Many Americans Have Pre-Diabetes and Should Be Considered for Metformin Therapy

OBJECTIVE

To determine the proportion of the American population who would merit metformin treatment, according to recent American Diabetes Association (ADA) consensus panel recommendations to prevent or delay the development of diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Risk factors were evaluated in 1,581 Screening for Impaired Glucose Tolerance (SIGT), 2,014 Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), and 1,111 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005–2006 (NHANES 2005–2006) subjects, who were non-Hispanic white and black, without known diabetes. Criteria for consideration of metformin included the presence of both impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), with ≥1 additional diabetes risk factor: age <60 years, BMI ≥35 kg/m², family history of diabetes, elevated triglycerides, reduced HDL cholesterol, hypertension, or A1C >6.0%.

RESULTS

Isolated IFG, isolated IGT, and IFG and IGT were found in 18.0, 7.2, and 8.2% of SIGT; 22.3, 6.4, and 9.4% of NHANES III; and 21.8, 5.0, and 9.0% of NHANES 2005–2006 subjects, respectively. In SIGT, NHANES III, and NHANES 2005–2006, criteria for metformin consideration were met in 99, 96, and 96% of those with IFG and IGT; 31, 29, and 28% of all those with IFG; and 53, 57, and 62% of all those with IGT (8.1, 9.1, and 8.7% of all subjects), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 96% of individuals with both IFG and IGT are likely to meet ADA consensus criteria for consideration of metformin. Because >28% of all those with IFG met the criteria, providers should perform oral glucose tolerance tests to find concomitant IGT in all patients with IFG. To the extent that our findings are representative of the U.S. population, ∼1 in 12 adults has a combination of pre-diabetes and risk factors that may justify consideration of metformin treatment for diabetes prevention.Diabetes is a public health epidemic (1) associated with high morbidity, mortality (1), and cost (2). Currently, an estimated 38 million Americans have the disease, nearly 40% of which is undiagnosed, and another 87 million have pre-diabetes: impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and/or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) (3). Diabetes develops insidiously over several years, during which time glucose metabolism progresses slowly from normal to pre-diabetes and then more rapidly to diabetes. Based on observational and prospective studies, ∼25–40% of individuals with pre-diabetes go on to develop diabetes over 3–8 years (4–6), and there is evidence of complications in 50% of patients at the time of diagnosis of diabetes (7).Because progression from pre-diabetes can be prevented or delayed by lifestyle change and/or medication (4–6), the American Diabetes Association (ADA) has issued a consensus statement recommending early identification and preventive treatment in high-risk individuals (8). The panel statement recommends that individuals with both IFG and IGT and one additional risk factor (age <60 years, BMI ≥35 kg/m², family history of diabetes in first-degree relative, elevated triglycerides, reduced HDL cholesterol, or A1C >6.0%) should be considered for treatment with metformin, in addition to lifestyle modification, which includes weight loss and physical activity.To determine what proportion of the American population presenting with either IFG or IGT would merit consideration for metformin treatment in accordance with the recent ADA recommendations, we evaluated healthy volunteers without known diabetes who were screened for diabetes/pre-diabetes by the 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT).     

Long-Term Cardiovascular Risk in Type 2 Diabetic Compared With Nondiabetic First Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients: A population-based cohort study in southern Europe

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether long-term cardiovascular risk differs in type 2 diabetic patients compared with first acute myocardial infarction patients in a Mediterranean region, considering therapy, diabetes duration, and glycemic control.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A prospective population-based cohort study with 10-year follow-up was performed in 4,410 patients aged 30–74 years: 2,260 with type 2 diabetes without coronary heart disease recruited in 53 primary health care centers and 2,150 with first acute myocardial infarction without diabetes recruited in 10 hospitals. We compared coronary heart disease incidence and cardiovascular mortality rates in myocardial infarction patients and diabetic patients, including subgroups by diabetes treatment, duration, and A1C.

RESULTS

The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for 10-year coronary heart disease incidence and for cardiovascular mortality were significantly lower in men and women with diabetes than in myocardial infarction patients: HR 0.54 (95% CI 0.45–0.66) and 0.28 (0.21–0.37) and 0.26 (0.19–0.36) and 0.16 (0.10–0.26), respectively. All diabetic patient subgroups had significantly fewer events than myocardial infarction patients: the HR of cardiovascular mortality ranged from 0.15 (0.09–0.26) to 0.36 (0.24–0.54) and that of coronary heart disease incidence ranged from 0.34 (0.26–0.46) to 0.56 (0.43–0.72).

CONCLUSIONS

Lower long-term cardiovascular risk was found in type 2 diabetic and all subgroups analyzed compared with myocardial infarction patients. These results do not support equivalence in coronary disease risk for diabetic and myocardial infarction patients.The prevalence of diabetes is reaching epidemic proportions in developed countries (1). For example, the U.S. has 18 million diabetic patients, Spain has >2 million diabetic patients, and management of the disease costs >$132 and >$3.3 billion per year, respectively (2).Some studies (3–5), several of them with great influence on important guidelines for cardiovascular prevention (3), suggest that the cardiovascular risk of diabetic patients is similar to that of coronary heart disease secondary prevention patients. Other reports, however, do not confirm these observations (6–10).Part of the discrepancy may stem from differences in the duration of diabetes, type of treatment, and baseline glucose control of diabetic patients included in the studies (3–5). These limit comparability, given the fact that time of evolution and treatment required to attain appropriate glycemic control are key determinants of prognosis (10–16).Among population-based cohort studies that compared the prognosis of diabetic patients with that of myocardial infarction patients without diabetes (3–10), only two analyzed the role of diabetes duration (11,12). Even these studies did not include unstable angina among the end points and risk was not stratified by type of treatment. To our knowledge, the effect of type 2 diabetes on coronary heart disease incidence has barely been studied in southern Europe, a region known for low cardiovascular mortality (17). The aim of this study was to determine whether long-term cardiovascular risk differed between type 2 diabetic patients and first acute myocardial infarction patients and to assess the influence of diabetes duration, type of treatment, and glycemic control at baseline.     

Glycemic Control and Cardiovascular Disease in 7,454 Patients With Type 1 Diabetes: An observational study from the Swedish National Diabetes Register (NDR)

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the association between A1C and cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) in an observational study of patients with type 1 diabetes followed for 5 years.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 7,454 patients were studied from the Swedish National Diabetes Register (aged 20–65 years, diabetes duration 1–35 years, followed from 2002 to 2007).

RESULTS

Hazard ratios (HRs) for fatal/nonfatal coronary heart disease (CHD) per 1% unit increase in baseline or updated mean A1C at Cox regression analysis were 1.31 and 1.34 and 1.26 and 1.32, respectively, for fatal/nonfatal CVD (all P < 0.001 after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes duration, blood pressure, total and LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, BMI, smoking, and history of CVD). HRs were only slightly lower for CHD (P = 0.002) and CVD (P = 0.002–0.007) after also adjusting for albuminuria. Adjusted 5-year event rates of CHD and CVD increased progressively with higher A1C, ranging from 5 to 12%, as well as when subgrouped by shorter (1–20 years) or longer (21–35 years) duration of diabetes. A group of 4,186 patients with A1C 5–7.9% (mean 7.2) at baseline showed risk reductions of 41% (95% confidence intervals: 15–60) (P = 0.005) for fatal/nonfatal CHD and 37% (12–55) (P = 0.008) for CVD, compared with 3,268 patients with A1C 8–11.9% (mean 9.0), fully adjusted also for albuminuria.

