Lack of correlation between the optimal glycaemic control and coronary micro vascular dysfunction in patients with diabetes mellitus: a cross sectional study.

Background Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is associated with cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Optimal glycaemic control does not always preclude future events. We sought to assess the effect of the current target of HBA1c level on the coronary microcirculatory function and identify predictive factors for CMD in T2DM patients. Methods We studied 100 patients with T2DM and 214 patients without T2DM. All of them with a history of chest pain, non-obstructive angiograms and a direct assessment of coronary blood flow increase in response to adenosine and acetylcholine coronary infusion, for evaluation of endothelial independent and dependent CMD. Patients with T2DM were categorized as having optimal (HbA1c < 7 %) vs. suboptimal (HbA1c ≥ 7 %) glycaemic control at the time of catheterization. Results Baseline characteristics and coronary endothelial function parameters differed significantly between T2DM patients and control group. The prevalence of endothelial independent CMD (29.8 vs. 39.6 %, p = 0.40) and dependent CMD (61.7 vs. 62.2 %, p = 1.00) were similar in patients with optimal vs. suboptimal glycaemic control. Age (OR 1.10; CI 95 % 1.04–1.18; p < 0.001) and female gender (OR 3.87; CI 95 % 1.45–11.4; p < 0.01) were significantly associated with endothelial independent CMD whereas glomerular filtrate (OR 0.97; CI 95 % 0.95–0.99; p < 0.05) was significantly associated with endothelial dependent CMD. The optimal glycaemic control was not associated with endothelial independent (OR 0.60, CI 95 % 0.23–1.46; p 0.26) or dependent CMD (OR 0.99, CI 95 % 0.43–2.24; p = 0.98). Conclusions The current target of HBA1c level does not predict a better coronary microcirculatory function in T2DM patients. The appropriate strategy for prevention of CMD in T2DM patients remains to be addressed. Keywords: Endothelial dysfunction; Diabetes mellitus; Coronary microcirculation

A Nested Case-Control Study of Metabolically Defined Body Size Phenotypes and Risk of Colorectal Cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC).

BACKGROUND Obesity is positively associated with colorectal cancer. Recently, body size subtypes categorised by the prevalence of hyperinsulinaemia have been defined, and metabolically healthy overweight/obese individuals (without hyperinsulinaemia) have been suggested to be at lower risk of cardiovascular disease than their metabolically unhealthy (hyperinsulinaemic) overweight/obese counterparts. Whether similarly variable relationships exist for metabolically defined body size phenotypes and colorectal cancer risk is unknown. METHODS AND FINDINGS The association of metabolically defined body size phenotypes with colorectal cancer was investigated in a case-control study nested within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study. Metabolic health/body size phenotypes were defined according to hyperinsulinaemia status using serum concentrations of C-peptide, a marker of insulin secretion. A total of 737 incident colorectal cancer cases and 737 matched controls were divided into tertiles based on the distribution of C-peptide concentration amongst the control population, and participants were classified as metabolically healthy if below the first tertile of C-peptide and metabolically unhealthy if above the first tertile. These metabolic health definitions were then combined with body mass index (BMI) measurements to create four metabolic health/body size phenotype categories: (1) metabolically healthy/normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m2), (2) metabolically healthy/overweight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2), (3) metabolically unhealthy/normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m2), and (4) metabolically unhealthy/overweight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2). Additionally, in separate models, waist circumference measurements (using the International Diabetes Federation cut-points [≥80 cm for women and ≥94 cm for men]) were used (instead of BMI) to create the four metabolic health/body size phenotype categories. Statistical tests used in the analysis were all two-sided, and a p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. In multivariable-adjusted conditional logistic regression models with BMI used to define adiposity, compared with metabolically healthy/normal weight individuals, we observed a higher colorectal cancer risk among metabolically unhealthy/normal weight (odds ratio [OR] = 1.59, 95% CI 1.10-2.28) and metabolically unhealthy/overweight (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.01-1.94) participants, but not among metabolically healthy/overweight individuals (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.65-1.42). Among the overweight individuals, lower colorectal cancer risk was observed for metabolically healthy/overweight individuals compared with metabolically unhealthy/overweight individuals (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.96). These associations were generally consistent when waist circumference was used as the measure of adiposity. To our knowledge, there is no universally accepted clinical definition for using C-peptide level as an indication of hyperinsulinaemia. Therefore, a possible limitation of our analysis was that the classification of individuals as being hyperinsulinaemic-based on their C-peptide level-was arbitrary. However, when we used quartiles or the median of C-peptide, instead of tertiles, as the cut-point of hyperinsulinaemia, a similar pattern of associations was observed. CONCLUSIONS These results support the idea that individuals with the metabolically healthy/overweight phenotype (with normal insulin levels) are at lower colorectal cancer risk than those with hyperinsulinaemia. The combination of anthropometric measures with metabolic parameters, such as C-peptide, may be useful for defining strata of the population at greater risk of colorectal cancer.