4.7 Article

Postprandial endothelial dysfunction in subjects with new-onset type 2 diabetes: an acarbose and nateglinide comparative study

Journal

CARDIOVASCULAR DIABETOLOGY
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1475-2840-9-12

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Postprandial hyperglycemia is believed to affect vascular endothelial function. The aim of our study was to compare the effects of acarbose and nateglinide on postprandial endothelial dysfunction. Methods: We recruited a total of 30 patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (19 men and 11 women, age 67.8 +/- 7.3 years). Patients were randomly assigned to 3 groups receiving either 300 mg/day acarbose, 270 mg/day nateglinide, or no medication. A cookie test (consisting of 75 g carbohydrate, 25 g butter fat, and 7 g protein for a total of 553 kcal) was performed as dietary tolerance testing. During the cookie test, glucose and insulin levels were determined at 0, 30, 60, and 120 min after load. In addition, endothelial function was assessed by % flow-mediated dilation (FMD) of the brachial artery at 0 and 120 min after cookie load. Results: Postprandial glucose and insulin levels were similar in the 3 groups. Postprandial endothelial dysfunction was similar in the 3 groups before treatment. After 12 weeks of intervention, postprandial FMD was significantly improved in the acarbose group compared with the control group (6.8 +/- 1.3% vs 5.2 +/- 1.1%, p = 0.0022). Area under the curve (AUC) for insulin response was significantly increased in the nateglinide and control groups; however, no significant change was observed in the acarbose group. Conclusions: Our results suggest that acarbose improves postprandial endothelial function by improvement of postprandial hyperglycemia, independent of postprandial hyperinsulinemia. Acarbose may thus have more beneficial effects on postprandial endothelial function in patients with type 2 diabetes than nateglinide.

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