CONCLUSIONS

This observational study of patients in modern everyday clinical practice demonstrates progressively increasing risks for CHD and CVD with higher A1C, independently of traditional risk factors, with no J-shaped risk curves. A baseline mean A1C of 7.2% showed considerably reduced risks of CHD and CVD compared with A1C 9.0%, emphasizing A1C as a strong independent risk factor in type 1 diabetes.Patients with type 1 diabetes have long been considered to have increased risks of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality (1,2), and this has recently been confirmed in two studies (3,4) from the General Practice Research Database in the U.K. Based on data from 1992 to 1999, risks of CVD and mortality were four to eight times higher in men and women with type 1 diabetes than nondiabetic individuals (3,4).While the association between glycemia and microvascular complications is established (5,6), there have been no long-term randomized clinical studies satisfactorily examining the relationship with macrovascular complications in type 1 diabetes, and epidemiological studies have shown conflicting results (7–14). The Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) Study showed that patients who had previously been subjected to intensive glucose control during the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) had a considerably lower risk of CVD than patients receiving standard treatment (1983–1993) (7). A small study from Finland on late-onset type 1 diabetic patients without albuminuria showed increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) with poor glycemic control (9), but the EURODIAB Prospective Complications Study (PCS), the Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications (EDC) Study, and the Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy did not demonstrate a significant relationship between glycemia and CHD after controlling for other cardiovascular risk factors (10–13). However, a recent study (14) from the Pittsburgh EDC showed that change in A1C was related to coronary artery disease, whereas baseline A1C was not.With this background, we assessed the association between A1C and CHD, stroke, and CVD in a large cohort of patients with type 1 diabetes, aged 20–65 years, treated in everyday clinical practice from 2002 to 2007. Data were used from the Swedish National Diabetes register (NDR), a quality-assurance tool in diabetes care with nationwide coverage with recently published reports regarding type 1 and type 2 diabetes (15–17).     

��-Cell�CMediated Signaling Predominates Over Direct ��-Cell Signaling in the Regulation of Glucagon Secretion in Humans

OBJECTIVE

Given evidence of both indirect and direct signaling, we tested the hypothesis that increased β-cell–mediated signaling of α-cells negates direct α-cell signaling in the regulation of glucagon secretion in humans.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We measured plasma glucagon concentrations before and after ingestion of a formula mixed meal and, on a separate occasion, ingestion of the sulfonylurea glimepiride in 24 basal insulin-infused, demonstrably β-cell–deficient patients with type 1 diabetes and 20 nondiabetic, demonstrably β-cell–sufficient individuals; the latter were infused with glucose to prevent hypoglycemia after glimepiride.

RESULTS

After the mixed meal, plasma glucagon concentrations increased from 22 ± 1 pmol/l (78 ± 4 pg/ml) to 30 ± 2 pmol/l (103 ± 7 pg/ml) in the patients with type 1 diabetes but were unchanged from 27 ± 1 pmol/l (93 ± 3 pg/ml) to 26 ± 1 pmol/l (89 ± 3 pg/ml) in the nondiabetic individuals (P < 0.0001). After glimepiride, plasma glucagon concentrations increased from 24 ± 1 pmol/l (83 ± 4 pg/ml) to 26 ± 1 pmol/l (91 ± 4 pg/ml) in the patients with type 1 diabetes and decreased from 28 ± 1 pmol/l (97 ± 5 pg/ml) to 24 ± 1 pmol/l (82 ± 4 pg/ml) in the nondiabetic individuals (P < 0.0001). Thus, in the presence of both β-cell and α-cell secretory stimuli (increased amino acid and glucose levels, a sulfonylurea) glucagon secretion was prevented when β-cell secretion was sufficient but not when β-cell secretion was deficient.

CONCLUSIONS

These data indicate that, among the array of signals, indirect reciprocal β-cell–mediated signaling predominates over direct α-cell signaling in the regulation of glucagon secretion in humans.The regulation of pancreatic islet α-cell glucagon secretion is complex (1–10). It involves direct signaling of α-cells (1) and indirect signaling of α-cells by β-cell (2–6) and δ-cell (7) secretory products, the autonomic nervous system (8,9), and gut incretins (10).Appropriate glucagon secretory responses occur from the perfused pancreas (3,5) and perifused islets (2). Low plasma glucose concentrations stimulate glucagon secretion from the transplanted (i.e., denervated) human pancreas (11) and the denervated dog pancreas (12). Therefore, we have focused on the intraislet regulation of glucagon secretion. Furthermore, because selective destruction of β-cells results in loss of the glucagon response to hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes (13), and partial reduction of the β-cell mass in minipigs results in impaired postprandial suppression of glucagon secretion (14), we have focused on the role of β-cell–mediated signaling in the regulation of glucagon secretion.Findings from studies of the perfused rat (3,4) and human (5) pancreas, rats in vivo (6), rat islets (2), isolated rat α-cells (2), and humans (15–18) have been interpreted to indicate that a β-cell secretory product or products tonically restrains basal α-cell glucagon secretion during euglycemia and that a decrease in β-cell secretion, coupled with low glucose concentrations at the α-cells, signals an increase in glucagon secretion in response to hypoglycemia. Parenthetically, the relative roles of the candidate β-cell secretory products (insulin, zinc, γ-aminobutyric acid, and amylin, among others) (2) that normally restrain α-cell glucagon secretion remain to be determined. However, that interpretation rests, in part, on results of studies in isolated rat α-cells (2), which are debated (1), and on the evidence that the islet microcirculation flows from β-cells to α-cells to δ-cells (4), which is also debated (19). Furthermore, it does not address the plausible possibility that a decrease in intraislet δ-cell somatostatin secretion might also signal an increase in α-cell glucagon secretion during hypoglycemia (7).Given that interpretation, it follows that an increase in β-cell secretion would signal a decrease in glucagon secretion in the postprandial state (14). The concept is an interplay of indirect reciprocal β-cell–mediated signaling of α-cells and of direct α-cell signaling in the regulation of glucagon secretion.There is, in our view, compelling evidence that, among other mechanisms, both indirect reciprocal β-cell–mediated signaling of α-cells (2–6) and direct α-cell signaling (1) are involved in the regulation of glucagon secretion by nutrients, hormones, neurotransmitters, and drugs. Given that premise, we posed the question: Which of these predominates in humans? Accordingly, we tested the hypothesis that increased β-cell–mediated signaling of α-cells negates direct α-cell signaling in the regulation of glucagon secretion in humans. To do so, we measured plasma glucagon responses to ingestion of a mixed meal and, on a separate occasion, to ingestion of the sulfonylurea glimepiride in patients with type 1 diabetes and in nondiabetic individuals. We conceptualized patients with type 1 diabetes as a model of α-cells isolated from β-cells because their β-cells had been destroyed but they have functioning α-cells. (Their α-cells are not, of course, isolated from other islet cells, including δ-cells.) Increased plasma amino acid and glucose levels after a mixed meal and sulfonylureas normally stimulate β-cell secretion; increased plasma amino acid and perhaps glucose (2) levels after a mixed meal and sulfonylureas (1) stimulate α-cell secretion. Our hypothesis predicts that such factors that normally stimulate both β-cells and α-cells would stimulate glucagon secretion in patients with type 1 diabetes but not in nondiabetic individuals, i.e., in the virtual absence and the presence of β-cell function, respectively. Indeed, a mixed meal (20,21) and the secretagogues tolbutamide (22), glyburide (23), and repaglinide (23) have been reported to raise plasma glucagon concentrations in patients with type 1 diabetes, but all of those studies lacked nondiabetic control subjects.     

