Question

Compare and contrast the following and understand their importance: Impaired glucose tolerance IGT, Impaired fasting glucose IFG, and pre-diabetes.

Answer 1

Compare Impaired glucose tolerance IGT, Impaired fasting glucose IFG, and pre-diabetes.

A fundamental problem in using IGT and IFG to characterise abnormal glucose metabolism is that the two measures do not define the same population.This inconsistency has prompted some contradiction about which is the best methods for recognizing in danger populaces, regardless of whether they portray the equivalent level of hazard, and whether IFG and IGT speak to appearances of a similar procedure or generally extraordinary mechanisms.This discussion is personally entwined with the questionable choice by the ADA in its 1997 rules to permit fasting glucose to be utilized for analysis of DM without a corroborative oral glucose resilience test.Several studies have compared the differences in the ADA and WHO criteria for T2DM, suggesting that the tests do not identify the same populations and that measures of glucose tolerance correlate better with clinical manifestations of T2DM and are more predictive of mortality.Comparable inquiries have been raised about the indicative exactness of IFG and IGT. An investigation of 1,245 Italian phone organization representatives pursued for a long time found that, not at all like standard IGT, benchmark IFG did not anticipate movement to DM, and the classes just covered 40% of the time.32 The Unravel specialists found that IGT status added to the prescient data of fasting glucose status with respect to cardiovascular passing and all-cause mortality. In any case, IFG status did not add to the prescient data from glucose resistance testing, recommending IGT is a superior indicator of clinical events.33 In the Cardiovascular Wellbeing Study of elderly non-diabetic patients, IGT included data to the hazard anticipated by IFG, yet IFG alone was not an autonomous indicator of cardiovascular hazard.In contrast, the Hoorn study investigators found that patients with IFG and normal glucose tolerance had a similar risk of developing DM to those with IGT and normal fasting glucose. In addition, a similar nine-year mortality risk between IFG (15.9%) and IGT (16.5%) was found in an age- and sex-adjusted analysis. A critical perception in a few investigations looking at IGT and IFG has been the
expanded danger of T2DM and cardiovascular sickness among patients with both IFG and IGT, recommending a compound impact on hazard for patients who meet the two arrangements of criteria At the core of the discussion about the distinctions among IFG and IGT is the topic of whether they speak to on a very basic level diverse pathophysiological forms.
Current comprehension of diabetic pathophysiology recommends that the movement to T2DM is administered by two forms: 1) a decrease in affectability to the activity of insulin, also, 2) brokenness and inevitable fatigue of beta-cell function.36 Superficially, it is speaking to attempt to associate these two procedures specifically with the glucose classes by utilizing IFG as a surrogate marker of unending insulin obstruction also, IGT as a surrogate for beta-cell brokenness. Be that as it may, this idea isn't upheld by the physiology, also, in truth the two procedures appear to create in parallel amid the movement to T2DM.