In this study, we hypothesised that overweight and insulin-resistant individuals have a higher setpoint for homeostatic regulation of circulating glucose levels than lean individuals. This would be reflected by faster or elevated counter-regulatory (i.e. insulin-antagonistic) responses to hypoglycaemia and, vice versa, by delayed or attenuated suppression of such responses during hyperglycaemia. Such findings could suggest a role for neuroendocrine dysregulation in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes.
Hypoglycaemia
The main finding from the hypoglycaemic clamps was an augmented responsiveness of the cortisol axis to hypoglycaemia among overweight and insulin-resistant participants compared with lean and more insulin-sensitive participants. This appears to be of central origin, involving hypothalamic and pituitary functions, since ACTH and cortisol responses were similarly elevated in the HI vs LO group.
While the elevated hypoglycaemic symptom scores in HI vs LO did not reach significance, there were significant, BMI-independent, associations between symptoms and the cortisol axis response, suggesting a causal connection between perceived glucopenia and the augmented cortisol axis response in overweight individuals. Undoubtedly, the anatomical bridge for this connection would be within the CNS. Therefore, an increased CNS sensing of hypoglycaemia in obese individuals is possible but obviously not proven. This would be expected to raise the glycaemic ‘setpoint’ for cortisol axis responses but the magnitude of this shift could not be exactly defined due to the limited sample size and experimental design. However, as visualised in Fig.
5(c,e), a physiological cut-off for hypoglycaemia of 3 mmol/l appears to be shifted to about 3.3 mmol/l in the HI vs LO group with respect to ACTH and cortisol responses. Moreover, the fact that the enhanced cortisol axis response was inversely associated with the
M value, independent of BMI, points to a potential role in the development of insulin resistance. This may be further amplified by an increased local generation of cortisol in adipose tissue, and elevated tissue cortisol can be hypothesised to play a role in type 2 diabetes development [
36]. Naturally, longitudinal studies of larger cohorts are needed to further support this hypothesis.
We evaluated sympathetic and parasympathetic nerve activity by HRV assessments. Given the increased symptoms of hypoglycaemia, an augmented sympathetic response in the overweight group might have been surmised. However, both obesity and, more clearly, insulin resistance was associated with a less dynamic ANS response to hypoglycaemia, characterised by less parasympathetic inhibition. Insulin resistance but not obesity was also associated with less sympathetic activation. Of interest, our group has previously reported that gastric bypass surgery was followed by an attenuated ANS response to hypoglycaemia [
24]. We also reported that visceral adiposity [
33] as well as insulin resistance [
37] was associated with an increased sympathetic/parasympathetic ratio under normoglycaemic conditions. It should be acknowledged that HRV has limitations as a marker of ANS activity and has been questioned [
38]. Although P
HF supposedly reflects parasympathetic activity, the P
LF represents both sympathetic and parasympathetic activity, and the P
LF/P
HF ratio is utilised to reflect their relative contributions. Moreover, the importance and exact peripheral mechanisms of the two branches of the ANS with regards to glucose regulation is still uncertain [
39‐
41]. The role of parasympathetic activity is particularly controversial. Apart from a proposed stimulation of glucagon secretion [
40], our research group reported an unexpected rapid increase in insulin sensitivity following infusion of atropine [
42], suggesting a paradoxical short-term effect by cholinergic pathways of the parasympathetic system to reduce peripheral glucose uptake. Thus, the attenuated inhibition of parasympathetic activity observed in overweight and insulin-resistant individuals during hypoglycaemia may potentially enhance the defence against hypoglycaemia and the maintenance of elevated everyday glucose levels. Catecholamine levels would be of interest in this context but they were presently not possible to analyse and were not considered as critical, since HRV assessments did not suggest any substantial group difference in sympathetic activity.
We found no differences in glucagon levels between groups during hypoglycaemia, nor were they associated with measures of obesity or insulin resistance. However, there were group differences in achieved glucose and insulin levels that may have underestimated differences in hormone responses. When adjusting for glucose levels in linear mixed models, both obesity and insulin resistance were indeed associated with significantly higher glucagon levels during hypoglycaemia. This is in concordance with a previous study showing augmented glucagon, ACTH and noradrenaline (norepinephrine) responses in obese individuals exposed to hypoglycaemia [
7]. The more pronounced differences in their study may be due to use of the less specific RIA technique for glucagon measurement [
32], greater BMI difference between groups and a younger and all-male study population.
