4.6 Article

Beneficial effects of GLP-1 on endothelial function in humans: dampening by glyburide but not by glimepiride

期刊

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpendo.00373.2007

关键词

glucagon-like peptide-1; incretin; sulfonylurea; vascular reactivity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sulfonylureas (SU) with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1)-based therapy are an emerging therapeutic combination for type 2 diabetes. Prior human studies have hinted at endothelial effects of GLP-1 and SU. To study the endothelial effects of GLP-1 per se and to evaluate the modulatory effects, if any, of SU agents on GLP-1-induced changes in endothelial function, healthy, nondiabetic, normotensive, nonsmokers, age 18-50 yr with no family history of diabetes, were studied. Subjects were randomized to either placebo ( n = 10), 10 mg of glyburide ( n = 11), or 4 mg of glimepiride ( n = 8) orally. Euglycemic somatostatin pancreatic clamp with replacement basal insulin, glucagon, and growth hormone was performed for 240 min. Forearm blood flow (FBF) was measured by venous occlusion plethysmography with graded brachial artery infusions of acetylcholine (Ach) and nitroprusside (NTP) before and after intravenous infusion of GLP-1. GLP-1 (preinfusion 3.4 +/- 0.2, postinfusion 25.5 +/- 2.8 pM) enhanced ( P < 0.03) Ach-mediated vasodilatation (Delta + 6.5 +/- 1.1 vs. Delta + 9.1 +/- 1.2 ml.100 ml(-1).min(-1), change from baseline FBF) in those on placebo. However, in contrast, glyburide abolished GLP-1-induced Ach-mediated vasodilatation (Delta + 11.7 +/- 2.0 vs. Delta + 11.7 +/- 2.5 ml.100 ml(-1).min(-1)). On the other hand, glimepiride did not alter the ability of GLP- 1 to enhance Ach-mediated vasodilatation (Delta + 7.9 +/- 0.5 vs. Delta + 10.2 +/- 1.3 ml.100 ml(-1).min(-1), P < 0.04). Neither GLP-1 nor SU altered NTP-induced vasodilatation. These data demonstrate that GLP- 1 per se has direct beneficial effects on endothelium-dependent vasodilatation in humans that are differentially modulated by SU.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据