Physical Activity, Adiposity, and Diabetes Risk in Middle-Aged and Older Chinese Population: The Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

Physical activity may modify the association of adiposity with type 2 diabetes. We investigated the independent and joint association of adiposity and physical activity with fasting plasma glucose, impaired fasting glucose, and type 2 diabetes in a Chinese population.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Middle-aged and older Chinese (n = 28,946, ≥50 years, 72.4%women) from the Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study were examined in 2003–2008. Multivariable regression was used in a cross-sectional analysis.

RESULTS

BMI, waist circumference, and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) were positively associated with type 2 diabetes after multiple adjustment, most strongly for WHR with odds ratio (OR) of 3.99 (95% CI 3.60–4.42) for highest compared with lowest tertile. Lack of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, but not walking, was associated with diabetes with an OR of 1.29 (1.17–1.41). The association of moderate-to-vigorous activity with fasting glucose varied with WHR tertiles (P = 0.01 for interaction). Within the high WHR tertile, participants who had a lack of moderate-to-vigorous activity had an OR of 3.87 (3.22–4.65) for diabetes, whereas those who were active had an OR of 2.94 (2.41–3.59).

CONCLUSIONS

In this population, WHR was a better measure of adiposity-related diabetes risk than BMI or waist circumference. Higher moderate-to-vigorous activity was associated with lower diabetes risk, especially in abdominally obese individuals.Type 2 diabetes is a worldwide cause of morbidity and mortality. Adiposity, especially abdominal adiposity, seems to be at the core of development of hyperglycemia and type 2 diabetes (1). Increased physical activity may mitigate some of the diabetogenic impact of adiposity (2–4). Individuals who are obese but fit could even have a lower risk of mortality than those who are normal weight but unfit (5,6). However, being physically active does not completely abolish the obesity-related risk for cardiovascular disease and associated mortality (7). Adiposity is still the main risk factor for the development of type 2 diabetes (2–4,8). Although increased physical activity has been shown to be associated with reduced type 2 diabetes risk independent of adiposity, the protective effects may differ by the level of adiposity. However, the group that could benefit most from physical activity for the prevention of diabetes is still unclear (2–4,8–10).Understanding the relationship between adiposity and physical activity is important to stratify risk groups for the development of effective diabetes prevention strategies from public health and clinical perspectives. Most of the studies relate to Caucasians (2–4,8–10), whereas Asians, including Chinese and Indians, are possibly more vulnerable to insulin resistance (11). The number of Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes was estimated to be ∼28.1 million in 2000 and may double by 2030, with China being second only to India (12). The purpose of this study was to investigate the independent and joint association of adiposity and physical activity with fasting plasma glucose, impaired fasting glucose (IFG), and type 2 diabetes in 28,946 middle-aged and older Chinese participants in the Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study.     

Impact of Metabolic Syndrome Compared With Impaired Fasting Glucose on the Development of Type 2 Diabetes in a General Japanese Population: The Hisayama study

OBJECTIVE

We examined whether metabolic syndrome predicts incident type 2 diabetes more effectively than impaired fasting glucose (IFG) in a general Japanese population.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 1,935 nondiabetic subjects aged 40–79 years were followed-up prospectively for a mean of 11.8 years.

RESULTS

During the follow-up, 286 subjects developed type 2 diabetes. Compared with those without metabolic syndrome, the multivariate-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for incident type 2 diabetes was significantly higher in subjects of both sexes with metabolic syndrome, even after adjustment for confounding factors, age, family history of diabetes, total cholesterol, alcohol intake, smoking habits, and regular exercise (men: HR 2.58 [95% CI 1.85–3.59]; women: 3.69 [2.58–5.27]). The multivariate-adjusted HR of metabolic syndrome for type 2 diabetes was slightly lower in men and similar in women compared with that of IFG. The multivariate-adjusted HR for type 2 diabetes rose progressively as the number of metabolic syndrome components increased in both subjects with and without IFG. In stratified analysis, the multivariate-adjusted risk of type 2 diabetes was significantly higher in subjects with metabolic syndrome alone (2.37 [1.45–3.88]) or IFG alone (3.49 [2.57–4.74]) and markedly increased in subjects with both metabolic syndrome and IFG (6.76 [4.75–9.61]) than in subjects with neither metabolic syndrome nor IFG. Furthermore, the multivariate-adjusted risk for type 2 diabetes was also significantly higher in subjects with both metabolic syndrome and IFG than in those with either one alone (both P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that metabolic syndrome significantly increases the risk of incident type 2 diabetes, independent of IFG, and is therefore a valuable tool to identify individuals at high risk of type 2 diabetes.Metabolic syndrome consists of a clustering of cardiovascular risk factors, such as central obesity, elevated blood pressure, glucose intolerance, and dyslipidemia, and individuals with this condition have an elevated risk of developing cardiovascular diseases (1–5) and type 2 diabetes in different ethnic populations (1–4,6–11). Thus, the concept of metabolic syndrome could be used to reduce the incidence of these diseases worldwide. However, a number of experts in the field of diabetes have questioned whether the idea of metabolic syndrome is useful and valuable (12–14). Because all of the criteria sets for metabolic syndrome have included the component of impaired fasting glucose (IFG), which is a powerful predictor of type 2 diabetes, detractors have questioned whether the more complex definition of metabolic syndrome is better than a simple measurement of fasting plasma glucose (FPG). However, reported findings concerning this issue are controversial: a cohort study has shown that the ability of metabolic syndrome to predict type 2 diabetes was superior to that of IFG alone (3), whereas in other studies, the value of metabolic syndrome was comparable or inferior to that of IFG alone (2,6,7). Furthermore, most of these epidemiological studies were performed in Western populations, and this subject has not been assessed sufficiently in Asian populations.The purpose of the present study was to investigate the association between metabolic syndrome and the development of type 2 diabetes in a prospective study of a defined Japanese population, taking into account comprehensive risk factors. In addition, we compared which of the two measures, metabolic syndrome or IFG, better predicted incident type 2 diabetes.     

Peri-Conceptional A1C and Risk of Serious Adverse Pregnancy Outcome in 933 Women With Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To study the association between peri-conceptional A1C and serious adverse pregnancy outcome (congenital malformations and perinatal mortality).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Prospective data were collected in 933 singleton pregnancies complicated by type 1 diabetes.

RESULTS

The risk of serious adverse outcome at different A1C levels was compared with the background population. The risk was significantly higher when peri-conceptional A1C exceeded 6.9%, and the risk tended to increase gradually with increasing A1C. Women with A1C exceeding 10.4% had a very high risk of 16%. Congenital malformation rate increased significantly at A1C above 10.4%, whereas perinatal mortality was increased even at A1C below 6.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support recent guidelines of preconceptional A1C levels <7% in women with type 1 diabetes.Recently, guidelines for management of pregnancy in women with pregestational diabetes have recommended pregestational A1C values <7.0% (1,2) and <6.1% (3). Previous studies have reported information of early A1C including 116–691 pregnancies (4–10). We aimed to study whether there is a threshold value for peri-conceptional A1C in women with type 1 diabetes below which the risk of serious adverse pregnancy outcome (congenital malformation and perinatal mortality) is not increased.     

