Metformin plus low glimepiride doses improve significantly homa_ir and homa_bcell without hyperinsulinemia in patients with type 2 diabetes

VJ Bermúdez¹, FA Bermúdez¹, C Cano¹, MT Medina¹, MA Lemus¹, EM Leal¹, HA Seyfi¹, MC Cabrera¹, MJ Ambard¹, AJ Souki¹, AC Ciszek¹, RA Cano¹ and CA Briceño S¹.

¹ Centro de Investigaciones Endocrino-Metabólicas "Dr. Félix Gómez". University of Zulia. School of Medicine. Maracaibo – Venezuela.

Type 2 Diabetes mellitus is characterized by insulin resistance and defects in insulin secretion. These variables have been studied by the euglycemic/hyperinsulinemic clamp and MinMod, which difficult the insulin resistance and b cell failure study in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate three different anti-diabetic therapeutic options using a mathematical model (Homeostasis model assessment, HOMA). Seventy type 2 diabetic patients were randomly assigned one of the next therapeutic options: A) Metformin + ADA Diet + Physical activity (Walk, 60 minutes/day). B) Metformin + Glimepiride + ADA Diet + Physical activity. C) Only ADA diet + Physical activity. A blood sample was taken before and after the treatment to determine basal and post-prandial blood glucose, basal insulin and HbA_1c and to calculate HOMA_bcell and HOMA_IR. Before treatment basal and post-prandial levels of glucose, HbA_1c, basal insulin and HOMA_IR and HOMA_bcell were significantly different when compared to after treatment levels for each group (p<0.01). Significant differences were also found when comparing basal blood glucose reduction (51.8%; p<0.01), post-prandial blood glucose (55.0%; p<0.05), and HOMA_IR (65.3%; p<0.01) of group B (Metformin + low glimepiride dose) with the other therapeutic options. We conclude that metformin plus glimepiride at a low dose is a more effective treatment for type 2 diabetes than other therapeutic options. HOMA_IR and HOMA_bcell are inexpensive and reliable methods to study IR and b cell function in DM2.

Key Words: Type 2 diabetes, HOMA, Glimepiride, Metformin, Insulinresistance.

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus is a frequent endocrine disease characterized by peripheral insulin resistance (IR), defects in insulin secretion and increased hepatic glucose production(1,2).

Over the last two decades, a number of test have been developed to evaluate insulin resistance, including the hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp, the insulin suppression test, the frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance with computer modeling (FSIGT) and more recently serum levels of sex hormones binding globulin(3-10). These methods, however, are laborious, expensive and unsuitable for large-scale studies(5,6,7). Besides, only FSIGT (through which acute insulinic response is calculated) and the hyperglycemic clamp can be used to estimate pancreatic insulin secretion capacity. Due to the inconvenience of these methods, mathematical models has been developed to express the metabolic alterations involved in Diabetes Mellitus(4,8-11).

Recently, the usefulness of HOMA_IR as an indicator of insulin resistance changes during medical management of Type 2 diabetes, has been focused due to significant correlation reported between HOMA_IR and the Hiperinsulinemic-Euglycemic clamp(13). Likewise, a recent study clearly demonstrated that HOMA_IR correlates significantly with clamp studies before and after treatment with sulfonylureas in type 2 diabetic patients(14-17). However, the utility of HOMA_IR and even HOMA_bcell to study the pharmacological approach of type 2 diabetes has not been deeply evaluated neither concerning about oral combination therapy nor isolated nutritional and physical activity approaches.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate HOMAR_IR and HOMA_bcell behavior in Type 2 diabetic patients under different treatment options, such as metformin plus glimepiride at a low dose.

A prospective study was carried out in 70 patients with type 2 diabetes, diagnosed according to the ADA criteria(18), which attended the Centro de Investigaciones Endocrino – Metabólicas "Dr. Félix Gómez" (School of Medicine, University of Zulia, Maracaibo, Venezuela). Informed consent was obtained from all subjects before the beginning of the study and all of them were randomly assigned to three different groups for therapeutic intervention considering the following selection criteria: a) Age range: between 40 and 60 years; b) Diabetes Mellitus evolution (since diagnosis) no longer than 10 years. c) Altered metabolic control profile (HbA1 > 8%, fasting glycemia >126 mg/dl, post-prandial glycemia >140 mg/dl); and d) Only patients with previous monotherapy with sulfonylureas or subjects that, although diagnosed with diabetes mellitus, had not been under pharmacological or nutritional therapy.

