Key result
Diabetes treatment linked to ~20% lower VLDL ApoE-2/E-3 ratio in insulin-requiring diabetes.
Why the study?
ApoE phenotypes are difficult to determine in diabetic patients due to changes in apoE-2/E-3 ratio influenced by diabetic state and treatment.
Observational (n=22)
No
Absolute Event Rate: 0.73% vs 0.91%
p-value: p=<0.05
May aid apoE phenotyping in insulin-requiring diabetes; hypothesis-generating and requires validation before clinical adoption.
Apolipoprotein E (apoE) of very low density lipoprotein (VLDL) in 22 diabetic patients was analysed by the method of one-dimensional isoelectrofocussing (IEF). We modified the IEF-method of Kashyap et al. by which apoE isoproteins were easily and accurately determined. The measurement of apoE-2/E-3 ratio was useful for determining apoE phenotypes. In 17 of 22 diabetics apoE phenotype was E3/3, while three patients showed E2/3 and two showed E3/4. ApoE-2/E-3 ratio was reduced from 0.91 +/- 0.07 to 0.73 +/- 0.04 (p less than 0.05) by the one month-period treatment in 10 insulin required diabetics. The ratio was also reduced from 1.06 +/- 0.14 to 0.89 +/- 0.09 (p less than 0.2) in 10 non-insulin required diabetics. The reduction in apoE-2/E-3 ratio was caused by an increase in apoE-3 band and a decrease in apoE-2 band which might be attributed to the changes in the sialic acid-content of isoproteins on the one-dimensional IEF method. Therefore, apoE phenotypes in diabetic patients should be determined when their diabetic state is improved.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abe et al. (1985) conducted an observational in Diabetes Mellitus (n=22). Diabetes treatment (insulin or oral hypoglycemics) vs. Baseline (pre-treatment) was evaluated on ApoE-2/E-3 ratio of very low density lipoprotein in insulin-requiring diabetics (p=<0.05). One month of diabetes treatment significantly reduced the ApoE-2/E-3 ratio of very low density lipoprotein from 0.91 to 0.73 in insulin-requiring patients, aiding in apoE phenotype determination.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: