GPIHBP1 as a Biomarker of Diabetic Polyneuropathy and Vascular Complications in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.
Diabetic neuropathy is one of the most common chronic complications of diabetes mellitus and could lead to foot ulcerations, lower-limb amputations, increased mortality and reduced quality of life. This study examines the level of GPIHBP1 to assess its diagnostic and prognostic values across the metabolic continuum.
This is an observational monocentric study, including 160 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity without carbohydrate metabolism disorders and healthy controls. Clinical data and laboratory results were collected, and serum levels of GPIHBP1 were measured using an ELISA. The presence of DPN for the diabetes group was assessed using corneal confocal microscopy and NDS. The statistical analyses included t-tests, Pearson's correlation analysis, and ROC analysis to explore associations and the predictive values of the biomarker.
The GPIHBP1 levels increased progressively, with the lowest levels observed in the control group, higher levels in patients with obesity, and the highest levels in those with diabetes mellitus. Higher GPIHBP1 levels were observed in patients with peripheral diabetic neuropathy compared to those without. GPIHBP1 demonstrated moderate discriminative performance for the presence of diabetes, diabetic neuropathy and nephropathy. GPIHBP1 levels were also associated with renal function parameters and markers of vascular involvement. After adjustment for confounders, including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), the association between GPIHBP1 and diabetic neuropathy remained statistically significant although attenuated. Higher levels were observed in patients with coronary artery disease, and a positive correlation was established with mean IMT and sudomotor dysfunction score.
Circulating GPIHBP1 levels are associated with diabetes mellitus and its micro- and macrovascular complications, particularly diabetic neuropathy. Its measurement could enhance early diagnosis and personalized management of T2DM, and, while these findings support a potential role of GPIHBP1 as a biomarker of metabolic and vascular dysfunction, its clinical utility requires confirmation in longitudinal studies.
This is an observational monocentric study, including 160 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity without carbohydrate metabolism disorders and healthy controls. Clinical data and laboratory results were collected, and serum levels of GPIHBP1 were measured using an ELISA. The presence of DPN for the diabetes group was assessed using corneal confocal microscopy and NDS. The statistical analyses included t-tests, Pearson's correlation analysis, and ROC analysis to explore associations and the predictive values of the biomarker.
The GPIHBP1 levels increased progressively, with the lowest levels observed in the control group, higher levels in patients with obesity, and the highest levels in those with diabetes mellitus. Higher GPIHBP1 levels were observed in patients with peripheral diabetic neuropathy compared to those without. GPIHBP1 demonstrated moderate discriminative performance for the presence of diabetes, diabetic neuropathy and nephropathy. GPIHBP1 levels were also associated with renal function parameters and markers of vascular involvement. After adjustment for confounders, including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), the association between GPIHBP1 and diabetic neuropathy remained statistically significant although attenuated. Higher levels were observed in patients with coronary artery disease, and a positive correlation was established with mean IMT and sudomotor dysfunction score.
Circulating GPIHBP1 levels are associated with diabetes mellitus and its micro- and macrovascular complications, particularly diabetic neuropathy. Its measurement could enhance early diagnosis and personalized management of T2DM, and, while these findings support a potential role of GPIHBP1 as a biomarker of metabolic and vascular dysfunction, its clinical utility requires confirmation in longitudinal studies.
Authors
Yordanova Yordanova, Gateva Gateva, Nikolova Nikolova, Hristova Hristova, Kamenov Kamenov
View on Pubmed