Patients treated previously with sulfonylureas were randomly distributed to receive one of the following options: metformin 500 mg/three times daily or metformin 500 mg three times daily + glimeperide 0.5 mg/once a day. Those subjects without previous pharmacological therapy were directly assigned to the diet and exercise intervention group (Table 1). All patients were underwent to receive one of that therapeutical approaches during 10 weeks.

Three fasting venous blood samples, with a 5 minute interval, were drawn from all subjects included in the study, in order to determine pre-treatment basal glycemia and basal insulin. An average of the three blood samples was used to determine the mean fasting glycemia and insulin levels by which HOMA-bcell and HOMA-IR were calculated. Post-prandial (2 hours after breakfast ingestion) glycemia and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) were also determined previous therapeutic intervention. After this step, the patients were randomly distributed to each group according to the inclusion criteria described above.

Each patient was followed-up weekly by determining basal glycemia and all metabolic parameters previously mentioned, (post-prandial and fasting glycemia, fasting insulin, and HbA_1c), were measured again ten weeks later.

Serum plasma glucose levels were performed by a colorimetric enzymatic method (Glucose Oxidase; HUMAN, Germany). Serum insulin was quantified using a solid phase radioinmunoassay (DPC, USA) and HbA_1c was measured by interchange resin separation method (SIGMA, USA).

Insulin resistance and b cell function calculation was accomplished through the application of the Homeostasis Model Assessment (HOMA) formulas published previously(4,12) before and after treatment intervention.

All data were stored in a Pentium IV personal computer and processed using the SPSS program version 10.0 for Windows. Variables that did not fulfil variance normality and homogeneity, required logarithmic transformation in order to improve the curtosis; still, data are shown in their original form in figures and tables (no modification). The differences between means were established using either one way ANOVA or multifactorial ANOVA (Tukey’s post-hoc test) as required. The results were expressed as mean ± standard error or percentages according to the case and differences were considered statistically significant at p<0.05.

From the 70 patients´ original sample, eleven did not finish the study. Therefore, the final number consisted in sixty-one subjects: 28 women (45.31%) and 34 men (54.68%). The patient distribution according treatment was as follows: Group A (Metformin, diet and exercise): n = 29 (11 women, 18 men); Group B (Metformin, glimepiride, diet and exercise): n = 21 (14 women, 7 men); Group C (Diet and exercise): n = 9 (4 women, 5 men). There were not statistically significant differences between groups when comparing age and diabetes evolution time since diagnosis, (Table 1).

Fasting Glycemia: a statistically significant reduction was observed when comparing each group individually before and after the treatment (Group A: 10.6 ± 0.4 mmol/l vs. 6.1 ± 0.1 mmol/l; p<0.01; Group B: 13.5 mmol/l ± 0.7 vs. 6.0 mmol/l ± 0.1; p<0.01; Group C: 9.5 mmol/l ± 0.6 vs. 6.1 mmol/l ± 0.2; p<0.01). Likewise, a statistically significant difference was found when compared basal glycemia levels before and after treatment among the three groups. Thus, group B registered a significantly blood glucose level reduction of 51.8% in basal glycemia vs. a smaller reduction of 40.5% in group A and 33.7% in group C (p<0.01), (Table 2, Figure 1).

Post-prandial Glycemia: there was a statistically significant reduction before and after treatment. (Group A: 12.9 mmol/l ± 0.6 vs. 7.1 mmol/l ± 0.3; p<0.01; Group B: 17.4 mmol/l ± 0.8 vs. 7.5 mmol/l ± 0.4; p<0.01; Group C: 10.9 mmol/l ± 0.9 vs. 6.4 mmol/l ± 0.5; p<0.01). Inter-group comparisons showed statistically significant differences with a 55.0% in post-prandial blood glucose reduction in group B vs. only 42.9% reduction in group A and 39.8% reduction in Group C; p<0.05), (Table 2, Figure 1).

