Effects of growth hormone administration in human obesity. Obes Res

Abstract SHADID, SAMYAH AND MICHAEL D. JENSEN. Effects of growth hormone administration in human obesity. Obes Res. 2003;11:170 -175. Objective: To summarize the reports in the literature regarding the effect of growth hormone (GH) treatment of obesity. Research Methods and Procedures: Clinical trials of GH treatment of obese adults were reviewed and summarized. Specifically, information regarding the effects of GH on body fat and body fat distribution, glucose tolerance/insulin resistance, and adverse consequences of treatment were recorded. Results: GH administered together with hypocaloric diets did not enhance fat loss or preserve lean tissue mass. No studies provided strong evidence for an independent beneficial effect of GH on visceral adiposity. In all but one study, glucose tolerance during GH treatment suffered relative to placebo. Conclusion: The bulk of studies indicate little or no beneficial effects of GH treatment of obesity despite the low serum GH concentrations associated with obesity

Two-stage, school and community-based population screening successfully identifies individuals and families at high-risk for type 2 diabetes: the Feel4Diabetes-study

L

Combined effects of timing of exercise and HIE on plasma NEFA, glucose and insuline concen-trations in T2DM and prediabetic men

info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublishe

Abetalipoproteinemia from previously unreported gene mutations

A

The added and interpretative value of cgm-derived parameters in type 1 diabetes depends on the level of glycemic control

Objective: In type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) management, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived parameters can provide additional insights, with time in range (TIR) and other parameters reflecting glycemic control and variability being put forward. This study aimed to examine the added and interpretative value of the CGM-derived indices TIR and coefficient of variation (CV%) in T1DM patients stratified according to their level of glycemic control by means of HbA1C. Methods: T1DM patients with a minimum disease duration of 10 years and without known macrovascular disease were enrolled. Patients were equipped with a blinded CGM device for 7 days. TIR and time spent in hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia were determined, and CV% was used as a parameter for glycemic variability. Pearson (r) and Spearman correlations (r(s)) and a regression analysis were used to examine associations. Results: Ninety-five patients (age: 45 +/- 10 years; HbA1C level: 7.7% +/- 0.8% [61 +/- 7 mmol/mol]) were included (mean blood glucose [MBG]: 159 +/- 31 mg/dL; TIR: 55.8% +/- 14.9%; CV%: 43.5% +/- 7.8%) and labeled as having good (HbA1C level 8% [>64 mmol/mol]; n = 31) glycemic control. HbA1C was significantly associated with MBG (r(s) = 0.48, P < .001) and time spent in hyperglycemia (total: r(s) = 0.52; level 2: r = 0.46; P < .001) but not with time spent in hypoglycemia and CV%, even after an analysis of the HbA1C subgroups. Similarly, TIR was negatively associated with HbA1C (r = -0.53; P < .001), MBG (r(s) = -0.81; P < .001), and time spent in hyperglycemia (total: r(s) = -0.90; level 2: r(s) = -0.84; P < .001) but not with time in hypoglycemia. The subgroup analyses, however, showed that TIR was associated with shorter time spent in level-2 hypoglycemia in patients with good (r(s) = -0.60; P = .007) and moderate (r(s) = -0.25; P = .047) glycemic control. In contrast, CV% was strongly positively associated with time in hypoglycemia (total: r(s) = 0.78; level 2: r(s) = 0.76; P < .001) but not with TIR or time in hyperglycemia in the entire cohort, although the subgroup analyses showed that TIR was negatively associated with CV% in patients with good glycemic control (r = -0.81, P < .001) and positively associated in patients with poor glycemic control (r = +0.47; P < .01). Conclusion: The CGM-derived metrics TIR and CV% are related to clinically important situations, TIR being strongly dependent on hyperglycemia and CV% being reflective of hypoglycemic risk. However, the interpretation and applicability of TIR and CV% and their relationship depends on the level of glycemic control of the individual patient, with CV% generally adding less clinically relevant information in those with poor control. This illustrates the need for further research and evaluation of composite measures of glycemic control in T1DM. (C) 2020 AACE. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved