口服糖耐量试验(OGTT):无可否认是研究血糖异常的首选方法,可提高重复性

D. S. Mshelia, S. Adamu, R. Gali
{"title":"口服糖耐量试验(OGTT):无可否认是研究血糖异常的首选方法,可提高重复性","authors":"D. S. Mshelia, S. Adamu, R. Gali","doi":"10.5772/intechopen.96549","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Type 2 diabetes mellitus accounts for ≈90–95% of those with diabetes, about 50% of those with type 2 diabetes are unaware and it can remain undiagnosed for up to 12 years, ≥25% of people have evidence of microvascular complications at diagnosis. The consequences of diabetes can be reduced by screening and early interventions. Urinalysis as a screening test is limited by its low sensitivity ranging from 21% and 64%, though has high specificity (>98%), it has a place where no other procedure is available. Fasting plasma glucose though recommended as a universal screening and diagnostic test for diabetes mellitus, a changed in the diagnostic criteria was made when this did not give corresponding hyperglycaemic impact compared to the OGTT results, bringing a complex and variable effect on the prevalence of diabetes and on subjects diagnosed. To date the searching to finding the corresponding FPG to what is normal or IGT is still ongoing. FPG testing poorly identify early signs of dysglycaemia. This is due to the difficulty ensuring compliance with instructions about fasting, FPG represents glucose handling during the moment of fasting period only and is affected easily by short-term lifestyle changes, FPG has diurnal variation, higher in the morning than in the afternoon, these may cause serious misclassifications. OGTT do indicates the pathophysiology responsible for diabetes better as it provides information on what happens in the postprandial state when the functional capacity of pancreatic β-cell is crucial. It accurately detects changes in post-prandial glycaemia that tend to precede changes in fasting glucose. OGTT is the gold standard for the diagnosis of GDM and the only means of identifying people with IGT and WHO placed emphasis on the OGTT as the “gold standard”, in diagnosis of dysglycaemia. Reproducibility can be improved remarkably when patient preparation, a forvarable atmosphere during the procedure, standardized sampling protocol, sample handling, and analysis are given high attention. Measurement of A1c equals the assessment of hundreds of FPG levels and also captures postprandial glucose peaks. Regrettably, it has been shown that 44% of people with newly diagnosed diabetes with OGTT had A1c <6.0% and that a stronger correlations with plasma glucose is better in subjects with known diabetes, but not in the general population. A1C values just above the upper limits of normal require OGTT to be correctly interpreted; it is not available in many part of the world. Finally, A1c can not diagnose IFG and IGT to disclose high-risk subjects for diabetes. In conclusion an OGTT is undeniably the best test in investigation of dysglycaemia, either with the intention of testing for pre-diabetes, type 2 diabetes, or for gestational diabetes mellitus.","PeriodicalId":23459,"journal":{"name":"Type 2 Diabetes - From Pathophysiology to Cyber Systems","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT): Undeniably the First Choice Investigation of Dysglycaemia, Reproducibility can be Improved\",\"authors\":\"D. S. Mshelia, S. Adamu, R. Gali\",\"doi\":\"10.5772/intechopen.96549\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Type 2 diabetes mellitus accounts for ≈90–95% of those with diabetes, about 50% of those with type 2 diabetes are unaware and it can remain undiagnosed for up to 12 years, ≥25% of people have evidence of microvascular complications at diagnosis. The consequences of diabetes can be reduced by screening and early interventions. Urinalysis as a screening test is limited by its low sensitivity ranging from 21% and 64%, though has high specificity (>98%), it has a place where no other procedure is available. Fasting plasma glucose though recommended as a universal screening and diagnostic test for diabetes mellitus, a changed in the diagnostic criteria was made when this did not give corresponding hyperglycaemic impact compared to the OGTT results, bringing a complex and variable effect on the prevalence of diabetes and on subjects diagnosed. To date the searching to finding the corresponding FPG to what is normal or IGT is still ongoing. FPG testing poorly identify early signs of dysglycaemia. This is due to the difficulty ensuring compliance with instructions about fasting, FPG represents glucose handling during the moment of fasting period only and is affected easily by short-term lifestyle changes, FPG has diurnal variation, higher in the morning than in the afternoon, these may cause serious misclassifications. OGTT do indicates the pathophysiology responsible for diabetes better as it provides information on what happens in the postprandial state when the functional capacity of pancreatic β-cell is crucial. It accurately detects changes in post-prandial glycaemia that tend to precede changes in fasting glucose. OGTT is the gold standard for the diagnosis of GDM and the only means of identifying people with IGT and WHO placed emphasis on the OGTT as the “gold standard”, in diagnosis of dysglycaemia. Reproducibility can be improved remarkably when patient preparation, a forvarable atmosphere during the procedure, standardized sampling protocol, sample handling, and analysis are given high attention. Measurement of A1c equals the assessment of hundreds of FPG levels and also captures postprandial glucose peaks. Regrettably, it has been shown that 44% of people with newly diagnosed diabetes with OGTT had A1c <6.0% and that a stronger correlations with plasma glucose is better in subjects with known diabetes, but not in the general population. A1C values just above the upper limits of normal require OGTT to be correctly interpreted; it is not available in many part of the world. Finally, A1c can not diagnose IFG and IGT to disclose high-risk subjects for diabetes. In conclusion an OGTT is undeniably the best test in investigation of dysglycaemia, either with the intention of testing for pre-diabetes, type 2 diabetes, or for gestational diabetes mellitus.