Statistically significant differences were observed only in intra-group comparisons, before and after treatment (Group A: 16.3 mUI/ml ± 0.8 vs. 12.7 mUI/ml ± 0.6; p<0.01; Group B: 18.7 mUI/ml ± 1.2 vs. 12.6 mUI/ml ± 0.5; p<0.01; Group C: 14.8 mUI/ml ± 1.2 vs. 11.6 mUI/ml ± 0.8; p<0.01), and not in inter-group comparisons. However, it can be noticed that serum insulin values were always found within normal levels (Table 2, Figure 1).

A statistically significant reduction was observed in HbA1c when comparing each group before and after treatment (Group A: 10.1 ± 0.3% vs. 6.8 ± 0.2%; p<0.01. Group B: 11.5 ± 0.6% vs. 6.9 ± 0.3%; p<0.01. Group C: 9.6 ± 0.5% vs. 6.0 ± 0.3%; p<0.01). No difference was found in inter-group comparisons, (Table 2, Figure 2).

Figure 2

]]> HOMA IR, HOMA B-Cell and HbA1 before treatment ( ) and after treatment ( )

Group A: metformin, diet and physical activity. Group B: metformin, glimepiride, diet and physical activity. Group C: only diet and physical activity. All intra-group comparisons were statistically significant (p<0,01). All HOMA IR inter-group comparisons were statistically significant as percentages (Group B Vs. Group A and C, p<0,01). See table 2

A statistically significant reduction was observed when comparing each group before and after treatment (Group A: 7.8 ± 0.5 vs. 3.5 ± 0.2; p<0.01; Group B: 11.7 ± 1.3 vs. 3.4 ± 0.1; p<0.01; Group C: 6.4 ± 0.8 vs. 3.2 ± 0.2; p<0.01).

When performing inter-group comparisons, a statistically significant difference was also observed: 65.3% in group B vs. only a 52.4% reduction in group A and 46.9% reduction in group C; p<0.01, (Table 2, Figure 2).

When performing inter-group comparisons (before and after treatment), a statistically significant increases were observed in b cell function (Group A: 49.4 ± 3.5% to 103.2% ± 6.5; p<0.01. Group B: 40.0 ± 3.1% to 105.8 ± 8.5%; p<0.01. Group C: 52.1 ± 5.0% to 97.9 ± 15.2%; p<0.01). No differences were observed in inter-group comparisons, (Table 2, Figure 2).

A key point in the pharmacological management of DM2 is to consider the natural evolution of the disease for each patient in order to develop a rational therapeutic approach. Furthermore, evaluation of the broad metabolic changes seen in type 2 diabetes can not be accomplished on the basis of isolated qualitative or quantitative data, like basal glycemia, as it is commonly done in our daily clinical practice. It is clear that classic parameters like HbA_1c, post-prandial glycemia, and new parameters like HOMA_bcell and HOMA_IR, should be considered as routine element in type 2 diabetes evaluations(13,14,15,19).

These observations provide convincing evidence that insulin resistance, not impaired insulin secretion, initiates the process of type 2 diabetes in most ethnic populations. Thus, rationality of HOMA_IR and HOMA_bcell usefulness lies on the individual variability in insulin sensitivity among human beings (healthy and diabetics) as well as the heterogeneous plasma insulin response to oral glucose stimuli that cause different therapeutics responses between patients(33,34,35). As a matter of fact, "normal" blood glucose levels are a consequence of a complex endocrine system in which the outcoming or final variables are basal and post-prandial glycemia and consequently, HbA_1c that depend on other variables do not evaluated in DM2 patients(36).

From a pathophysiologycal point of view, IR and b cell function can be considered as "incoming" variables because they interact with our biological system prior to the registration of outcoming variables (blood glucose level and HbA1c). Thus, in the management of patients with DM2, the quantization of these variables at diagnosis could characterize accurately the disease within its natural evolution and therefore a better pharmacological choice may be taken.

To date, the evaluation of the effectiveness of different therapeutic strategies in type 2 diabetes mellitus is carried out only through the determination of the previously mentioned outcoming variables; i.e., measuring the effects and not quantifying the magnitude of the causes like Insulin resistance and b cell failure(6,7,8,14,17,36).