Dietary Patterns and Risk for Diabetes: The Multiethnic Cohort

OBJECTIVE

The high diabetes incidence among Japanese Americans and Native Hawaiians cannot be explained by BMI. Therefore, we examined the influence of three dietary patterns of “fat and meat,” “vegetables,” and “fruit and milk” on diabetes risk in the Hawaii component of the Multiethnic Cohort with 29,759 Caucasians, 35,244 Japanese Americans, and 10,509 Native Hawaiians.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Subjects aged 45–75 years completed a baseline food frequency questionnaire. After 14 years of follow-up, 8,587 subjects with incident diabetes were identified through self-reports or health plan linkages. Risk was assessed using Cox regression stratified by age and adjusted for ethnicity, BMI, physical activity, education, total energy, smoking, alcohol intake, marital status, and hypertension.

RESULTS

Fat and meat was significantly associated with diabetes risk in men (hazard ratio 1.40 [95% CI 1.23–1.60], P_trend < 0.0001) and women (1.22 [1.06–1.40], P_trend = 0.004) when extreme quintiles were compared. Except in Hawaiian women, the magnitude of the risk was similar across ethnic groups although not always significant. After stratification by BMI, fat and meat remained a predictor of disease primarily among overweight men and among overweight Japanese women. Vegetables lowered diabetes risk in men (0.86 [0.77–0.95], P_trend = 0.004) but not in women, whereas fruit and milk seemed to be more beneficial in women (0.85 [0.76–0.96], P_trend = 0.005) than in men (0.92 [0.83–1.02], P_trend = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Foods high in meat and fat appear to confer a higher diabetes risk in all ethnic groups, whereas the effects of other dietary patterns vary by sex and ethnicity.Native Hawaiians have extremely high rates of obesity and diabetes, but despite their relatively low body weight, individuals with Japanese ancestry are also disproportionately affected by diabetes (1). Among the >44,000 Japanese Americans, 14,000 Native Hawaiians, and 35,000 Caucasians in the Hawaii component of the Multiethnic Cohort (MEC), a previous analysis had found diabetes incidence rates of 15.5, 12.5, and 5.8 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, that could not be explained by BMI (2). Dietary patterns have been identified as additional predictors of disease but have only rarely been investigated prospectively among non-Caucasian populations (3–5). The most commonly identified patterns are the so-called “western,” “unhealthy,” or “conservative” pattern (3–11), which is high in meat, high-fat foods, and sweets, and the “prudent” or “healthy” pattern, rich in fruit and vegetables (3–8,10,12,13). With the goal to contribute to the prevention of diabetes, we examined the effect of three dietary patterns, “fat and meat,” “vegetables,” and “fruit and milk,” which had been previously identified in the MEC, on diabetes risk (14).     

Active Care Management Supported by Home Telemonitoring in Veterans With Type 2 Diabetes: The DiaTel randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

We compared the short-term efficacy of home telemonitoring coupled with active medication management by a nurse practitioner with a monthly care coordination telephone call on glycemic control in veterans with type 2 diabetes and entry A1C ≥7.5%.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Veterans who received primary care at the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System from June 2004 to December 2005, who were taking oral hypoglycemic agents and/or insulin for ≥1 year, and who had A1C ≥7.5% at enrollment were randomly assigned to either active care management with home telemonitoring (ACM+HT group, n = 73) or a monthly care coordination telephone call (CC group, n = 77). Both groups received monthly calls for diabetes education and self-management review. ACM+HT group participants transmitted blood glucose, blood pressure, and weight to a nurse practitioner using the Viterion 100 TeleHealth Monitor; the nurse practitioner adjusted medications for glucose, blood pressure, and lipid control based on established American Diabetes Association targets. Measures were obtained at baseline, 3-month, and 6-month visits.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups, with mean A1C of 9.4% (CC group) and 9.6% (ACM+HT group). Compared with the CC group, the ACM+HT group demonstrated significantly larger decreases in A1C at 3 months (1.7 vs. 0.7%) and 6 months (1.7 vs. 0.8%; P < 0.001 for each), with most improvement occurring by 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the CC group, the ACM+HT group demonstrated significantly greater reductions in A1C by 3 and 6 months. However, both interventions improved glycemic control in primary care patients with previously inadequate control.Within the Veterans Health Administration, ∼500,000 veterans receive care for diabetes annually; diabetes is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality and a major contributor to health care cost (1,2). Sampling data from 2009 indicate that ∼28% of veterans nationally have suboptimal glycemic control with A1C ≥8% (3). Increases in A1C levels above the normal range in patients with diabetes are associated with progressive increases in morbidity and mortality due to micro- and macrovascular disease (4). Intensive glycemic control can reduce microvascular complications in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes (5,6). However, recent studies have not demonstrated that intensive glycemic control for 3–6 years with achieved A1C targets from 6.4 to 6.9% reduces macrovascular complications in patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes (7–9). In contrast, intensive glycemic control initiated early in the course of either type 1 or type 2 diabetes appears to reduce the risk of subsequent macrovascular complications significantly even when glycemic control later deteriorates (10,11).Home-based telemedicine has been examined as a tool for management of chronic diseases (12), including diabetes (13–19). This approach can obviate geographic barriers; provide automated education, feedback, and data transmission; and facilitate provider-to-patient communication (12). However, outcomes with home telemonitoring in diabetes and other chronic diseases have been variable (12). Of several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using home telemonitoring in diabetes care (13–19), only two have reported significant improvement in A1C (17,18). Neither of these trials included active medication management by a provider in response to real-time transmission of self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) data or have specifically targeted patients not meeting glycemic control goals in response to pharmacological therapy under conditions of usual care.The present study compared the efficacy of home telemonitoring coupled with active medication management by a nurse practitioner (ACM+HT intervention) with a lower-intensity care coordination intervention (CC intervention) consisting of monthly telephone contact with a diabetes nurse educator. Our study specifically targeted veterans with A1C levels ≥8% after ≥1 year receiving pharmacological therapy under conditions of usual care.     

Meta-analysis of the significance of asymptomatic bacteriuria in diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) is more common in patients with diabetes than among control subjects. In addition, we wanted to clarify the clinical significance of ASB in patients with diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published data since 1966. Twenty-two studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

ASB was present in 439 of 3,579 (12.2%) patients with diabetes and in 121 of 2,702 (4.5%) healthy control subjects. ASB was more common both in patients with type 1 diabetes (odds ratio 3.0 [95% CI 1.1–8.0]) and type 2 diabetes (3.2 [2.0–5.2]) than in control subjects. The point prevalence of ASB was higher in both women (14.2 vs. 5.1%; 2.6 [1.6–4.1]) and men (2.3 vs. 0.8%; 3.7 [1.3–10.2]) as well as in children and adolescents (12.9 vs. 2.7%; 5.4 [2.7–11.0]) with diabetes than in healthy control subjects. Albuminuria was more common in patients with diabetes and ASB than those without ASB (2.9 [1.7–4.8]). History of urinary tract infections was associated with ASB (1.6 [1.1–2.3]).

