Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Mixed-meal tolerance test versus glucagon stimulation test for the assessment of beta-cell function in therapeutic trials in type 1 diabetes


Greenbaum, C J; Mandrup-Poulsen, T; McGee Friedenberg, P; Battelino, T; Haastert, B; Ludvigsson, J; Pozzilli, P; Lachin, J M; Kolb, H (2008). Mixed-meal tolerance test versus glucagon stimulation test for the assessment of beta-cell function in therapeutic trials in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 31(10):1966-1971.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Beta-cell function in type 1 diabetes clinical trials is commonly measured by C-peptide response to a secretagogue in either a mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT) or a glucagon stimulation test (GST). The Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Research Group and the European C-peptide Trial (ECPT) Study Group conducted parallel randomized studies to compare the sensitivity, reproducibility, and tolerability of these procedures. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In randomized sequences, 148 TrialNet subjects completed 549 tests with up to 2 MMTT and 2 GST tests on separate days, and 118 ECPT subjects completed 348 tests (up to 3 each) with either two MMTTs or two GSTs. RESULTS: Among individuals with up to 4 years' duration of type 1 diabetes, >85% had measurable stimulated C-peptide values. The MMTT stimulus produced significantly higher concentrations of C-peptide than the GST. Whereas both tests were highly reproducible, the MMTT was significantly more so (R(2) = 0.96 for peak C-peptide response). Overall, the majority of subjects preferred the MMTT, and there were few adverse events. Some older subjects preferred the shorter duration of the GST. Nausea was reported in the majority of GST studies, particularly in the young age-group. CONCLUSIONS: The MMTT is preferred for the assessment of beta-cell function in therapeutic trials in type 1 diabetes.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Beta-cell function in type 1 diabetes clinical trials is commonly measured by C-peptide response to a secretagogue in either a mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT) or a glucagon stimulation test (GST). The Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Research Group and the European C-peptide Trial (ECPT) Study Group conducted parallel randomized studies to compare the sensitivity, reproducibility, and tolerability of these procedures. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In randomized sequences, 148 TrialNet subjects completed 549 tests with up to 2 MMTT and 2 GST tests on separate days, and 118 ECPT subjects completed 348 tests (up to 3 each) with either two MMTTs or two GSTs. RESULTS: Among individuals with up to 4 years' duration of type 1 diabetes, >85% had measurable stimulated C-peptide values. The MMTT stimulus produced significantly higher concentrations of C-peptide than the GST. Whereas both tests were highly reproducible, the MMTT was significantly more so (R(2) = 0.96 for peak C-peptide response). Overall, the majority of subjects preferred the MMTT, and there were few adverse events. Some older subjects preferred the shorter duration of the GST. Nausea was reported in the majority of GST studies, particularly in the young age-group. CONCLUSIONS: The MMTT is preferred for the assessment of beta-cell function in therapeutic trials in type 1 diabetes.

Statistics

Citations

114 citations in Web of Science®
128 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

184 downloads since deposited on 17 Dec 2008
9 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Contributors:Type 1 Diabetes Trial Net Research Group, European C-Peptide Trial Study Group
Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Endocrinology and Diabetology
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2008
Deposited On:17 Dec 2008 12:36
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 12:43
Publisher:American Diabetes Association
ISSN:0149-5992
Additional Information:Copyright by the American Diabetes Association
Free access at:PubMed ID. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.2337/dc07-2451
PubMed ID:18628574

Download

Preview Icon on Download
Preview
Filetype: PDF
Size: 1MB
View at publisher