From all of the above, many questions arise: What benefits could be obtained from measuring incoming metabolic variables in glycemia regulation systems, at the time of diagnosis and during follow-up? What would happen if these variables were considered at the time of establishing a therapeutic conduct in type 2 diabetic patients?

If the natural evolution of the disease is deeply analyzed, it can be shown that metabolic alterations related to type 2 diabetes mellitus begin a decade (or more) before the development of clinically evident diabetes, with the arising of progressive insulin resistance as a result of a sustained increase in body mass index, frequent alimentary transgressions and indeterminate genetic factors or a combination of all of them. Apparently, an increase in long chain fatty acid bioavailability generates the initial changes responsible for the decrease in peripheral insulin sensitivity and the hyperinsulinemic response to insulin resistance(30,31).

When plasma insulin concentration increases, a down-regulation of insulin receptors occurs in many tissues, especially muscle, adipose tissue, brain, liver, and others, which aggravates the functional metabolic conditions. Muscle tissue response to insulin diminishes which leads to evident fasting and post-prandial hyperglycemia, the characteristic markers of diabetes mellitus and later, become continuous stimulating elements of insulin secretion(37,38). This process determines an increase in insulin release until b cell function declines due to the effect of hyperglycemia on insulin secretion(37,39) Hyperglycemia and high plasmatic free fatty acid lead to b cell apoptosis via ceramides metabolism and Fas receptor up regulation and finally irreversible drop in insulin secretory function(40,41,42).

In this study, it is important to recall that fasting blood glucose reduction in Group B (metformin + glimepiride + exercise) was significantly lower than Groups C and B (p<0,01) However, it is more notable that post-prandial glycemia percentage reduction was significantly higher again in Group B that the others intervention groups, a fact that clearly supports the advantages of combining a sulfonylurea and insulin-sensitizing agents.

Moreover, this study show, as it has been previously published(37) that most diabetic patients at the time of diagnosis have some failure in global b cell function, fact quantified only in small group studies through hyperinsulinemic clamp and MinMod(37). This phenomenon has been confirmed through the HOMA mathematical model in this research. Although fasting and post-prandial insulin levels in diabetics were normal, b cell global function was altered (drop of 40-52% in function capacity for all groups). Therefore, this model is capable to sense global changes in b cell function, beyond the two hours post-prandial period, and abnormal insulin secretion patterns.

Another interesting finding was the minimal dose of the oral hypoglycemic agent Glimepiride (0,5 mg/day) to reach a b cell function around 100%; furthermore, it is noticeable that the group receiving exclusively Metformin also recovered b cell function to 103%. This clearly shows that, at least at this moment in the disease evolution, insulin production and secretion can be perfectly recovered, even with exercise and diet only. This finding must be analyzed along with insulin resistance, because the theoretical main target of these drugs is K⁺/ATP sensitive channels blockade in b cells and a quite modest peripheral sensitizing effect. We postulate that normal to high sulfonylurea doses produce more hyperinsulinemia and consequent insulin-receptor down-regulation with more insulin resistance. Thus, we propose that Metformin, used as a tissue sensitizing agent, notably decreases the hyperglycemic and lipotoxic stress suffered by the b cell, allowing it to rapidly recover its function, as shown in the HOMA b cell determination before and after the treatment. If low sulfonylurea doses are used, like Glimepiride in this study, no b cell hyperfunction is produced (and no hyperinsulinemia) as shown through HOMA b cell determination (105.8 ± 8.5%).

Taking all this evidence together early pharmacological intervention with drug combinations may improve metabolic variables as well as the overall control of the disease. More studies should be carried out to determine if early pharmacological oral drug combination improves b cell function preventing long-term b cell failure, which might avoid insulin use in diabetic patients with a long disease history.

Unfortunately, there was no significant difference between HbA1c values when comparing different treatment groups. This probably occurred because the study was designed to evaluate each patient after 10 weeks treatment, which could be considered a limited period to observe larger differences in HbA1c in any therapeutic modality. All patients that took part in this study are currently under control and will be reevaluated after a one-year period since the beginning of the treatment in order to answer these questions.

