4.7 Article

Amelioration of sensory nerve dysfunction by C-peptide in patients with type 1 diabetes

期刊

DIABETES
卷 52, 期 2, 页码 536-541

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diabetes.52.2.536

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies have demonstrated that proinsulin C-peptide stimulates the activities of Na+,K+-ATPase and endothelial nitric oxide synthase, both of which are enzyme systems of importance for nerve function and known to be deficient in type 1 diabetes. The aim of this randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study was to investigate whether C-peptide replacement improves nerve function in patients with type 1 diabetes. Forty-nine patients without symptoms of peripheral neuropathy were randomized to either 3 months of treatment with C-peptide (600 nmol/24 h, four doses s.c.) or placebo. Forty-six patients (15 women and 31 men, aged 29 years, diabetes duration 10 years, and HbA(1c) 7.0%) completed the study. Neurological and neurophysiological measurements were performed before and after 6 and 12 weeks of treatment. At baseline the patients showed reduced nerve conduction velocities in the sural nerve (sensory nerve conduction velocity [SCV]: 50.9 +/- 0.70 vs. 54.2 +/- 1.2 m/s, P < 0.05) and peroneal nerve (motor nerve conduction velocity: 45.7 +/- 0.55 vs. 53.5 +/- 1.1 m/s, P < 0.001) compared with age-, height-, and sex-matched control subjects. In the C-peptide treated group there was a significant improvement in SCV amounting to 2.7 +/- 0.85 m/s (P < 0.05 compared with placebo) after 3 months of treatment, representing 80% correction of the initial reduction in SCV The change in SCV was accompanied by an improvement in vibration perception in the patients receiving C-peptide (P < 0.05 compared with placebo), whereas no significant change was detectable in cold or heat perception. In conclusion, C-peptide administered for 3 months as replacement therapy to patients with early signs of diabetic neuropathy ameliorates nerve dysfunction.

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