CONCLUSIONS

We were able to show that the prevalence of ASB is higher in all patients with diabetes compared with control subjects. We also found that diabetic subjects with ASB more often had albuminuria and symptomatic urinary tract infections.As the prevalence of both type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes increases world wide, factors associated with diabetes and its complications become more important (1,2). Asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) refers to the presence of bacteria in bladder urine in an asymptomatic individual. Usually, samples are collected indirectly by clean-voided midstream urine, and growth of the same uropathogen (≥10⁵ cfu/ml) in two consecutive specimens is considered to be a significant indication of the presence of bacteria in bladder urine (3). ASB is found in 2–5% of healthy adult women, is quite unusual in healthy men, and has been claimed to be three to four times more common in women with diabetes than in healthy women (3). A prevalence as high as 30% in diabetic women has been reported (4).ASB is considered clinically significant and worth treating during pregnancy because treatment effectively reduces the risk of pyelonephritis and preterm delivery (5,6). Although ASB has been found to associate with increased risk of hospitalization for urosepsis in a prospective observational study among women with diabetes (7), the treatment of ASB in one randomized controlled trial did not reduce the risk of symptomatic urinary tract infection (8). Associations between ASB, metabolic control of diabetes, and impaired renal function have been brought up repeatedly (9–15). To evaluate whether ASB is truly more common in patients with diabetes than among control subjects and to clarify the clinical significance of ASB in diabetic subjects we did a systematic literature search and performed a meta-analysis of the published data.     

A1C Between 5.7 and 6.4% as a Marker for Identifying Pre-Diabetes, Insulin Sensitivity and Secretion, and Cardiovascular Risk Factors: The Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study (IRAS)

OBJECTIVE

A1C is an optional method for diagnosing diabetes and also for detecting individuals at increased risk of the disease. However, how A1C compares with fasting (FPG) and 2-h plasma glucose for detecting at-risk individuals is not well known.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A 2-h glucose tolerance test, frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test, and A1C were obtained at the follow-up examination in 855 participants in the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study (IRAS). For this report, 385 individuals were at increased risk of diabetes as defined by A1C between 5.7 and 6.4%, impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and/or impaired fasting glucose (IFG).

RESULTS

IFG and IGT identified 69.1 and 59.5% of all individuals at increased risk of diabetes, respectively. A1C 5.7–6.4% detected 23.6% of all at-risk individuals, although more African Americans (31.4%) and Hispanics (35.2%) than non-Hispanic whites (9.9%). Relative to A1C, FPG was more strongly related to fasting insulin (r = 0.38 vs. 0.26; P < 0.01), acute insulin response (r = – 0.20 vs. – 0.09; P < 0.01), and waist circumference (r = 0.43 vs. 0.25; P < 0.001) by the Spearman correlation test. Similarly, 2-h plasma glucose was more strongly related to Si (r = – 0.40 vs. – 0.27; P < 0.01) and triglycerides (r = 0.30 vs. 0.08; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A1C 5.7–6.4% is less sensitive for detecting at-risk individuals than IFG and IGT, particularly among non-Hispanic whites. Single determinations of FPG and 2-h plasma glucose seem to be more precise correlates of insulin resistance and secretion than A1C and, in general, better for other metabolic disorders.A1C has been proposed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) as an optional assay for diagnosing diabetes and also for detecting individuals at increased risk of the disease (1). A1C has been shown to predict future onset of diabetes (2–4) and is better than fasting plasma glucose (FPG) for predicting microvascular complications (1). A1C may be superior to FPG in predicting mortality and cardiovascular risk in nondiabetic individuals (5) but inferior to 2-h glucose concentration (2-h plasma glucose) in most studies (6–8), albeit not all (9). The A1C assay has advantages over the measurement of plasma glucose including convenience (not requiring fasting samples) and superior technical attributes (1). Conversely, the number of individuals diagnosed with diabetes by the 6.5% A1C threshold is significantly smaller than the number of those diagnosed by the 2003 American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria (10–13). A1C, FPG, and 2-h plasma glucose assess different aspects of glucose metabolism (1), but differences in the relation of these three glycemic measures to insulin resistance, insulin secretion, and other metabolic abnormalities have not been described.A1C between 5.7 and 6.4% (A1C 5.7–6.4%) is now considered a category of increased risk for diabetes in addition to impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) (1). However, studies that compare A1C 5.7–6.4% with IFG and IGT are lacking. Therefore, our aim was twofold: 1) to analyze A1C, FPG, and 2-h plasma glucose for their ability to identify individuals at increased risk of diabetes; and 2) to examine the relation of these glycemic measures to other metabolic abnormalities, particularly measured insulin resistance and secretion in nondiabetic subjects.     

Regression From Pre-Diabetes to Normal Glucose Regulation in the Diabetes Prevention Program

OBJECTIVE

Participants in the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) randomized to intensive lifestyle modification (ILS) or metformin had a significantly reduced incidence of diabetes compared with those randomized to placebo, yet most were still at risk because they had pre-diabetes. We explored the effect of baseline characteristics, weight change, ILS, and metformin on regression from pre-diabetes to the lowest-risk state of normal glucose regulation (NGR) defined by American Diabetes Association criteria.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The DPP was a prospective randomized trial. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to identify predictors of regression from pre-diabetes to NGR over 3 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

Lower baseline fasting (hazard ratio 1.52, P < 0.01) and 2-h (1.24, P < 0.01) glucose predicted regression to NGR, as did younger age (1.07, P < 0.01) and greater insulin secretion (1.09, P = 0.04). ILS (2.05, P < 0.01) and weight loss (1.34, P < 0.01) had significant and independent effects on regression. A nonsignificant trend for regression was also observed for metformin (1.25, P = 0.06), male sex (1.17, P = 0.08), and insulin sensitivity (1.07, P = 0.09). In those entering the study with both impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), male sex and insulin sensitivity predicted regression to isolated IFG, whereas ILS, metformin, female sex, and greater insulin secretion predicted regression to isolated IGT.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin secretion, and other biologic processes retained with younger age, are key in restoring NGR in people with pre-diabetes. However, NGR may also be attained through weight loss and additional aspects of ILS.The prevalence of type 2 diabetes increased 61% between 1990 and 2001 (1), and by 2005 it affected nearly 21 million Americans (www.cdc.gov/Diabetes/pubs/estimates05.htm). This trend shows no sign of abating, considering that there are currently an estimated 54 million Americans with pre-diabetes (i.e., impaired fasting glucose [IFG] and/or impaired glucose tolerance [IGT]), up to 70% of whom may develop diabetes in their lifetime (2–4). Consequently, a number of clinical trials (2,4–9) have examined the feasibility and efficacy of lifestyle and/or drug therapy at preventing diabetes in people with pre-diabetes. Together, these studies have demonstrated reductions between 25 and 67% in the incidence of diabetes over 2.5- to 6-year intervention periods, with most participants remaining in a pre-diabetic state. Less often discussed were the 20–50% of participants who not only did not progress but, in fact, returned to normal glucose regulation (NGR) (2,6–8). One could make the case that true risk reduction is in restoring NGR rather than in maintenance of pre-diabetes.Whereas risk factors for diabetes are well established (3), far less is known about factors associated with reversal of the process. There are a large number of possible candidates, including a variety of genes, environmental exposures, and aspects of behavior, including diet, physical activity, and stress responses. Data from the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) offered a unique opportunity to explore some of these possible mediators. Thus, we aimed to examine the effect of basal biologic factors, weight change, and prevention strategies (intensive lifestyle modification [ILS] or metformin) on the incidence of regression from pre-diabetes to NGR.     