In conclusion, the HOMA b cell y HOMA_IR mathematical models are reliable and practical methods, applicable in daily clinical practice in order to follow-up the effectiveness in the management of type 2 diabetic patients. The different therapeutic strategies used in this study, are effective in achieving a good metabolic control in type 2 diabetic patients. Nevertheless, the combined (Metformin + Glimepiride at low dose) pharmacological treatment, turned out to be significantly superior in the management of the metabolic variables, especially insulin resistance and b cell secretion capacity studied through HOMA. The b cell secretion function fatigue is a reversible alteration, at least during the first years of the disease’s evolution. The use of mathematical models for the strict control of IR and b cell function is highly recommended in daily clinical practice, at the time of diagnosis as well as during the follow-up of type 2 diabetic patients.

1. Rudenski AS, Matthews DR, Levy JC & Turner RC. Understanding "insulin resistance": both glucose resistance and insulin resistance are required to model human diabetes. Metabolism 1991; 40: 908-917.        [ Links ]

2. DeFronzo RA. Lilly lecture: the triumvirate: b-cell, muscle, liver: a collusion responsible for NIDDM. Diabetes 1988; 37: 667-687.        [ Links ]

3. DeFronzo RA. Pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A balanced overview. Diabetologia 1992; 35: 389-397.        [ Links ]

4. Matthews DR, Hosker JP and Rudenski AS. Homeostasis model assessment: insulin resistance and beta-cell function from fasting plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in man. Diabetologia 1985; 28: 412-419.        [ Links ]

5. Hosker JP, Matthews DR and Rudenski AS. Continuous infusion of glucose with model asessment: measurement of insulin resistance and beta-cell function in man. Diabetologia 1985; 28: 401-411.        [ Links ]

6. Laakso M: How good a marker is insulin level for insulin resistance? Am J Epidemiol 1993; 137: 959-965.        [ Links ]

7. Ferranini E, Mary A: How to measure insulin sensitivity. J Hypertension 1998; 7: 895-906.        [ Links ]

8. Hanson RL, Pratley RE, Bogardus C, Narayan KMW, Roumain ML, Imperatore G, Fagot-campagna A, Pettitt DJ, Bennett PH, Knowler WC: Evaluation of simple indices of insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion for use in epidemiologic studies. Am J Epidemiol 2000; 151: 190-198.        [ Links ]

9. Sluiter WJ, Erkelens DW, Terpstra P, Reisma WD, Doorenbos H: Glucose tolerance and insulin release, a mathematical approach. II. Aproximation of the peripheral insulin resistance after oral glucose loading. Diabetes 1976; 25: 245-249.        [ Links ]

10. Katsuki A, Sumida Y, Murashima S, Fujii M, Ito K, Tsuchihashi K, Murata K, Yano Y, Shima T. Acute and chronic regulation of serum sex hormone binding globulin levels by plasma insulin concentration in male noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus patients. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1996; 83: 2515-2519.        [ Links ]

11. Turner RC, Rudenski AS and Hosker JP. CIGMA as a tool in the study of NIDDM. Prog Clin Biol Res 1988; 265: 13-26.        [ Links ]

12. Turner RC, Rudenski AS, Matthews DR, Levy JC, O’Rahilly SP & Hosker JP. Application of structural model of glucose-insulin relations to assess beta-cell function and insulin sensitivity. Horm Metab Res 1990; 24: 66-71.        [ Links ]

13. Bonora E, Targher G, Alberiche M, Bonadonna RC, Saggiani F, Zenere MB, Monauni T & Muggeo M. Homeostasis model assessment closely mirrors the glucose clamp technique in the assessment of insulin sensitivity: studies in subjects with various degrees of glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity. Diabetes Care 2000; 23: 57-63.        [ Links ]

14. Emoto M, Nishizawa Y, Maekawa K, Hiura Y, Kanda H, Kawagishi T, Shoji T, Okuno Y and Morii H. Homeostasis model assessment as a clinical index of insulin resistance in type 2 diabetic Patients treated with sulfunylureas. Diabetes Care 1999; 22: 818-822.        [ Links ]

15. Fukushima M, Taniguchi A, Sakai M, Doi K, Nagasaka S, Tanaka H, Tokuyama K and Nakai Y. Homeostasis model assessment as a clinical index of insulin resistance. Comparison with the minimal model analysis. Diabetes Care 1999; 22: 1911-1912.         [ Links ]