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23459,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Type 2 Diabetes - From Pathophysiology to Cyber Systems\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Type 2 Diabetes - From Pathophysiology to Cyber Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96549\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Type 2 Diabetes - From Pathophysiology to Cyber Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96549","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2型糖尿病占糖尿病患者的约90-95%,约50%的2型糖尿病患者不知情,可长达12年未被诊断,≥25%的患者在诊断时有微血管并发症的证据。通过筛查和早期干预可以减少糖尿病的后果。尿液分析作为一种筛查试验,其灵敏度较低,范围在21%到64%之间,尽管具有很高的特异性(>98%),但在没有其他方法可用的情况下,它仍有一定的局限性。虽然空腹血糖被推荐为糖尿病的普遍筛查和诊断测试,但与OGTT结果相比,空腹血糖并没有产生相应的高血糖影响,因此改变了诊断标准,对糖尿病的患病率和被诊断的受试者产生了复杂和可变的影响。迄今为止,寻找与正常或IGT相对应的FPG的研究仍在进行中。FPG检测很难识别血糖异常的早期迹象。这是由于很难确保遵守禁食指示,FPG仅代表禁食期间的葡萄糖处理,并且很容易受到短期生活方式改变的影响,FPG有昼夜变化,早上比下午高,这些可能导致严重的错误分类。OGTT确实能更好地显示糖尿病的病理生理学,因为它提供了在餐后状态下发生的信息,此时胰腺β细胞的功能能力至关重要。它能准确地检测餐后血糖的变化,这种变化往往先于空腹血糖的变化。OGTT是诊断GDM的金标准,也是识别IGT患者的唯一手段,WHO强调OGTT是诊断血糖异常的“金标准”。当患者准备、过程中良好的气氛、标准化的采样方案、样品处理和分析得到高度重视时,可显著提高重现性。糖化血红蛋白的测量相当于对数百个FPG水平的评估,也可以捕获餐后血糖峰值。遗憾的是,有44%的新诊断为OGTT的糖尿病患者的A1c <6.0%,并且在已知糖尿病患者中与血糖的相关性更强,而在一般人群中则不然。A1C值刚好高于正常值上限,需要OGTT正确解释;世界上许多地方都没有这种服务。最后,A1c不能诊断IFG和IGT来揭示糖尿病的高危人群。总之,OGTT无疑是研究血糖异常的最佳方法,无论是用于检测糖尿病前期、2型糖尿病还是妊娠期糖尿病。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT): Undeniably the First Choice Investigation of Dysglycaemia, Reproducibility can be Improved
Type 2 diabetes mellitus accounts for ≈90–95% of those with diabetes, about 50% of those with type 2 diabetes are unaware and it can remain undiagnosed for up to 12 years, ≥25% of people have evidence of microvascular complications at diagnosis. The consequences of diabetes can be reduced by screening and early interventions. Urinalysis as a screening test is limited by its low sensitivity ranging from 21% and 64%, though has high specificity (>98%), it has a place where no other procedure is available. Fasting plasma glucose though recommended as a universal screening and diagnostic test for diabetes mellitus, a changed in the diagnostic criteria was made when this did not give corresponding hyperglycaemic impact compared to the OGTT results, bringing a complex and variable effect on the prevalence of diabetes and on subjects diagnosed. To date the searching to finding the corresponding FPG to what is normal or IGT is still ongoing. FPG testing poorly identify early signs of dysglycaemia. This is due to the difficulty ensuring compliance with instructions about fasting, FPG represents glucose handling during the moment of fasting period only and is affected easily by short-term lifestyle changes, FPG has diurnal variation, higher in the morning than in the afternoon, these may cause serious misclassifications. OGTT do indicates the pathophysiology responsible for diabetes better as it provides information on what happens in the postprandial state when the functional capacity of pancreatic β-cell is crucial. It accurately detects changes in post-prandial glycaemia that tend to precede changes in fasting glucose. OGTT is the gold standard for the diagnosis of GDM and the only means of identifying people with IGT and WHO placed emphasis on the OGTT as the “gold standard”, in diagnosis of dysglycaemia. Reproducibility can be improved remarkably when patient preparation, a forvarable atmosphere during the procedure, standardized sampling protocol, sample handling, and analysis are given high attention. Measurement of A1c equals the assessment of hundreds of FPG levels and also captures postprandial glucose peaks. Regrettably, it has been shown that 44% of people with newly diagnosed diabetes with OGTT had A1c <6.0% and that a stronger correlations with plasma glucose is better in subjects with known diabetes, but not in the general population. A1C values just above the upper limits of normal require OGTT to be correctly interpreted; it is not available in many part of the world. Finally, A1c can not diagnose IFG and IGT to disclose high-risk subjects for diabetes. In conclusion an OGTT is undeniably the best test in investigation of dysglycaemia, either with the intention of testing for pre-diabetes, type 2 diabetes, or for gestational diabetes mellitus.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT): Undeniably the First Choice Investigation of Dysglycaemia, Reproducibility can be Improved The Role of Lifestyle Medicine in the Management of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy and Heart Rate Variability Mode of Action of Selected Botanicals That Lower Blood Glucose Selected Functional Foods That Combat the Effects of Hyperglycemia and Chronic Inflammation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1