Translating the A1C assay into estimated average glucose values

OBJECTIVE

The A1C assay, expressed as the percent of hemoglobin that is glycated, measures chronic glycemia and is widely used to judge the adequacy of diabetes treatment and adjust therapy. Day-to-day management is guided by self-monitoring of capillary glucose concentrations (milligrams per deciliter or millimoles per liter). We sought to define the mathematical relationship between A1C and average glucose (AG) levels and determine whether A1C could be expressed and reported as AG in the same units as used in self-monitoring.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 507 subjects, including 268 patients with type 1 diabetes, 159 with type 2 diabetes, and 80 nondiabetic subjects from 10 international centers, was included in the analyses. A1C levels obtained at the end of 3 months and measured in a central laboratory were compared with the AG levels during the previous 3 months. AG was calculated by combining weighted results from at least 2 days of continuous glucose monitoring performed four times, with seven-point daily self-monitoring of capillary (fingerstick) glucose performed at least 3 days per week.

RESULTS

Approximately 2,700 glucose values were obtained by each subject during 3 months. Linear regression analysis between the A1C and AG values provided the tightest correlations (AG_mg/dl = 28.7 × A1C − 46.7, R² = 0.84, P < 0.0001), allowing calculation of an estimated average glucose (eAG) for A1C values. The linear regression equations did not differ significantly across subgroups based on age, sex, diabetes type, race/ethnicity, or smoking status.

CONCLUSIONS

A1C levels can be expressed as eAG for most patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.The A1C assay is widely accepted and used as the most reliable means of assessing chronic glycemia (1–3). Its close association with risk for long-term complications, established in epidemiologic studies and clinical trials (4–6), has lead to the establishment of specific A1C targets for diabetes care with the goal of preventing or delaying the development of long-term complications (2,7–9). Diabetes treatment is adjusted based on the A1C results, expressed as the percentage of hemoglobin that is glycated. The vast majority of assays have been standardized worldwide, through the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (10), to the assay used in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT), which established the relationship between A1C levels and risk for long-term diabetes complications (4,5).A new, more stable and specific method of standardization of the A1C assay, which is not intended for use in routine assays, has been developed and proposed to be used for global standardization by the International Federation of Clinical Chemists (11,12). However, the new method results in values that are 1.5–2.0 percentage points lower than current National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program values (13), potentially causing confusion for patients and health care providers. Moreover, the International Federation of Clinical Chemists results would be expressed in new units (millimoles per mole), which would add to the confusion. Chronic glycemia (A1C) is usually expressed as a percentage of hemoglobin that is glycated, whereas the day-to-day monitoring and therapy of diabetes are based on acute glucose levels expressed as milligrams per deciliter or millimoles per liter. This discrepancy has always been problematic. If we could reliably report chronic metabolic control and long-term management goals as average glucose (AG), i.e., in the same units of measurement as acute glycemia, it would eliminate these potential sources of confusion.The relationship between A1C and chronic glycemia has been explored in several studies that have supported the association of A1C with AG levels over the preceding 5–12 weeks (14–21). However, the older studies have been limited, including relatively small homogeneous cohorts of patients, usually with type 1 diabetes (14–19). Moreover, almost all of the prior studies have relied on infrequent measures of capillary glucose levels, calling into question the validity of their assessment of chronic glycemia. We performed an international multicenter study to examine the relationship between average glucose, assessed as completely as possible with a combination of continuous glucose monitoring and frequent fingerstick capillary glucose testing, and A1C levels over time to estimate the relationship between the two.     

Postchallenge Glucose, A1C, and Fasting Glucose as Predictors of Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease: A 10-year prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

A1C has been proposed as a new indicator for high risk of type 2 diabetes. The long-term predictive power and comparability of elevated A1C with the currently used high-risk indicators remain unclear. We assessed A1C, impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and impaired fasting glucose (IFG) as predictors of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD) at 10 years.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This prospective population-based study of 593 inhabitants from northern Finland, born in 1935, was conducted between 1996 and 2008. An oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was conducted at baseline and follow-up, and A1C was determined at baseline. Those with a history of diabetes were excluded from the study. Elevated A1C was defined as 5.7–6.4%. Incident type 2 diabetes was confirmed by two OGTTs. Cardiovascular outcome was measured as incident CVD or CVD mortality. Multivariate log-binomial regression models were used to predict diabetes, CVD, and CVD mortality at 10 years. Receiver operating characteristic curves compared predictive values of A1C, IGT, and IFG.

RESULTS

Incidence of diabetes during the follow-up was 17.1%. Two of three of the cases of newly diagnosed diabetes were predicted by a raise in ≥1 of the markers. Elevated A1C, IGT, or IFG preceded diabetes in 32.8, 40.6, and 21.9%, respectively. CVD was predicted by an intermediate and diabetic range of 2-h glucose but only by diabetic A1C levels in women.

CONCLUSIONS

A1C predicted 10-year risk of type 2 diabetes at a range of A1C 5.7–6.4% but CVD only in women at A1C ≥6.5%.Early detection of high risk for type 2 diabetes is fundamental for prevention of diabetes and associated cardiovascular complications. Impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) are currently used for diagnosis of high-risk glucose levels below the diabetic range. The International Expert Committee proposed A1C ≥6.5% as a diagnostic tool for diabetes in 2009 (1) and in January 2010 an intermediate range of A1C 5.7–6.4% (elevated A1C) was proposed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) to detect individuals at high risk for developing type 2 diabetes (2).To date, however, limited data exist to support the use of A1C in predicting type 2 diabetes (3–8). Importantly, the long-term predictive power of elevated A1C as defined above has not yet been investigated. Previous data on the association between A1C and incident type 2 diabetes in unselected populations have relied on self-reporting, fasting glucose measurements, and use of antidiabetes medication to determine the outcomes. An oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) has not been used to determine the outcome (3–8).Deterioration of glucose homeostasis reflects a continuum of glycemia, some of which is reversible if detected early (9,10). Importantly, the risk of cardiovascular disease is increased already before glycemia reaches the levels of diabetes, and 2-h glucose appears to be a better predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD) than fasting glucose (11). Recently, A1C was shown to be a better predictor of CVD than fasting glucose (12).Data directly comparing 2-h glucose and A1C as long-term predictors of new-onset cardiovascular disease are scarce, and results are controversial (13,14). Therefore, we compared A1C, 2-h glucose, and fasting glucose as predictors of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and CVD mortality during a prospective population-based study with a 10-year follow-up.     

Lifestyle counseling in routine care and long-term glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol control in patients with diabetes

OBJECTIVE

In clinical trials, diet, exercise, and weight counseling led to short-term improvements in blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol levels in patients with diabetes. However, little is known about the long-term effects of lifestyle counseling on patients with diabetes in routine clinical settings.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of 30,897 patients with diabetes aimed to determine whether lifestyle counseling is associated with time to A1C, blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol control in patients with diabetes. Patients were included if they had at least 2 years of follow-up with primary care practices affiliated with two teaching hospitals in eastern Massachusetts between 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2010.

