Clinical assessment for high-risk patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in primary care and diabetology practices.

BACKGROUND: Primary care practitioners (PCPs) and diabetologists are at the frontline of potentially encountering patients with NASH. Identification of those at high risk for adverse outcomes is important. AIM: To provide practical guidance to providers on how to identify these patients and link them to specialty care. METHODS: US members of the Global Council on NASH evaluated the evidence about NASH and non-invasive tests and developed a simple algorithm to identify high-risk NASH patients for diabetologists and primary care providers. These tools can assist frontline providers in decision-making and referral to gastroenterology/hepatology practices for additional assessments. RESULTS: The presence of NASH-related advanced fibrosis is an independent predictor of adverse outcomes. These patients with NASH are considered high risk and referral to specialists is warranted. Given that staging of fibrosis requires a liver biopsy, non-invasive tests for fibrosis would be preferred. Consensus recommendation from the group is to risk-stratify patients based on metabolic risk factors using the FIB-4 as the initial non-invasive test due to its simplicity and ease of use. A FIB-4 score ≥1.3 can be used for further assessment and linkage to specialty care where additional technology to assess liver stiffness or serum fibrosis test will be available. CONCLUSION: Due to the growing burden of NAFLD and NASH, PCPs and diabetologists are faced with increased patient encounters in their clinical practices necessitating referral decisions. To assist in identifying high-risk NASH patients requiring specialty care, we provide a simple and easy to use algorithm.

Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus: Sex Differences in Insulin Action and Secretion.

Sex difference plays a substantial role in the regulation of glucose metabolism in healthy glucose-tolerant humans. The factors which may contribute to the sex-related differences in glucose metabolism include differences in lifestyle (diet and exercise), sex hormones, and body composition. Several epidemiological and observational studies have noted that impaired glucose tolerance is more common in women than men. Some of these studies have attributed this to differences in body composition, while others have attributed impaired insulin sensitivity as a cause of impaired glucose tolerance in women. We studied postprandial glucose metabolism in 120 men and 90 women after ingestion of a mixed meal. Rates of meal glucose appearance, endogenous glucose production, and glucose disappearance were calculated using a novel triple-tracer isotope dilution method. Insulin action and secretion were calculated using validated physiological models. While rate of meal glucose appearance was higher in women than men, rates of glucose disappearance were higher in elderly women than elderly men while young women had lower rates of glucose disappearance than young men. Hence, sex has an impact on postprandial glucose metabolism, and sex differences in carbohydrate metabolism may have important implications for approaches to prevent and manage diabetes in an individual.

Plasma C5 glucose-to-2H2O ratio does not provide an accurate assessment of gluconeogenesis during hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamps in either nondiabetic or diabetic humans.

OBJECTIVE: Measurement of plasma C2 glucose enrichment is cumbersome. Therefore, the plasma C5 glucose-to-(2)H(2)O rather than the plasma C5-to-C2 glucose ratio commonly has been used to measure gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis during hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamps. The validity of this approach is unknown. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Ten nondiabetic and 10 diabetic subjects ingested (2)H(2)O the evening before study. The following morning, insulin was infused at a rate of 0.6 mU . kg(-1) . min(-1) and glucose was clamped at approximately 5.3 mmol/l for 5 h. Plasma C5 glucose, C2 glucose, and (2)H(2)O enrichments were measured hourly from 2 h onward. RESULTS: Plasma C2 glucose and plasma (2)H(2)O enrichment were equal in both groups before the clamp, resulting in equivalent estimates of gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis. In contrast, plasma C2 glucose and plasma C5 glucose enrichments fell throughout the clamp, whereas plasma (2)H(2)O enrichment remained unchanged. Since the C5 glucose concentration and, hence, the C5 glucose-to-(2)H(2)O ratio is influenced by both gluconeogenesis and glucose clearance, whereas the C5-to-C2 glucose ratio is only influenced by gluconeogenesis, the C5 glucose-to-(2)H(2)O ratio overestimated (P < 0.01) gluconeogenesis during the clamp. This resulted in biologically implausible negative (i.e., calculated rates of gluconeogenesis exceeding total endogenous glucose production) rates of glycogenolysis in both the nondiabetic and diabetic subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma C5 glucose-to-(2)H(2)O ratio does not provide an accurate assessment of gluconeogenesis in nondiabetic or diabetic subjects during a traditional (i.e., 2-3 h) hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp. The conclusions of studies that have used this approach need to be reevaluated.

