4.5 Article

Glycaemic variability and inflammation in subjects with metabolic syndrome

期刊

ACTA DIABETOLOGICA
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 55-61

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s00592-008-0061-8

关键词

Glycaemic variability; Continuous glucose monitoring; Interleukin-6; Adiponectin; Metabolic syndrome

资金

  1. Italian Ministero dell'Universita e della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica (MURST)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Subjects who develop diabetes have an increased cardiovascular risk even before the appearance of diabetes. The aim of this study was to investigate the glycaemic variability measured by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM CV%) in nondiabetic subjects with metabolic syndrome (MS) and to explore if glycaemic variability was associated with circulating levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), a proinflammatory cytokine, or with an anti-inflammatory factor like adiponectin. Three groups of obese subjects with (MS+: 6m, 8f; BMI 33.1 +/- A 1.4 mean +/- A SEM) or without metabolic syndrome (MS-: 2m, 4f; BMI 29.2 +/- A 2.2) and with MS associated with type 2 diabetes (MS/T2D: 3m, 5f; BMI 32.9 +/- A 1.4) were investigated. The glycaemic variability was measured in all subjects in terms of CV% of the glycaemic values obtained every 3 min during the course of a 48 h CGM performed using a subcutaneous glucose sensor. The average CGM CV% increased from MS- group (21.1%) to the MS+ group (23.9%) and to the MS+/T2D group (27.4%) but it was not correlated to the CGM mean glycaemia (r = 0.20; P = ns). In some instances, CGM CV% was found higher in MS+ subjects than in some MS+ T2D ones. Stepwise multiple correlation analysis showed that IL-6 predicted CGM CV% (R (2) = 0.35, beta = 0.13; P < 0.05) independently from BMI, waist circumference, adiponectin and insulin concentrations. In conclusion, the CGM CV% may contribute to better describe the individual metabolic state and to understand the pathogenesis of endothelial dysfunction in non diabetic subjects with MS.

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

4.5
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