OBJECTIVE: We examined whether adipocytokines might explain the ethnic differences in the relationship between obesity and insulin resistance among the three major ethnic groups in Singapore.
DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a cross-sectional study of 101 Chinese, 82 Malays, and 81 South Asian men. Insulin sensitivity index (ISI) was measured using hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp. Visceral (VAT) and subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) volumes were quantified using magnetic resonance imaging.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Plasma total and high-molecular-weight adiponectin, leptin, visfatin, apelin, IL-6, fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21), retinol binding protein-4 (RBP 4), and resistin were measured using enzyme-linked immunoassays.
RESULTS: Principle component (PC) analysis on the adipocytokines identified three PCs, which explained 49.5% of the total variance. Adiponectin loaded negatively, and leptin and FGF21 loaded positively onto PC1. Visfatin, resistin, and apelin all loaded positively onto PC2. IL-6 loaded positively and RBP-4 negatively onto PC3. Only PC1 was negatively associated with ISI in all ethnic groups. In the path analysis, SAT and VAT were negatively associated with ISI in Chinese and Malays without significant mediatory role of PC1. In South Asians, the relationship between VAT and ISI was mediated partly through PC1, whereas the relationship between SAT and ISI was mediated mainly through PC1.
CONCLUSIONS: The relationships between abdominal obesity, adipocytokines and insulin sensitivity differ between ethnic groups. Adiponectin, leptin, and FGF21 play a mediating role in the relationship between abdominal adiposity and insulin resistance in South Asians, but not in Malays or Chinese.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an investigator-initiated, single-center, randomized, controlled, clinical trial in patients with T2DM and DKD, comparing 12-weeks of low carbohydrate diet (<20g daily intake) versus standard low protein (0.8g/kg/day) and low salt diet. Patients in the VLCBD group underwent 2-weekly monitoring including their 3-day food diaries. In addition, Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) was performed to estimate body fat percentages.
RESULTS: The study population (n = 30) had a median age of 57 years old and a BMI of 30.68kg/m2. Both groups showed similar total calorie intake, i.e. 739.33 (IQR288.48) vs 789.92 (IQR522.4) kcal, by the end of the study. The VLCBD group showed significantly lower daily carbohydrate intake 27 (IQR25) g vs 89.33 (IQR77.4) g, p<0.001, significantly higher protein intake per day 44.08 (IQR21.98) g vs 29.63 (IQR16.35) g, p<0.05 and no difference in in daily fat intake. Both groups showed no worsening of serum creatinine at study end, with consistent declines in HbA1c (1.3(1.1) vs 0.7(1.25) %) and fasting blood glucose (1.5(3.37) vs 1.3(5.7) mmol/L). The VLCBD group showed significant reductions in total daily insulin dose (39(22) vs 0 IU, p<0.001), increased LDL-C and HDL-C, decline in IL-6 levels; with contrasting results in the control group. This was associated with significant weight reduction (-4.0(3.9) vs 0.2(4.2) kg, p = <0.001) and improvements in body fat percentages. WC was significantly reduced in the VLCBD group, even after adjustments to age, HbA1c, weight and creatinine changes. Both dietary interventions were well received with no reported adverse events.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that dietary intervention of very low carbohydrate diet in patients with underlying diabetic kidney disease was safe and associated with significant improvements in glycemic control, anthropometric measurements including weight, abdominal adiposity and IL-6. Renal outcomes remained unchanged. These findings would strengthen the importance of this dietary intervention as part of the management of patients with diabetic kidney disease.