The attenuation of the growth hormone response during hypoglycaemia in overweight individuals did not reach significance in our study, but has been observed in previous studies [
18,
19].
Hyperglycaemia
During the hyperglycaemic clamps, overweight and insulin-resistant participants displayed less suppression of glucagon than lean participants. This is in accordance with some previous studies [
43‐
45] and may contribute to the development and progression of insulin resistance and potentially type 2 diabetes.
The cortisol responses to hyperglycaemia were highly variable between individuals and there were no consistent differences between groups. The initial decline in both groups is most likely explained by diurnal variations and the subsequent rise could represent a glucose-mediated stress response. A rise in cortisol levels after meals or an oral glucose load is well-established in previous work [
46,
47].
We found markedly lower growth hormone levels during hyperglycaemia in overweight participants but glucose-mediated inhibition was similar to that in lean participants, which is somewhat different to findings of a previous study [
48].
The PLF/PHF ratio rose during hyperglycaemia but was significantly lower in the overweight group indicative of a decreased sympathetic relative to parasympathetic activity. This resembles findings during hypoglycaemic conditions. Thus, the sympathetic response to acute hyperglycaemia and hyperinsulinaemia appears to be impaired in overweight insulin-resistant individuals, perhaps because of adaptation to slightly elevated glucose levels.
Limitations
There are some limitations to this study. First, as previously discussed, the minutely higher glucose and insulin levels achieved during clamps in overweight compared with lean participants may have affected insulin-antagonistic responses. Notably, this would mainly underestimate the differences in hormone levels found and, for completeness, we also adjusted for actual glucose levels in regression analyses. Second, while the elevated hormonal responses associated with obesity and insulin resistance are compatible with a hypothesised upward shift in glycaemic setpoint, our current data do not allow more than a very rough quantification of this shift. We plan analyses of data from pooled cohorts to address this. Third, the design may be underpowered to detect hypothetical effect sizes of interest. Fourth, several of the neuroendocrine alterations reported in this study were small in magnitude and the clinical implications need to be confirmed. Fifth, participants were recruited based on BMI rather than insulin resistance and the associations with neuroendocrine responses should be interpreted in the light of this. However, recruiting participants based on measures of insulin resistance or dysglycaemia (e.g. following OGTTs) would have markedly hampered feasibility. Finally, no adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. This was due to the exploratory nature of this work and also to biological interdependencies of the measured neurohormonal responses.
Overall, these findings are hypothesis-generating and need to be confirmed in larger studies.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates that overweight insulin-resistant individuals compared with lean individuals have increased central activation of the cortisol axis during hypoglycaemia, associated with more pronounced hypoglycaemic symptoms. This suggests an increased CNS-mediated response to hypoglycaemia. The finding that insulin resistance, more than obesity, is associated with the cortisol axis response is compatible with a causal role of the neurohormonal responses for the development of dysglycaemia and potentially type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, an attenuated suppression during hyperglycaemia and, to a lesser extent, an augmented glucagon rise during hypoglycaemia seem to be features of both insulin resistance and obesity. The anatomical sites, such as brain, pancreas or both, involved in this dysregulation remain to be elucidated in onward studies. By contrast, there is an attenuation of autonomic nerve responses to glucose fluctuations in overweight and insulin-resistant individuals that may reflect a less dynamic sympathetic and parasympathetic regulation, which in the long term may potentially contribute to dysglycaemia.
Taken together, altered insulin-antagonistic responses, including the cortisol axis, glucagon and ANS, in obese insulin-resistant individuals may contribute to the development of long-term dysglycaemia and, hypothetically, also type 2 diabetes. These perturbations may involve glucoregulatory functions of the brain shifting the ‘glycaemic setpoint’ for glucose-regulating hormones upwards. Our ongoing and future work will include individuals with type 2 diabetes and also the use of neuroimaging techniques to assess regional brain responses to hypo- and hyperglycaemia during diabetes development.