16. Van Haeften TW. Glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity, and the homeostasis model assessment method. Diabetes Care 1998; 21: 673-674.        [ Links ]

17. Katsuki A, Sumida Y, Gabazza E, Murashima S, Furuta M, Araki-Sasaki R, Hori Y, Yano Y, Adachi Y. Homeostasis model assessment is a reliable indicator of insulin resistance during follow-up of patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2001; 24: 362-365.        [ Links ]

18. Report of the Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care 2000; 23: S4-S19.        [ Links ]

19. Turner RC, Matthews DR, Clark A, O’Rahilly S, Rudenski AS, Levy J. Pathogenesis of NIDDM—a disease of deficient insulin secretion. Clin Endocrinol Metab 1988; 2: 327-342.        [ Links ]

20. Ruderman N, Chisholm D, Pi–Sunyer X & Schneider S. The metabolically obese, normal – weight individual revisited. Diabetes 1998; 47: 699–713.        [ Links ]

21. Haffner SM, Miettinen H, Gaskill SP, Stern MP. Decreased insulin secretion and increased insulin resistance are independently related to the 7-year risk of NIDDM in Mexican-Americans. Diabetes 1995; 44: 1386-1391.        [ Links ]

22. Rudenski AS, Hadden DR, Atkinson AB, Kennedy L, Matthews DR, Merrett JD, Pockaj B and Turner RC. Natural history of pancreatic islet B-cell function in type 2 diabetes mellitus studied over six years by homeostasis model assessment. Diabet Med 1988; 5: 36-41.        [ Links ]

23. Haffner SM, Kennedy E, Gonzalez C, Stern MP, Miettinen H. A prospective analysis of the HOMA model: The Mexico city diabetes study. Diabetes Care 1996; 19: 1138-1141.        [ Links ]

24. Haffner SM, Miettinen H and Stern MP. The homeostasis model in the San Antonio Heart Study. Diabetes Care 1997; 20: 1087-1092.        [ Links ]

25. Tai ES, Lim SC, Chew SK, Tan BY, Tan CE. Homeostasis model assessment in a population with mixed ethnicity: The 1992 singapore national health survey. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2000; 49: 159-168.        [ Links ]

26. Randle PJ, Garland PB, Hales CN, Newsholme EA: The glucose fatty acid cycle: its role in insulin sensitivity and the metabolic disturbances of diabetes mellitus. Lancet I 1963; 7285–7289.        [ Links ]

27. Randle PJ: Fuel selection in animals. Biochem Soc Trans 1986; 14: 799–806.        [ Links ]

28. Randle PJ, Kerbey AL, Espinal J: Mechanisms decreasing glucose oxidation in diabetes and starvation: role of lipid fuels and hormones. Diabetes Metab Rev 1988; 4: 623–638.         [ Links ]

29. David E. Kelley and Lawrence J. Mandarino. Fuel Selection in Human Skeletal Muscle in Insulin Resistance: A Reexamination. Diabetes 2000; 49: 677–683.        [ Links ]

30. Michael Roden, Thomas B. Price, Gianluca Perseghin, Kitt Falk Petersen, Douglas L. Rothman, Gary W. Cline, and Gerald I. Shulman. Mechanism of Free Fatty Acid-induced Insulin Resistance in Humans. J. Clin. Invest. 1996; 97(12): 2859-2865.        [ Links ]

31. Shulman G I. Cellular mechanisms of insulin resistance. Clin Invest 2000; 106(2): 171-176.        [ Links ]

32. Gary F. Lewis, André Carpentier, Khosrow Adeli and Adria Giacca. Disordered Fat Storage and Mobilization in the Pathogenesis of Insulin Resistance and Type 2 Diabetes. Endocrine Reviews 2002; 23(2): 201-229.        [ Links ]

33. Polonsky KS, Sturis J and Van Cauter E. Temporal profile and clinical significance of pulsatil insulin secretion. Horm Res 49 178-184, 1998.        [ Links ]

34. Hellman B, Gylfe E, Bergsten P, Grapengiesser E, Lund PE, Berts A, Tengholm A, Pipeleers DG and Ling Z. Glucose induces oscillatory Ca2+ signaling and insulin release in human pancreatic beta cells. Diabetologia 1994; 37: S11-S20.        [ Links ]

