspective). RESULTS: During the intervention, 951 (70%) of the 1361 endocrinology reviews detected performance gaps and resulted in a message; primary care physicians reported using 49% of messages in patient care. With a mean of 21 months' follow-up, the intervention, compared with control, did not significantly enhance metabolic outcomes or reduce estimated risk of coronary artery disease (adjusted mean difference, -1%; 95% confidence interval, -19% to 17%). The intervention group incurred lower costs (P=.02) but not in diabetes-related costs. CONCLUSION: Specialty telemedicine did not significantly enhance the value of CCM in primary care.

The effect of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibition on gastric volume, satiation and enteroendocrine secretion in type 2 diabetes: a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study.

OBJECTIVES: The incretin hormone glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) retards gastric emptying and decreases caloric intake. It is unclear whether increased GLP-1 concentrations achieved by inhibition of the inactivating enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) alter gastric volumes and satiation in people with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover design, 14 subjects with type 2 diabetes received vildagliptin (50 mg bid) or placebo for 10 days in random order separated by a 2-week washout. On day 7, fasting and postmeal gastric volumes were measured by a (99m)Tc single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) method. On day 8, a liquid Ensure meal was consumed at 30 ml/min, and maximum tolerated volume (MTV) and symptoms 30 min later were measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS) to assess effects on satiation. On day 10, subjects ingested water until maximum satiation was achieved. The volume ingested was recorded and symptoms similarly measured using a VAS. RESULTS: Vildagliptin raised plasma GLP-1 concentrations. However, fasting (248 +/- 21 vs. 247 +/- 19 ml, P = 0.98) and fed (746 +/- 28 vs. 772 +/- 26 ml, P = 0.54) gastric volumes did not differ when subjects received vildagliptin or placebo. Treatment with vildagliptin did not alter the MTV of Ensure (1657 +/- 308 vs. 1389 +/- 197 ml, P = 0.15) or water compared to placebo (1371 +/- 141 vs. 1172 +/- 156 ml, P = 0.23). Vildagliptin was associated with decreased peptide YY (PYY) concentrations 60 min after initiation of the meal (166 +/- 27 vs. 229 +/- 34 pmol/l, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Vildagliptin does not alter satiation or gastric volume in people with type 2 diabetes despite elevated GLP-1 concentrations. Compensatory changes in enteroendocrine secretion could account for the lack of gastrointestinal symptoms.

Effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibition on gastrointestinal function, meal appearance, and glucose metabolism in type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether alterations in meal absorption and gastric emptying contribute to the mechanism by which inhibitors of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) lower postprandial glucose concentrations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We simultaneously measured gastric emptying, meal appearance, endogenous glucose production, and glucose disappearance in 14 subjects with type 2 diabetes treated with either vildaglipitin (50 mg b.i.d.) or placebo for 10 days using a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, crossover design. RESULTS: Fasting (7.3 +/- 0.5 vs. 7.9 +/- 0.5 mmol/l) and peak postprandial (14.1 +/- 0.6 vs. 15.9 +/- 0.9 mmol/l) glucose concentrations were lower (P < 0.01) after vildagliptin treatment than placebo. Despite lower glucose concentrations, postprandial insulin and C-peptide concentrations did not differ during the two treatments. On the other hand, the integrated (area under the curve) postprandial glucagon concentrations were lower (20.9 +/- 1.6 vs. 23.7 +/- 1.3 mg/ml per 5 h, P < 0.05), and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) concentrations were higher (1,878 +/- 270 vs. 1,277 +/- 312 pmol/l per 5 h, P = 0.001) during vildagliptin administration compared with placebo. Gastric emptying and meal appearance did not differ between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Vildagliptin does not alter gastric emptying or the rate of entry of ingested glucose into the systemic circulation in humans. DPP-4 inhibitors do not lower postprandial glucose concentrations by altering the rate of nutrient absorption or delivery to systemic circulation. Alterations in islet function, secondary to increased circulating concentrations of active GLP-1, are associated with the decreased postprandial glycemic excursion observed in the presence of vildagliptin.

Cardiovascular risk reduction and diabetes education: what are we telling our patients?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which diabetes education encounters include evidence-based content aimed at reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease. METHODS: During a 2-week period in November 2001, 3 certified diabetes educators (CDEs) listed the statements they made while teaching patients. These statements/comments were then assigned to the 7 outcome areas identified by the Diabetes Self-Management Assessment Report Tool (D-SMART). All educational encounters completed during that same month by 21 educators were reviewed for content areas or modules consistent with the American Diabetes Association National Standards. RESULTS: Of all statements made by the 3 CDEs, 63% were about glycemic control while only 5% were directly relevant to cardiovascular risk reduction. There were 1043 educational encounters in November 2001, of which only 10% targeted cardiovascular risk. Educators focused most of their educational efforts (62%) on glycemic control. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its potential impact and strong evidence base, diabetes education gives little attention to the reduction of cardiovascular risk. Diabetes educators should emphasize interventions that are most likely to be effective in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with diabetes.