Severe COVID-19 associated hyperglycemia is caused by beta cell dysfunction: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19, an infectious disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, was shown to be associated with an increased risk of new-onset diabetes. Mechanisms contributing to the development of hyperglycemia are still unclear. We aimed to study whether hyperglycemia is related to insulin resistance and/or beta cell dysfunction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Survivors of severe COVID-19 but without a known history of diabetes were examined at baseline (T0) and after 3 (T3) and 6 (T6) months: corticosteroids use, indirect calorimetry, and OGTT. Insulin response and sensitivity (IS) were expressed as insulinogenic (IGI), disposition (DI), and Matsuda insulin sensitivity index (ISI). Resting energy expenditure (REE) and respiratory quotient (RQ) was calculated from the gas exchange and nitrogen losses. RESULTS: 26 patients (out of 37) with complete outcome data were included in the analysis (age ~59.0 years; BMI ~ 30.4, 35% women). Patients were hypermetabolic at T0 (30.3 ± 4.0 kcal/kg lean mass/day, ~120% predicted) but REE declined over 6 months (ΔT6-T0 mean dif. T6-T0 (95% CI): -5.4 (-6.8, -4.1) kcal/kg FFM/day, p < 0.0001). 17 patients at T0 and 13 patients at T6 had hyperglycemia. None of the patients had positive islet autoantibodies. Insulin sensitivity in T0 was similarly low in hyperglycemic (H) and normoglycemic patients (N) (T0 ISIH = 3.12 ± 1.23, ISIN = 3.47 ± 1.78, p = 0.44), whereas insulin response was lower in the H group (DIH = 3.05 ± 1.79 vs DIN = 8.40 ± 5.42, p = 0.003). Over 6 months ISI (ΔT6-T0 mean dif. T6-T0 for ISI (95% CI): 1.84 (0.45, 3.24), p = 0.01)) increased in the H group only. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe COVID-19 had increased REE and insulin resistance during the acute phase due to the infection and corticosteroid use, but these effects do not persist during the follow-up period. Only patients with insufficient insulin response developed hyperglycemia, indicating that beta cell dysfunction, rather than insulin resistance, was responsible for its occurrence.

Molecular networks underlying cannabinoid signaling in skeletal muscle plasticity.

The cannabinoid system is ubiquitously present and is classically considered to engage in neural and immunity processes. Yet, the role of the cannabinoid system in the whole body and tissue metabolism via central and peripheral mechanisms is increasingly recognized. The present review provides insights in (i) how cannabinoid signaling is regulated via receptor-independent and -dependent mechanisms and (ii) how these signaling cascades (might) affect skeletal muscle plasticity and physiology. Receptor-independent mechanisms include endocannabinoid metabolism to eicosanoids and the regulation of ion channels. Alternatively, endocannabinoids can act as ligands for different classic (cannabinoid receptor 1 [CB1 ], CB2 ) and/or alternative (e.g., TRPV1, GPR55) cannabinoid receptors with a unique affinity, specificity, and intracellular signaling cascade (often tissue-specific). Antagonism of CB1 might hold clues to improve oxidative (mitochondrial) metabolism, insulin sensitivity, satellite cell growth, and muscle anabolism, whereas CB2 agonism might be a promising way to stimulate muscle metabolism and muscle cell growth. Besides, CB2 ameliorates muscle regeneration via macrophage polarization toward an anti-inflammatory phenotype, induction of MyoD and myogenin expression and antifibrotic mechanisms. Also TRPV1 and GPR55 contribute to the regulation of muscle growth and metabolism. Future studies should reveal how the cannabinoid system can be targeted to improve muscle quantity and/or quality in conditions such as ageing, disease, disuse, and metabolic dysregulation, taking into account challenges that are inherent to modulation of the cannabinoid system, such as central and peripheral side effects.