Dataset Information

Insulin: too much of a good thing is bad.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Insulin shares a limited physiological concentration range with other endocrine hormones. Not only too low, but also too high systemic insulin levels are detrimental for body functions.

Main body

The physiological function and clinical relevance of insulin are usually seen in association with its role in maintaining glucose homeostasis. However, insulin is an anabolic hormone which stimulates a large number of cellular responses. Not only too low, but also excess insulin concentrations are detrimental to the physiological balance. Although the glucoregulatory activity of insulin is mitigated during hyperinsulinemia by dampening the efficiency of insulin signaling ("insulin resistance"), this is not the case for most other hormonal actions of insulin, including the promotion of protein synthesis, de novo lipogenesis, and cell proliferation; the inhibition of lipolysis, of autophagy-dependent cellular turnover, and of nuclear factor E2-related factor-2 (Nrf2)-dependent antioxidative; and other defense mechanisms. Hence, there is no general insulin resistance but selective impairment of insulin signaling which causes less glucose uptake from the blood and reduced activation of endothelial NO synthase (eNOS). Because of the largely unrestricted insulin signaling, hyperinsulinemia increases the risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease and decreases health span and life expectancy. In epidemiological studies, high-dose insulin therapy is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Randomized controlled trials of insulin treatment did not observe any effect on disease risk, but these trials only studied low insulin doses up to 40 IU/day. Proof for a causal link between elevated insulin levels and cardiovascular disease risk comes from Mendelian randomization studies comparing individuals with genetically controlled low or high insulin production.

Conclusions

The detrimental actions of prolonged high insulin concentrations, seen also in cell culture, argue in favor of a lifestyle that limits circadian insulin levels. The health risks associated with hyperinsulinemia may have implications for treatment regimens used in type 2 diabetes.

SUBMITTER: Kolb H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7441661 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Prior studies investigating hospital mechanical ventilation volume-outcome associations have had conflicting findings. Volume-outcome relationships within contemporary mechanical ventilation practices are unclear. We sought to determine associations between hospital mechanical ventilation volume and patient outcomes. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING:The California Patient Discharge Database 2016. PATIENTS:Adult nonsurgical patients receiving mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS:The primary outcome was hospital death with secondary outcomes of tracheostomy and 30-day readmission. We used multivariable generalized estimating equations to determine the association between patient outcomes and hospital mechanical ventilation volume quartile. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:We identified 51,689 patients across 274 hospitals who required mechanical ventilation in California in 2016. 38.2% of patients died in the hospital with 4.4% receiving a tracheostomy. Among survivors, 29.5% required readmission within 30 days of discharge. Patients admitted to high versus low volume hospitals had higher odds of death (quartile 4 vs quartile 1 adjusted odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.17-1.68) and tracheostomy (quartile 4 vs quartile 1 adjusted odds ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.21-2.06). However, odds of 30-day readmission among survivors was lower at high versus low volume hospitals (quartile 4 vs quartile 1 adjusted odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.89). Higher hospital mechanical ventilation volume was weakly correlated with higher hospital risk-adjusted mortality rates (? = 0.16; p = 0.008). These moderately strong observations were supported by multiple sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS:Contrary to previous studies, we observed worse patient outcomes at higher mechanical ventilation volume hospitals. In the setting of increasing use of mechanical ventilation and changes in mechanical ventilation practices, multiple mechanisms of worse outcomes including resource strain are possible. Future studies investigating differences in processes of care between high and low volume hospitals are necessary.