RESULTS

Comparing patients with face-to-face counseling rates of once or more per month versus less than once per 6 months, median time to A1C <7.0% was 3.5 versus 22.7 months, time to blood pressure <130/85 mmHg was 3.7 weeks versus 5.6 months, and time to LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dL was 3.5 versus 24.7 months, respectively (P < 0.0001 for all). In multivariable analysis, one additional monthly face-to-face lifestyle counseling episode was associated with hazard ratios of 1.7 for A1C control (P < 0.0001), 1.3 for blood pressure control (P < 0.0001), and 1.4 for LDL cholesterol control (P = 0.0013).

CONCLUSIONS

Lifestyle counseling in the primary care setting is strongly associated with faster achievement of A1C, blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol control. These results confirm that the findings of controlled clinical trials are applicable to the routine care setting and provide evidence to support current treatment guidelines.Diabetes is increasingly common in the U.S. and worldwide (1,2). Elevated blood glucose, blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol are associated with increased risk for micro- and macrovascular complications, and their reduction decreases the risk (3–8). Nevertheless, most patients with diabetes do not have A1C, blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol under control (9,10).American and European guidelines widely recommend diet, exercise, and weight counseling with follow-up for patients with diabetes (11,12). Many short-term randomized clinical trials have shown that intensive lifestyle counseling interventions of up to 1 year in duration can lead to lower blood glucose (13–16) and blood pressure (17–21), but long-term data on the efficacy of lifestyle counseling are lacking (22–24). Furthermore, clinical trials typically involve resource-intensive interventions that may not be feasible in routine care, and the efficacy of lifestyle counseling in everyday clinical practice remains questionable (25–27). Consequently, further evidence is needed to establish that lifestyle counseling as practiced in routine care improves the outcomes of patients with diabetes.We therefore conducted a retrospective study of over 30,000 patients with diabetes and hyperglycemia, hypertension, and/or hyperlipidemia who received care in a primary care setting to test the hypothesis that higher rates of lifestyle counseling in routine care are associated with better diabetes control.     

Minimal Contribution of Fasting Hyperglycemia to the Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes in Subjects With Normal 2-h Plasma Glucose

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative contribution of increased fasting and postload plasma glucose concentrations to the incidence of type 2 diabetes in subjects with a normal 2-h plasma glucose concentration.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 3,450 subjects with 2-h plasma glucose concentration <140 mg/dl at baseline were followed up in the San Antonio Heart Study (SAHS) and the Botnia Study for 7–8 years. The incidence of type 2 diabetes at follow-up was related to the fasting, 1-h, and 2-h plasma glucose concentrations.

RESULTS

In subjects with 2-h plasma glucose <140 mg/dl, the incidence of type 2 diabetes increased with increasing fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and 1-h and 2-h plasma glucose concentrations. In a multivariate logistic analysis, after adjustment for all diabetes risk factors, the FPG concentration was a strong predictor of type 2 diabetes in both the SAHS and the Botnia Study (P < 0.0001). However, when the 1-h plasma glucose, but not 2-h plasma glucose, concentration was added to the model, FPG concentration was no longer a significant predictor of type 2 diabetes in both studies (NS). When subjects were matched for the level of 1-h plasma glucose concentration, the incidence of type 2 diabetes markedly increased with the increase in 1-h plasma glucose, but the increase in FPG was not associated with a significant increase in the incidence of type 2 diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

An increase in postload glycemia in the normal range is associated with an increase in the incidence of type 2 diabetes. After controlling for 1-h plasma glucose concentration, the increase in FPG concentration is not associated with an increase in the incidence of type 2 diabetes.Impaired fasting glucose (IFG) was introduced in 1997 by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) (1), and, analogous with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), it was meant to represent an intermediate stage in the transition from normal glucose tolerance (NGT) to overt type 2 diabetes. Both IFG and IGT indicate an increased risk for future type 2 diabetes (2–4). Previously (5–7), we have shown that the 1-h plasma glucose concentration has better predictive power than either fasting plasma glucose (FPG) or 2-h plasma glucose, suggesting that the 1-h plasma glucose concentration may have greater utility in identifying subjects at increased risk for type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice.Previous studies have reported that IFG and IGT represent separate clinical entities, which are characterized by distinct metabolic abnormalities (8–13). Subjects with IGT manifest insulin resistance in skeletal muscle (9–12) and impaired β-cell function (both early and late phases of insulin secretion) (10,14–16), whereas subjects with IFG are characterized by increased hepatic insulin resistance (9,16), impaired early insulin response (12), and decreased non–insulin-dependent glucose clearance (15). Because of the prominent role of progressive β-cell failure in the development of hyperglycemia (17), the impairment in β-cell function in subjects with IGT represents a major pathogenic factor for their increased risk for future type 2 diabetes. Although the increase in fasting plasma glucose is associated with a decrease in first-phase insulin secretion (11–13,18), subjects with IFG have robust second-phase insulin secretion, and, when related to their prevailing level of insulin resistance, they have second-phase insulin secretion comparable with that of subjects with NGT (12,13). Thus, impaired β-cell function cannot fully explain the increased incidence of type 2 diabetes associated with the increase in FPG concentration, e.g., in subjects with isolated IFG.Previously we have shown a strong correlation between insulin resistance in skeletal muscle and liver (16). Thus, a strong correlation between FPG and postload plasma glucose concentrations is anticipated. Therefore, we hypothesized that the increased type 2 diabetes risk associated with the increase in FPG, at least in part, is due to the increased postprandial plasma glucose concentration associated with the increase in FPG and is not due to the increase in FPG per se. The aim of this study was to test this hypothesis.     

Pleiotropic Effects of Atorvastatin and Fenofibrate in Metabolic Syndrome and Different Types of Pre-Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To compare extra-lipid effects of statins and fibrates in relation to the baseline metabolic status of patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study involved a group of 242 metabolic syndrome patients with or without pre-diabetes and randomized to atorvastatin, fenofibrate, or placebo.

RESULTS

Compared with matched healthy subjects, metabolic syndrome patients exhibited higher plasma levels/activities of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), fibrinogen, factor VII, plasminogen activator inhibitor 1, and enhanced monocyte cytokine release. These abnormalities were alleviated by both atorvastatin and fenofibrate treatment. CRP-lowering and monocyte-suppressing actions were more pronounced for atorvastatin in subjects with impaired fasting glucose and for fenofibrate in patients with impaired glucose tolerance.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of pre-diabetes potentiates metabolic syndrome–induced abnormalities in plasma markers of inflammation and hemostasis and in monocyte secretory function. Both atorvastatin and fenofibrate exhibit multidirectional pleiotropic effects in subjects with metabolic syndrome, the strength of which seem to be partially determined by the type of pre-diabetes.The anti-inflammatory, endothelial-protective, antioxidant, and anti-thrombotic actions of statins and fibrates are observed not only in patients with dyslipidemia (1–5) but also in subjects with early and late glucose metabolism abnormalities (6–8). This suggests that metabolic syndrome (MS) patients may receive more benefits from statin or fibrate treatment than individuals suffering from isolated lipid or glucose metabolism disturbances. No previous study has examined whether the presence and type of pre-diabetes determines cardiovascular risk factor concentrations and the extra-lipid effects of lipid-lowering agents in MS patients.     

Effect of Ranolazine on A1C and Glucose Levels in Hyperglycemic Patients With Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome

OBJECTIVE

We determined the relationships between glycemia at randomization, concurrent antidiabetic therapy, and change in A1C and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) in patients with diabetes receiving standard treatment for diabetes and randomized to ranolazine or placebo within the MERLIN-TIMI-36 (MERLIN) study. Ranolazine is a novel first-in-class drug approved for treating angina pectoris.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Randomization and 4-month glycemic and antidiabetes drug usage data from MERLIN were analyzed using Spotfire and SAS version 9.1 software.