Prediction of postprandial glycemic exposure: utility of fasting and 2-h glucose measurements alone and in combination with assessment of body composition, fitness, and strength.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the best predictors of total postprandial glycemic exposure and peak glucose concentrations in nondiabetic humans. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from 203 nondiabetic volunteers who ingested a carbohydrate-containing mixed meal were analyzed. RESULTS: Fasting glucose and insulin concentrations were poor predictors of postprandial glucose area above basal (R2 = approximately 0.07, P < 0.001). The correlation was stronger for 2-h glucose concentration (R2 = 0.55, P < 0.001) and improved slightly but significantly (P < 0.001) with the addition of fasting glucose, insulin, age, sex, and body weight to the model (r2 = 0.58). The 2-h glucose concentration also predicted the peak glucose concentration (R2 = 0.37, P < 0.001) with strength of the prediction increasing (P < 0.001) modestly with the addition of fasting glucose, insulin, age, sex, and body weight to the model (R2 = 0.48, P < 0.001). On the other hand, addition of measures of body function and composition did not improve prediction of total glycemic exposure or peak glucose concentration. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated measures of fasting or 2-h glucose concentrations alone or in combination with more complex measures of body composition and function are poor predictors of postprandial glycemic exposure or peak glucose concentration. This may explain, at least in part, the weak and at times inconsistent relationship between these parameters and cardiovascular risk.

Assessment of postprandial glucose metabolism: conventional dual- vs. triple-tracer method.

The dual-tracer method has been used conventionally for assessment of postprandial fluxes, i.e., appearance in plasma of ingested glucose (R(a meal)), endogenous glucose production (EGP), and disposal (R(d)). To quantify the magnitude of errors affecting the calculations and their dependence on model assumptions, this method was assessed and compared with the triple-tracer method, which provides model-independent estimates. For this purpose, the dual-tracer protocol was performed twice in eight normal subjects, with [1-(13)C]glucose to trace ingested glucose and [6,6-(2)H(2)]glucose constantly infused. A third tracer, [6-(3)H]glucose, was infused at variable rates to render the calculation of R(a meal) and EGP virtually model independent. The dual-tracer method analyzed with a one-compartment model performed poorly, since R(a meal) peak was significantly lower and delayed compared with triple-tracer reference, resulting in a significantly lower estimation of the amount of absorbed glucose (9,036 +/- 558 vs. 11,316 +/- 823 micromol/kg, P = 0.0117). EGP showed a paradoxical pattern, with an initial overshoot followed by a rapid decay to negative values, resulting in a significant underestimation of EGP suppression (57 +/- 3 vs. 65 +/- 4%, P = 0.0117). A two-compartment model performed better but did not overcome the limitations of the dual-tracer approach, since the amount of absorbed glucose was still significantly underestimated (10,231 +/- 661 vs. 12,169 +/- 838 micromol/kg, P = 0.0117) and EGP still showed a paradoxical behavior. R(d), estimated from R(a meal) and EGP, was significantly underestimated with the dual-tracer method, irrespective of adopted model. We conclude that three suitably infused tracers are required for accurate assessment of postprandial R(a meal), EGP, and R(d).

Two-hour seven-sample oral glucose tolerance test and meal protocol: minimal model assessment of beta-cell responsivity and insulin sensitivity in nondiabetic individuals.

Highly informative yet simple protocols to assess insulin secretion and action would considerably enhance the quality of epidemiological and large-scale clinical trials. In an effort to develop such protocols, a 5-h, 11-sample oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed in 100 individuals and a 7-h, 21-sample meal in another 100. Plasma glucose, insulin, and C-peptide concentrations were measured. We show that virtually the same minimal model assessment of beta-cell responsivity (dynamic [Phi(d)] and static [Phi(s)]), insulin sensitivity (Si), and disposition index (DI) can be obtained with a reduced seven-sample 2-h protocol: Phi(d), reduced versus full: 871.50 vs. 873.32, r = 0.98 in OGTT and 494.88 vs. 477.99 10(-9), r = 0.91 in meal; Phi(s): 42.36 vs. 44.35, r = 0.88 in OGTT and 35.31 vs. 35.37 10(-9) min(-1), r = 0.90 in meal; Si: 24.33 vs. 22.77 10(-5) dl x kg(-1) x min(-1) per pmol/l, r = 0.89 in OGTT and 19.03 vs. 19.77 10(-5) dl x kg(-1) x min(-1) per pmol/l, r = 0.85 in meal; and DI: 1,282.26 vs. 1,273.23, r = 0.84 in OGTT and 726.92 vs. 776.97 10(-14) dl . kg(-1) x min(-2) per pmol/l, r = 0.84 in meal. This reduced protocol will facilitate the study of insulin secretion and action under physiological conditions in nondiabetic humans.