Glycaemic thresholds for hypoglycaemic symptoms, impairment of cognitive function, and release of counterregulatory hormones in subjects with functional hypoglycaemia

Abstract

Abstract. Nine patients with food‐relieved hypoglycaemic symptoms, in whom insulinoma and other organic diseases presenting with hypoglycaemia had been ruled out, and nine matched controls, participated in the study. Subjects were studied during a 5‐h controlled (Biostator) insulin‐induced (1–2 mU kg−1 min−1) hypoglycaemic clamp. After 1 h of euglycaemia, we aimed to lower the glucose level in arterialized venous blood in a stepwise manner at 30‐min intervals to 3.5, 3.0, and 2.0 mmol l−1, and to withhold these levels for a further 30 min. At euglycaemia and at the end of the latter steps, the visual reaction time and cognitive function (digit span, letter cancellation and trail making) were tested, together with recording symptoms and signs of hypoglycaemia. Counterregulatory hormones were measured at 20‐min intervals. In the patients, clinical signs and symptoms of hypoglycaemia developed at median blood glucose levels of 2.6–2.8 and 2.8–3.1 mmol l−1, respectively. By contrast, the blood glucose levels were 0.4–0.8 mmol l−1 lower in control subjects (P < 0.05). Similarly, the median threshold for deterioration of visual reaction time was 2.8 mmol l−1 in patients and 2.1 mmol l−1 in controls (P < 0.01). A similar trend was observed for the results of the neuropsychological tests. Visual reaction time deteriorated in all subjects, whereas the cognitive function of some of the subjects in each group remained unchanged during hypoglycaemia. The glycaemic thresholds for release of Cortisol, glucagon and growth hormone were significantly higher in patients (P < 0.05), whereas the thresholds for catecholamine release showed no significant difference from controls. Despite the comparable glucose infusion rates required to sustain each of the hypoglycaemic levels in the two groups, the control subjects achieved lower glucose levels, suggesting that there is resistance to insulin or glucose in functional hypoglycaemia. In conclusion, the present study suggests that the existence of a higher threshold for symptoms and signs, as well as for deterioration of brain function, may explain every‐day hypoglycaemic symptoms, despite normal glucose levels, in subjects with functional hypoglycaemia. However, the hypothesis should be tested further using a blinded approach, including euglycaemic control studies.