4.7 Article

Liraglutide shows superior cardiometabolic benefits than lorcaserin in a novel free choice diet-induced obese rat model

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 882, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2020.173316

Keywords

Diet-induced obesity; Insulin resistance; Rat; Lorcaserin; Liraglutide; Echocardiography

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Lorcaserin (LORCA) and liraglutide (LIRA) were evaluated in a novel diet-induced obese (DIO) rat model fed a free choice (FC) diet, that presents rats with the options between control chow (CC) or high fat/cholesterol (HFC) diet, and normal water (NW) or 10% fructose water (FW). After 8 weeks of FC diet-induced obesity/insulin resistance, rats were maintained on FC diet and treated daily for 5 weeks with vehicle, LORCA 18 mg/kg orally or LIRA 0.4 mg/kg subcutaneously. Compared to CC diet, FC diet resulted in higher intake of HFC and FW, and significantly higher caloric intake and overweight. LIRA induced a lower HFC/FW and higher CC/NW intake, a 12% body weight loss (P < 0.01 vs. FC) and 40% lower visceral fat mass (P < 0.001). LORCA only reduced HFC intake and body weight gain (P < 0.001 vs. FC). FC diet raised HOMA-IR index and plasma leptinemia by 66% and 165% (both P < 0.05 vs. CC), which were 50% and 70% lower with LIRA (both P < 0.05 vs. FC), but unchanged by LORCA. LIRA and LORCA significantly improved FC diet-induced glucose intolerance. Only LIRA reduced liver fatty acids, triglycerides, and cholesterol by 68, 71 and 51% (all P < 0.001). FC diet also induced a diastolic dysfunction with reduced E/A ratio (P < 0.01 vs. CC), which was improved by LIRA and LORCA (both P < 0.01 vs. FC). LIRA also raised fractional shortening (P < 0.01 vs. FC). Overall, LIRA showed superior cardiometabolic benefits than LORCA in DIO rats under the FC diet, a model that will be useful to evaluate novel drugs targeting obesity and co-morbidities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available