4.5 Article

Classical and model-based estimates of beta-cell function during a mixed meal vs. an OGTT in a population-based cohort

Journal

DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
Volume 83, Issue 2, Pages 280-288

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2008.11.017

Keywords

Insulin secretion; Insulin sensitivity; Beta-cell glucose sensitivity; Mixed meal; OGTT; General population

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared classical and model-based beta-cell responses during an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and a meal tolerance test (MTT) in a population-based cohort. individuals with normal glucose metabolism (NGM, n = 161), impaired glucose metabolism (IGM, n = 19) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM, n = 20) underwent a 75g-OGTT and an MTT (75 g carbohydrates, 50 g fat, 24 g proteins). Classical estimates of beta-cell function (insulinogenic index and the ratio of areas under insulin and glucose curves) were calculated. Mathematical modelling was used to determine beta-cell glucose sensitivity, rate sensitivity and potentiation. Insulin sensitivity was characterized by three surrogate estimates. Both classical and model-based estimates of beta-cell function were higher during MTT than during OGTT (P < 0.05). Regarding the model-based parameters, especially beta-cell sensitivity was increased following MTT as compared with OGTT (P < 0.05). Both during OGTT and MTT, across most parameters describing beta-cell function, the largest reduction in beta-cell response occurred between IGM and DM, while the largest reduction in insulin sensitivity occur-red between NGM and IGM. We conclude that beta-cell response is stronger after a mixed meal than after an OGTT with equal carbohydrate quantity, both for classical and model-based parameters. The higher response was mostly explained by higher beta-cell sensitivity during the meal. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available