4.0 Article

Impact of glycemic control on advanced glycation and inflammation in overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

期刊

出版社

COMENIUS UNIV
DOI: 10.4149/BLL_2014_089

关键词

glycemic control; overweight; obesity; diabetes mellitus; inflammation

资金

  1. [VEGA 1-0375-09]
  2. [VEGA 1-0451-12]
  3. [UK/187/2011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: In this study we tried to investigate the impact of glycemic control on parameters of glycation and inflammation in overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patients and methods: Markers of glycation (HbA(1c), AGEs; measured by HPLC and spectrofluorimetry, resp.) and inflammatory markers (IL-6, IL-8, TNF-alpha, MCP-1; measured by xMAP technology) were assessed in 69 patients with T2DM, of whom 32 were patients were with poor glycemic control (PGC group), 37 patients were with good glycemic control (GGC group) and 23 were healthy blood volunteers. Results: Our results showed that plasma levels of fluorescent AGEs, IL-6, IL-8, TNF-alpha, and MCP-1 were significantly increased in PGC and GGC groups in comparison with control group, while the levels were higher in PGC group in comparison with GGC group, but the difference was not significant. We found a positive correlation between AGEs and MCP-1 and between TNF-alpha and creatinine in PGC group. We found significantly decreased levels of glycated HbA(1c) and AGEs in patients who used statins compared to patients who used fibrates. We observed beneficial impact of treatment with oral antidiabetic (OAD) agents + insulin on levels of IL-8, TNF-alpha and TAG in comparison with treatment with insulin alone. Conclusions: Despite good glycemic compensation of patients with T2DM, levels of AGEs and inflammatory markers remained significantly elevated in comparison with healthy controls. There was a beneficial impact of treatment with OAD agents + insulin in sense of lowering the low-grade inflammation (Tab. 3, Fig. 7, Ref. 113). Text in PDF www.elis.sk.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据