4.2 Article

Correlation between baseline serum 1,5-anhydroglucitol levels and 2-hour post-challenge glucose levels during oral glucose tolerance tests

Journal

ENDOCRINE JOURNAL
Volume 58, Issue 1, Pages 13-17

Publisher

JAPAN ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1507/endocrj.K10E-224

Keywords

1,5-Anhydroglucitol; 75 g oral glucose tolerance test; Hyperglycemia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Since there is increasing evidence that postprandial hyperglycemia is a risk factor for the development of macrovascular complications, it is important to predict postprandial hyperglycemia in the early stages of glucose intolerance, and routine medical checkups provide a good opportunity to do so. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usability of 1,5-anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG) in routine medical checkups. The subjects were 77 Japanese men who participated in a routine medical checkup. First, we performed 75 g oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs), and examined the changes in glucose and 1,5-AG levels measured at 0, 30, 60, 90, 120, and 180 minutes (min). 1,5-AG levels did not significantly change until 90 min after the glucose load. Second, a linear regression analysis showed an inverse correlation between the 2-hour post-challenge glucose (2h-PG) and baseline 1,5-AG levels during the OGTT (P = 0.001, r(2) = 0.13), and the correlation was still significant after adjustment for age (2h-PG = 170 + 0.83 x (age in years) - 3.23 x (1,5-AG), P = 0.002, adjusted r(2) = 0.12). Finally, to investigate the test characteristics of I,5-AG levels as a predictor of a 2h-PG level >= 200 mg/dL, we plotted a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The area under the ROC curve was 0.78, and the maximal sum of sensitivity and specificity (78% and 72%, respectively) was obtained at a 1,5-AG cutoff level of < 14.2 mu g/mL. We conclude that 1,5-AG values may provide an ancillary predictor of 2h-PG of 75 g OGTTs in routine medical checkups.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available