4.7 Article

Residual β-cell function more than glycemic control determines abnormalities of the insulin-like growth factor system in type 1 diabetes

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 89, 期 12, 页码 6305-6309

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2004-0572

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The GH-IGF-I axis is disturbed in patients with type 1 diabetes. Our aim was to investigate whether abnormalities are found in patients in very good glycemic control and, if so, to estimate the role of residual beta-cell function. Patients with hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) less than 6% (reference range, 3.6-5.4%) were selected for the study. Twenty-two men and 24 women, aged 41.3 +/- 13.8 yr (mean +/- SD), with a diabetes duration of 17.8 +/- 14.6 yr participated. Healthy controls (15 women and nine men), aged 41.3 +/- 13.0 yr, were also studied. Overnight fasting serum samples were analyzed for HbA(1c), C peptide, free and total IGFs, IGF-binding proteins (IGFBPs), GH-binding protein, and IGFBP-3 proteolysis. HbA(1c) was 5.6 +/- 0.5% in patients and 4.4 +/- 0.3% in controls. Total IGF-I was 148 +/- 7 mug/liter in patients and 178 +/- 9 mug/liter in controls (P < 0.001). Free IGF-I, total IGF-II, IGFBP-3, and GH-binding protein were lower, whereas IGFBP-1, IGFBP-1-bound IGF-I, and IGFBP-2 were elevated compared with control values. Patients with detectable C peptide (>= 100 pmol/liter) had higher levels of total IGF-I, free IGF-I, and total IGF-II and lower levels of IGFBP-1 and IGFBP-2 than those with an undetectable C peptide level despite having identical average HbA(1c). IGFBP-3 proteolysis did not differ between patients and controls. Despite very good glycemic control, patients with type 1 diabetes and no endogenous insulin production have low free and total IGF-I. Residual beta-cell function, therefore, seems more important for the disturbances in the IGF system than good metabolic control per se, suggesting that portal insulin delivery is needed to normalize the IGF system.

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

4.7
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