35. Dunne M, Cosgrove K, Shepherd R & Ammala C. Potassium Channels, Sulphonylurea Receptors and Control of Insulin Release. Trends Endocrinol Metab 1999; 4: 146-152.        [ Links ]

36. Bermúdez V, Arias N, Souki A, Ambard M, Medina M, Núñez M, Andrade J, Lemus M, Leal Elliuz, Arria M, Bermúdez F, Cano C. Aplicación de un modelo de Valoración Homeostática en pacientes diabéticos tipo 2. AVFT 2000; 19: 53-57.        [ Links ]

37. DeFronzo RA. Pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes: metabolic and molecular implications for identifying diabetes genes. Diabetes Reviews 1997; 5(3) 177-299.        [ Links ]

38. Ottensmeyer FP, Beniac DR, Luo RZ & Yip CC. Mechanism of Transmembrane Signaling: Insulin Binding and the Insulin Receptor. Biochemistry 2000; 39: 12103-12112.        [ Links ]

39. Jones CN, Pei D and Staris P. Alterations in the glucose-stimulated insulin secretory dose-response curve and in insulin clearance in nondiabetic insulin-resistant individuals. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1997; 82: 1834-1838.        [ Links ]

40. Kathrin Maedler, Giatgen A. Spinas, Roger Lehmann, Pavel Sergeev, Markus Weber. Adriano Fontana, Nurit Kaiser, and Marc Y. Donath. Glucose Induces b-Cell Apoptosis Via Upregulation of the Fas Receptor in Human Islets. Diabetes 2001; 50: 1683–1690.        [ Links ]

41. K Maedler, J Oberholzer, P Bucher, GA Spinas, and MY Donath. Monounsaturated Fatty Acids Prevent the Deleterious Effects of Palmitate and High Glucose on Human Pancreatic b-Cell Turnover and Function. Diabetes 2003; 52: 726–733.        [ Links ]

42. Maedler GA, Spinas D, Dyntar W, Moritz N, Kaiser, and MY Donath. Distinct Effects of Saturated and Monounsaturated Fatty Acids on b-Cell Turnover and Function. Diabetes 2001; 50: 69–76.        [ Links ]

43. Franz MJ, Horton ES, Bantle JP, Beebe CA, Brunzell JD, Coulston AM, Henry RR, Hoogwerf BJ and Stacpoole PW. Nutrition principles for the management of diabetes and related complications. Diabetes Care 1994; 17; 490–518.        [ Links ]

44. American Diabetes Association 2002. Position Statement: Evidence-Based Nutrition Principles and Recommendations for the Treatment and Prevention of Diabetes and Related Complications. J Am Diet Assoc 2002; 102: 109-118.        [ Links ] ]]> 1 1991 40 908-917 2 1988 37 667-687 3 1992 35 389-397 4 1985 28 412-419 5 1985 28 401-411 6 1993 137 959-965 7 1998 7 895-906 8 2000 151 190-198 9 1976 25 245-249 10 1996 83 2515-2519 11 1988 265 13-26 12 1990 24 66-71 13 2000 23 57-63 14 1999 22 818-822 15 1999 22 1911-1912 16 1998 21 673-674 17 2001 24 362-365 18 2000 23 S4-S19 19 1988 2 327-342 20 1998 47 699-713 21 1995 44 1386-1391 22 1988 5 36-41 23 1996 19 1138-1141 24 1997 20 1087-1092 25 2000 49 159-168 26 1963 7285-7289 27 1986 14 799-806 28 1988 4 623-638 29 2000 49 677-683 30 1996 97 12 12 2859-2865 31 2000 106 2 2 171-176 32 2002 23 2 2 201-229 33 1998 49 178-184 34 1994 37 S11-S20 35 1999 4 146-152 36 2000 19 53-57 37 1997 5 3 3 177-299 38 2000 39 12103-12112 39 1997 82 1834-1838 40 2001 50 1683-1690 41 2003 52 726-733 42 2001 50 69-76 43 1994 17 490-518 44 American Diabetes Association 2002 20 02 102 109-118