RESULTS

In patients with diabetes and A1C of ≥8–10% at randomization (n = 171), there was an absolute A1C reduction in the ranolazine group of 1.2% (95% CI −1.4 to −1.0), and the placebo-adjusted (n = 182) decrease in A1C by ranolazine was 0.59% (95% CI −0.99 to −0.20, P < 0.001). In patients with FPG of 150–400 mg/dl at randomization, ranolazine (n = 131) compared with placebo (n = 147) reduced FPG by 25.7 mg/dl (95% CI −43.3 to −8.1, P = 0.001). When changes in either A1C or FPG were correlated to A1C or FPG at randomization, the slopes were significantly steeper for ranolazine than placebo (A1C, P = 0.046; FPG, P < 0.001), indicating that lowering of A1C and FPG by ranolazine is related to hyperglycemia at randomization. Ranolazine, compared with placebo, was not associated with serious hypoglycemic events, associated with significant changes in concurrent antidiabetic therapy, or dependent on a history of angina.

CONCLUSIONS

Ranolazine, when added to concurrent antidiabetes treatment, lowers FPG and A1C in patients with cardiovascular disease and poorly controlled diabetes.Diabetes is an established risk factor for cardiovascular disease, and the risk of cardiovascular disease increases with worsening hyperglycemia (1–3). Furthermore, coronary artery disease is the most common cause of death in patients with diabetes (4). Patients with coronary artery disease and a recent myocardial infarction or acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have an increased incidence of impaired fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and new-onset diabetes (5–7). Management of diabetes in patients with cardiovascular disease is complicated by the fact that the cardiovascular safety of some oral glucose–lowering agents has been questioned, and outcome data are lacking (8).Ranolazine is a first-in-class anti-anginal drug with cardioprotective properties without effects on heart rate or blood pressure (9). The drug inhibits the cardiac late sodium current (10,11). The late sodium current is enhanced during ischemia and in the failing heart and contributes to the Na+-dependent cellular calcium overload associated with these pathological conditions (10,11). Ranolazine has been shown effective in treating chronic angina both as a monotherapy (MARISA trial) and in combination with commonly prescribed cardiovascular drugs (CARISA and ERICA trials) (12–14), with no increase in mortality in patients with established coronary artery disease, including those with diabetes (15,16).Post hoc analysis of data from the CARISA study demonstrated that ranolazine lowered A1C, a long-term biomarker of glucose control, in patients with chronic angina and diabetes, in a dose-dependent manner (17). While the mechanism of glycemic improvement remains incompletely understood, preliminary studies using isolated rat and human pancreatic islets suggest ranolazine may promote glucose-stimulated insulin secretion (18).In the MERLIN-TIMI-36 (MERLIN) study, the effects of ranolazine to lower A1C and glucose were confirmed using prespecified glycemic end points (16). In this study, patients with diabetes were receiving standard of care treatment for diabetes with mean A1C levels of 7.5% at randomization. Despite the relatively low mean A1C at randomization, ranolazine was found to significantly reduce A1C in patients with diabetes and to reduce the incidence of newly elevated A1C in initially normoglycemic patients (16). The mean placebo-corrected reductions in A1C with ranolazine treatment at 4 months were 0.42% (P < 0.001) and 0.18% (P < 0.001) for patients with and without diabetes, respectively. There were no differences in the reported incidence of hypoglycemia between placebo and ranolazine.The glucose-lowering response to multiple antidiabetic therapies is greater in patients with higher baseline A1C and glucose values (19). Therefore, the current analysis of the MERLIN data was undertaken to evaluate the effects of ranolazine on FPG and A1C in diabetic patients with moderate or severe hyperglycemia, defined as an A1C of 6 to <8% or ≥8–10%, or FPG <150 or ≥150–400 mg/dl, respectively, at randomization. Additionally, MERLIN data were assessed as to whether effects of ranolazine on glycemia were influenced by concurrent antidiabetic therapy.     

Elevated A1C in Adults Without a History of Diabetes in the U.S.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence and correlates of elevated A1C in a large, nationally representative sample of adults without diabetes in the U.S.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed data from 15,934 participants aged ≥20 years without diagnosed diabetes who had A1C measurements in the 1999–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a cross-sectional and nationally representative sample of the U.S. population.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of A1C >6% was 3.8%, corresponding to 7.1 million adults without diabetes in the U.S. population. Approximately 90% of these individuals had fasting glucose ≥100 mg/dl. Older age, male sex, non-Hispanic black race/ethnicity, hypercholesterolemia, higher BMI, and lower attained education were significantly associated with having a higher A1C level even among individuals with normal fasting glucose (<100 mg/dl) and after multivariable adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

A single elevated A1C level (A1C >6%) is common in the general population of adults without a history of diabetes and is highly reliable for the detection of elevated fasting glucose. Nondiabetic adults with elevated A1C are likely to have impaired fasting glucose and an array of other risk factors for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.A1C is an integrated measure of circulating glucose levels and tracks well in individuals over time. Epidemiological studies have shown that A1C values in nondiabetic adults predict incident diabetes (1–5), cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality (6–10), and total mortality (7). In these studies, A1C values well within in the “normal” range (i.e., A1C <6%) were independently associated with clinical outcomes. There is currently renewed interest in using A1C for diagnosis and/or screening for diabetes (11); however, there have been few epidemiological investigations of A1C in nondiabetic adults. The objective of the present study was to examine the prevalence and correlates of elevated A1C in a large, nationally representative sample of U.S. adults without diagnosed diabetes who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) (1999–2006). We hypothesized that 1) elevated A1C levels (e.g., A1C >6%) are common in the general population of nondiabetic adults in the U.S. and 2) A1C levels would be associated with risk factors for type 2 diabetes and its complications even in the absence of elevated glucose levels.     

Sex and Racial/Ethnic Differences in Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factor Treatment and Control Among Individuals With Diabetes in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA)

OBJECTIVE

To examine sex and racial/ethnic differences in cardiovascular risk factor treatment and control among individuals with diabetes in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This study was an observational study examining mean levels of cardiovascular risk factors and proportion of subjects achieving treatment goals.

RESULTS

The sample included 926 individuals with diabetes. Compared with men, women were 9% less likely to achieve LDL cholesterol <130 mg/dl (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.91 [0.83–0.99]) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) <130 mmHg (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.91 [0.85–0.98]). These differences diminished over time. A lower percentage of women used aspirin (23 vs. 33%; P < 0.001). African American and Hispanic women had higher mean levels of SBP and lower prevalence of aspirin use than non-Hispanic white women.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with diabetes had unfavorable cardiovascular risk factor profiles compared with men. African American and Hispanic women had less favorable profiles than non-Hispanic white women.Population-based health survey data suggest that sex and racial/ethnic disparities are present in diabetes process of care measures and cardiovascular risk factor control (1–9). Available data also indicate that sex-specific race/ethnicity differences are present in cardiovascular risk factor control, but these data are limited to Medicare and Veterans'' Hospital patient populations (5,10–13). We therefore performed analyses of participants with diabetes in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) to examine sex and sex-specific racial/ethnic differences in cardiovascular risk factor treatment and control.