OBJECTIVE: To ascertain to which extent the use of HbA(1c) and oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) for diagnosis of glucose tolerance could identify individuals with different pathogenetic mechanisms and cardiovascular risk profile.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 844 subjects (44% men; age 49.5 ± 11 years; BMI 29 ± 5 kg/m(2)) participated in this study. Parameters of β-cell function were derived from deconvolution of the plasma C-peptide concentration after a 75-g OGTT and insulin sensitivity assessed by homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (IR). Cardiovascular risk profile was based on determination of plasma lipids and measurements of body weight, waist circumference, and blood pressure. Glucose regulation categories by OGTT and HbA(1c) were compared with respect to insulin action, insulin secretion, and cardiovascular risk profile.RESULTS: OGTT results showed 42% of the subjects had prediabetes and 15% had type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), whereas the corresponding figures based on HbA(1c) were 38 and 11%, with a respective concordance rate of 54 and 44%. Subjects meeting both diagnostic criteria for prediabetes presented greater IR and impairment of insulin secretion and had a worse cardiovascular risk profile than those with normal glucose tolerance at both diagnostic methods. In a logistic regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, and BMI, prediabetic subjects, and even more T2DM subjects by OGTT, had greater chance to have IR and impaired insulin secretion.CONCLUSIONS: HbA(1c) identifies a smaller proportion of prediabetic individuals and even a smaller proportion of T2DM individuals than OGTT, with no difference in IR, insulin secretion, and cardiovascular risk profile. Subjects fulfilling both diagnostic methods for prediabetes or T2DM are characterized by a worse metabolic profile.

Pathogenetic Mechanisms and Cardiovascular Risk: Differences between HbA1c and oral glucose tolerance test for the diagnosis of glucose tolerance.

TROMBETTA, Maddalena;
2012

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain to which extent the use of HbA(1c) and oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) for diagnosis of glucose tolerance could identify individuals with different pathogenetic mechanisms and cardiovascular risk profile.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 844 subjects (44% men; age 49.5 ± 11 years; BMI 29 ± 5 kg/m(2)) participated in this study. Parameters of β-cell function were derived from deconvolution of the plasma C-peptide concentration after a 75-g OGTT and insulin sensitivity assessed by homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (IR). Cardiovascular risk profile was based on determination of plasma lipids and measurements of body weight, waist circumference, and blood pressure. Glucose regulation categories by OGTT and HbA(1c) were compared with respect to insulin action, insulin secretion, and cardiovascular risk profile.RESULTS: OGTT results showed 42% of the subjects had prediabetes and 15% had type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), whereas the corresponding figures based on HbA(1c) were 38 and 11%, with a respective concordance rate of 54 and 44%. Subjects meeting both diagnostic criteria for prediabetes presented greater IR and impairment of insulin secretion and had a worse cardiovascular risk profile than those with normal glucose tolerance at both diagnostic methods. In a logistic regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, and BMI, prediabetic subjects, and even more T2DM subjects by OGTT, had greater chance to have IR and impaired insulin secretion.CONCLUSIONS: HbA(1c) identifies a smaller proportion of prediabetic individuals and even a smaller proportion of T2DM individuals than OGTT, with no difference in IR, insulin secretion, and cardiovascular risk profile. Subjects fulfilling both diagnostic methods for prediabetes or T2DM are characterized by a worse metabolic profile.
cardiovascular risk; glycated hemoglobin; oral glucose tolerance test
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11562/477561
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 10
  • Scopus 36
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 34
social impact