Dataset Information

Beta cell function and insulin sensitivity in obese youth with maturity onset diabetes of youth mutations vs type 2 diabetes in TODAY: Longitudinal observations and glycemic failure.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

In treatment options for type 2 diabetes in adolescents and youth (TODAY), 4.5% of obese youth clinically diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D) had genetic variants consistent with maturity onset diabetes of youth (MODY) diagnosis. The course of IS and β-cell function in obese youth with MODY remains unknown. In this secondary analysis, we examined IS and β-cell function in MODY vs. non-MODY obese youth at randomization and over time.

Methods

Genetic data in TODAY included 426 non-MODY (T2D) and 22 MODY youth (7 glucokinase MODY mutation positive [GCK-MODY], 12 hepatocyte nuclear factor MODY mutation positive [HNF-MODY], 2 Insulin gene mutation [insulin (INS)-MODY], and 1 Kruppel-like factor 11 [KLF11-MODY]). Oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT)-derived IS, C-peptide index, and β-cell function relative to IS oral disposition index (oDI) was measured at randomization, and over 24 months in addition to total and high-molecular-weight adiponectin (HMWA).

Results

At randomization, IS, total adiponectin, and HMWA were significantly higher in the two MODY groups than in non-MODY. β-cell function measured by C-peptide oDI was 3-fold higher in GCK-MODY than in HNF-MODY and 1.5-fold higher than non-MODY (P for both <.05). Glycemic failure rate was 75.0% in HNF-MODY, 46.9% in non-MODY, and zero in GCK-MODY youth. While the changes in IS and oDI were not different among the three groups in the first 6 months, IS improved from 6 to 24 months in HNF-MODY vs GCK-MODY youth.

Conclusions

In TODAY, β-cell function at randomization was worse in obese HNF-MODY youth compared with GCK-MODY youth, while insulin sensitivity was worse in non-MODY compared with the other two MODY groups. Over time, IS showed the greatest improvement in HNF-MODY youth. This raises the possibility that TODAY therapeutic modalities of insulin sensitization in these obese HNF-MODY youth may have played a beneficial role.

SUBMITTER: Arslanian S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7654712 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Conducting longitudinal research related to chronic illness in adolescents is inherently challenging due to developmental changes and psychosocial stressors. Participants in the Treatment Options for type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth clinical trial were socioeconomically disadvantaged as well. This study assessed attitudes and beliefs about retention in Treatment Options for type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth to shed light on the factors that potentially promote and detract from the likelihood of sustained participation.After an average 7.3?years of follow-up (range 4.9-9.5), Treatment Options for type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth participants completed a survey examining their perceptions of the benefits and barriers to sustained involvement in the protocol.The most common reasons for staying in Treatment Options for type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth included having a strong relationship with the medical team, getting study-provided diabetes care, access to free diabetes medicine and supplies, and being part of a large study to learn more about how to care for youth-onset type 2 diabetes. The most commonly endorsed challenges included scheduling conflicts, possibly disappointing others, difficulties getting to study visits, and the occurrence of other medical issues.Similar to other published reports, a supportive relationship with study staff was commonly endorsed as a benefit of engagement in the longitudinal study, suggesting that rapport, staff consistency, and relationship quality are important components of optimal retention. Moreover, our findings suggest the value of trying to remove logistical barriers, such as transportation and scheduling challenges, in order to promote long-term participation in research. Further research is recommended to evaluate factors that contribute to attrition versus retention in an a priori manner within longitudinal studies, especially protocols involving cohorts that are more vulnerable to attrition due to developmental transitions and/or socioeconomic challenges. Additional efforts to optimize quantitative and qualitative measurement of barriers would also help to expand our understanding of how to optimally retain participants in longitudinal protocols.