20 normoglycemic first degree relatives of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) patients were compared with 20 matched subjects without any family history of diabetes using the intravenous glucose tolerance test with minimal model analysis of glucose disappearance and insulin kinetics. Intravenous glucose tolerance index (Kg) was similar in both groups (1.60 +/- 0.14 vs 1.59 +/- 0.18, x 10(-2) min-1, NS). However, insulin sensitivity (Si) was reduced (3.49 +/- 0.43 vs 4.80 +/- 0.61, x 10(-4) min-1 per mU/liter, P = 0.05), whereas glucose effectiveness (Sg) was increased (1.93 +/- 0.14 vs 1.52 +/- 0.16, x 10(-2) min-1, P < 0.05) in the relatives. Despite insulin resistance neither fasting plasma insulin concentration (7.63 +/- 0.48 vs 6.88 +/- 0.45, mU/liter, NS) nor first phase insulin responsiveness (Phi1) (3.56 +/- 0.53 vs 4.13 +/- 0.62, mU/liter min-1 per mg/dl, NS) were increased in the relatives. Phi1 was reduced for the degree of insulin resistance in the relatives so that the Phi1 x Si index was lower in the relatives (11.5 +/- 2.2 vs 16.7 +/- 2.0, x 10(-4) min-2 per mg/dl, P < 0.05). Importantly, glucose effectiveness correlated with Kg and with basal glucose oxidation but not with total glucose transporter 4 (GLUT4) content in a basal muscle biopsy. In conclusion we confirm the presence of insulin resistance in first degree relatives of NIDDM patients. However, insulin secretion was altered and reduced for the degree of insulin resistance in the relatives, whereas glucose effectiveness was increased. We hypothesize that increased glucose effectiveness maintains glucose tolerance within normal limits in these "normoinsulinemic" relatives of NIDDM patients.
J E Henriksen, F Alford, A Handberg, A Vaag, G M Ward, A Kalfas, H Beck-Nielsen
Usage data is cumulative from May 2024 through May 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 197 | 13 |
70 | 14 | |
Scanned page | 363 | 2 |
Citation downloads | 49 | 0 |
Totals | 679 | 29 |
Total Views | 708 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.