Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Diabet Med. 2021 Feb;38(2):e14428. doi: 10.1111/dme.14428. Epub 2020 Nov 3.
To examine the hypothesis that, based on their glucose curves during a seven-point oral glucose tolerance test, people at elevated type 2 diabetes risk can be divided into subgroups with different clinical profiles at baseline and different degrees of subsequent glycaemic deterioration.
We included 2126 participants at elevated type 2 diabetes risk from the Diabetes Research on Patient Stratification (IMI-DIRECT) study. Latent class trajectory analysis was used to identify subgroups from a seven-point oral glucose tolerance test at baseline and follow-up. Linear models quantified the associations between the subgroups with glycaemic traits at baseline and 18 months.
At baseline, we identified four glucose curve subgroups, labelled in order of increasing peak levels as 1-4. Participants in Subgroups 2-4, were more likely to have higher insulin resistance (homeostatic model assessment) and a lower Matsuda index, than those in Subgroup 1. Overall, participants in Subgroups 3 and 4, had higher glycaemic trait values, with the exception of the Matsuda and insulinogenic indices. At 18 months, change in homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance was higher in Subgroup 4 (β = 0.36, 95% CI 0.13-0.58), Subgroup 3 (β = 0.30; 95% CI 0.10-0.50) and Subgroup 2 (β = 0.18; 95% CI 0.04-0.32), compared to Subgroup 1. The same was observed for C-peptide and insulin. Five subgroups were identified at follow-up, and the majority of participants remained in the same subgroup or progressed to higher peak subgroups after 18 months.
Using data from a frequently sampled oral glucose tolerance test, glucose curve patterns associated with different clinical characteristics and different rates of subsequent glycaemic deterioration can be identified.
检验以下假设,即在七点口服葡萄糖耐量试验的血糖曲线的基础上,处于 2 型糖尿病高危状态的人群可以分为具有不同基线临床特征和不同程度后续血糖恶化的亚组。
我们纳入了 IMI-DIRECT 研究中处于 2 型糖尿病高危状态的 2126 名参与者。使用潜在类别轨迹分析从基线和随访的七点口服葡萄糖耐量试验中确定亚组。线性模型量化了亚组与基线和 18 个月时血糖特征之间的关联。
在基线时,我们确定了四个血糖曲线亚组,按峰值水平从低到高依次标记为 1-4。与亚组 1 相比,亚组 2-4 的参与者胰岛素抵抗(稳态模型评估)更高,Matsuda 指数更低。总体而言,亚组 3 和 4 的参与者血糖特征值更高,Matsuda 和胰岛素生成指数除外。在 18 个月时,亚组 4(β=0.36,95%CI 0.13-0.58)、亚组 3(β=0.30;95%CI 0.10-0.50)和亚组 2(β=0.18;95%CI 0.04-0.32)的胰岛素抵抗稳态模型评估变化更高,而亚组 1 则更低。C 肽和胰岛素也是如此。在随访中确定了五个亚组,大多数参与者在 18 个月后仍处于同一亚组或进展到更高峰值的亚组。
使用频繁采样口服葡萄糖耐量试验的数据,可以确定与不同临床特征和不同后续血糖恶化率相关的血糖曲线模式。