Decreased levels of uric acid after oral glucose challenge is associated with triacylglycerol levels and degree of insulin resistance

Hyperuricaemia is one of the components of metabolic syndrome. Both oxidative stress and hyperinsulinism are important variables in the genesis of this syndrome and have a close association with uric acid (UA). We evaluated the effect of an oral glucose challenge on UA concentrations. The study included 656 persons aged 18 to 65 years. Glycaemia, insulin, UA and plasma proteins were measured at baseline and 120 min after an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). The baseline sample also included measurements of total cholesterol, triacylglycerol (TAG) and HDL-cholesterol. Insulin resistance was calculated with the homeostasis model assessment. UA levels were significantly lower after the OGTT (281.93 (sd 92.19) v. 267.48 (sd 90.40) micromol/l; P < 0.0001). Subjects with a drop in UA concentrations >40.86 micromol/l (>75th percentile) had higher plasma TAG levels (P = 0.0001), baseline insulin (P = 0.02) and greater insulin resistance (P = 0.034). Women with a difference in plasma concentrations of UA above the 75th percentile had higher baseline insulin levels (P = 0.019), concentration of plasma TAG (P = 0.0001) and a greater insulin resistance index (P = 0.029), whereas the only significant difference in men was the level of TAG. Multiple regression analysis showed that the basal TAG levels, insulin at 120 min, glycaemia at 120 min and waist:hip ratio significantly predicted the variance in the UA difference (r2 0.077). Levels of UA were significantly lower after the OGTT and the individuals with the greatest decrease in UA levels are those who have greater insulin resistance and higher TAG levels.

Mejora en el uso de tiras para autoanálisis de glucemia capilar

Sección "Buenas prácticas en gestión clínica"

Expert study: A bolus calculator improves glycemic control and quality of life of type 1 diabetic patients (T1DM) (preliminary results)

Aims: To evaluate the impact on glycemic control and quality of life of a bolus calculator. Methods: Multicentre randomized prospective crosssectional study. Patients were randomized to control phase (3 months; calculation of prandial insulin according to insulinto-carbohydrate ratio and insulin sensitivity factor using a single strip meter) or intervention phase (3 months; calculation of prandial insulin with a bolus advisor), with a washout period (3 months). Patients wore a continuous glucosensor (7 days) and answered a quality of life questionnaire at the beginning and at the end of each phase. A questionnaire of satisfaction was obtained at the end of both phases. Inclusion criteria: Adults; T1DM> 1 year, HbA1c > 7.5%, basal-bolus therapy with insulin analogs, experience with carbohydrate Results: Data from the first 32 subjects with at least 1 ended phase (27 females, age 38 – 11 years, diabetes duration 16.8 – 7.5 years). Basal characteristics were comparable independently of the starting phase. No differences were found between phases in terms of mean blood glucose, standard deviation (from meter neither from sensor) and satisfaction. Conclusions: The use of a bolus calculator improves glycemic control and quality of life of T1DM subjects.