4.7 Article

Liraglutide, a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 analog, reduces body weight and food intake in obese candy-fed rats, whereas a dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitor, vildagliptin, does not

Journal

DIABETES
Volume 56, Issue 1, Pages 8-15

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/db06-0565

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Metabolic effects of the glucagon-like peptide-1 analog liraglutide and the dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitor vildagliptin were compared in rats made obese by supplementary candy feeding. Female Sprague-Dawley rats were randomized to 12-week diets of chow or chow plus candy. The latter were randomized for 12 further weeks to continue their diet while receiving 0.2 mg/kg liraglutide twice daily subcutaneously, 10 mg/kg vildagliptin twice daily orally, or vehicle or to revert to chow-only diet. Energy expenditure was measured, and oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) were performed. Body composition was determined by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scanning, and pancreatic beta-cell mass was determined by histology. Candy feeding increased weight, fat mass, and feeding-associated energy expenditure. Liraglutide or reversal to chow diet fully reversed weight and fat gains. Liraglutide was associated with decreased calorie intake and shifted food preference (increased chow/decreased candy consumption). Despite weight loss, liraglutide-treated rats did not decrease energy expenditure compared with candy-fed controls. Vildagliptin affected neither weight, food intake, nor energy expenditure. OGTTs, histology, and blood analyses indirectly suggested that both drugs increased insulin sensitivity. Liraglutide and vildagliptin inhibited obesity-associated increases in beta-cell mass. This was associated with weight and fat mass normalization with liraglutide, but not vildagliptin, where the ratio of beta-cell to body mass was low.

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