Osteoprotegerin gene polymorphism in diabetic Charcot neuroarthropathy.

AIMS: Recently, an association between two polymorphisms (1181G>C and 245T>G) of the osteoprotegerin (OPG) gene and diabetic Charcot neuroarthropathy was suggested on the basis of studies of a limited number of samples derived from subjects from one geographical region (Italy). The aim of this study was to assess the presence of various osteoprotegerin gene polymorphisms in patients with diabetes and Charcot neuroarthropathy compared with subjects with diabetic neuropathy but no Charcot foot and healthy controls from another geographical region (Poland). METHODS: DNA was isolated from 54 patients with Charcot neuroarthropathy, 35 subjects with diabetic neuropathy but no Charcot foot, and 95 healthy controls to evaluate OPG gene polymorphisms and their possible contribution to the development of Charcot neuroarthropathy. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences between the group of subjects with neuropathy but no Charcot neuroarthropathy and the control group were found for 1217C>T, 950T>C and 245T>G polymorphisms, between the group of patients with Charcot neuroarthropathy and the control group for 1181G>C and 950T>C polymorphisms, and between the group of subjects with neuropathy but no Charcot neuroarthropathy and the group of patients with Charcot neuroarthropathy for 1217C>T and 245T>G polymorphisms. CONCLUSION: We suggest that genetic factors, particularly OPG gene polymorphisms, may play a role in the development of diabetic Charcot neuroarthropathy.

The action profile of lispro is not blunted by mixing in the syringe with NPH insulin.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of mixing the insulin analog lispro (Humalog) with NPH (Humulin I) before injection on lispro's fast, short action profile. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 12 healthy volunteers received subcutaneous abdominal injections of 0.1 U/kg regular insulin and 0.2 U/kg NPH insulin as follows: lispro and NPH injected separately (treatment group A), lispro and NPH mixed in the syringe up to 2 min before single injection (treatment group B), and human regular insulin and NPH mixed and injected as in group B (treatment group C), on separate occasions, in random order. Plasma glucose was maintained for 12 h by intravenous 20% glucose. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters were compared by analysis of variance for repeated measures. RESULTS: Peak plasma insulin levels (2.6 +/- 0.8 vs. 2.2 +/- 0.6 vs. 1.9 +/- 0.6 ng/ml, P = 0.075), total glucose infused (121.5 +/- 32.8 vs. 135.0 +/- 49.0 vs. 117.3 +/- 39.9 mg.kg-1.min-1, P = 0.53), and maximum glucose infusion rate (GIRmax) (8.3 +/- 0.9 vs. 8.0 +/- 1.7 vs. 7.1 +/- 2.4 mg.kg-1.min-1, P = 0.65) were not significantly different between treatments. The times until peak insulin concentrations were similar in treatment groups A and B, but significantly shorter than in treatment group C (0.9 +/- 0.3 and 1.2 +/- 0.2 vs. 2.0 +/- 0.4 h, respectively, P = 0.042). The times until GIRmax were also not different (113.9 +/- 41 and 122.0 +/- 45 vs. 209.0 +/- 51.3 min, respectively, P = 0.002). The glucose infusion rate (GIR) then fell to 50% GIRmax more quickly in treatment groups A and B than in treatment group C (239.9 +/- 40.5 vs. 292.4 +/- 133.3 vs. 399.5 +/- 78.3, respectively, P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The action profile of lispro is not attenuated by mixing lispro with NPH in the syringe immediately before injection. The advantages are available to those individuals who need to combine types of insulin before injection to achieve optimal diabetes control.

Effects of glycemic control on protective responses against hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of glycemic control on the counterregulatory responses to hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Seven poorly controlled type 2 diabetes patients (mean HbA1c, 11.3 +/- 1.1%) were studied by stepped hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemic clamp (nadir, 2.4 mmol/l) before and after improving glycemic control with insulin treatment. Counterregulatory hormones, symptoms, and four-choice reaction time were measured at each glucose plateau. RESULTS: In patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes, counterregulatory hormone responses began at higher plasma glucose levels than did those in healthy subjects (epinephrine, 4.4 +/- 0.2 vs. 3.7 +/- 0.2 mmol/l, P = 0.011). After significant improvement in glycemic control (mean HbA1c, 8.1 +/- 0.9%, P < 0.001) was achieved without severe hypoglycemia, hormonal responses started at much lower plasma glucose levels (e.g., epinephrine, 3.5 +/- 0.3 mmol/l, P = 0.005) and were significantly reduced in magnitude (e.g., area under epinephrine response curve, 306 +/- 93 vs. 690 +/- 107 nmol.min-1.l-1, P = 0.012). This was accompanied by a change in the plasma glucose threshold at which hypoglycemic symptoms first developed from 3.6 +/- 0.2 to 3.0 +/- 0.2 mmol/l (P = 0.019). In contrast, the plasma glucose threshold at which four-choice reaction time deteriorated did not change significantly (3.1 +/- 0.1 vs. 2.9 +/- 0.1 mmol/l, P = 0.125). CONCLUSIONS: Counterregulatory responses begin at normoglycemia in poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Improving glycemic control with insulin therapy normalizes hormonal responses but lowers the plasma glucose levels at which hypoglycemic symptoms develop to levels associated with impairment of four-choice reaction time, a marker of cognitive function. This process potentially increases the risk of severe hypoglycemia, but to a lesser extent than occurs in type 1 disease.

Results and cost analysis of distal [crural/pedal] arterial revascularisation for limb salvage in diabetic and non-diabetic patients.

In order to compare the outcome and costs of femorodistal grafting in diabetic and nondiabetic patients presenting with critical limb ischaemia we analysed a consecutive series of 109 femorodistal bypasses, 38 (35%) performed on people with diabetes and 71 (65%) on non-diabetic patients. The same aggressive revascularization policy was used in both groups with the decision to operate based on the presence of a calf or foot vessel on preoperative intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (IADSA). Data were collected prospectively and the median follow-up was 15.4 months (range 0 to 42 months). There were no significant differences in 30-day (5.3% vs 4.2%) and in-hospital mortality (13.2% vs 14.1%) between the two groups. Life table curves at 3 years in diabetic and non-diabetic patients showed 48% vs 60% survival, 76% vs 72% knee salvage, 45% vs 56% limb salvage, and 38% vs 47% secondary patency. Although there was a trend for diabetic patients to perform less well, there was no statistically significant difference in these outcome measures. In cost comparison the only significant difference was found in the total hospital cost, which was Pounds 9181 in diabetic, compared to Pounds 6350 in nondiabetic patients (p = 0.026, Mann-Whitney). However, this cost was significantly less than that of primary amputation in either group (Pounds 15500 and Pounds 12040, respectively). Femorodistal reconstruction in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients, whenever feasible, is a cheaper option than primary amputation, even though vascular surgery may be more expensive in people with diabetes.