4.7 Article

Additive effects of glucagon-like peptide 1 and pioglitazonein patients with type 2 diabetes

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 27, 期 8, 页码 1910-1914

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.27.8.1910

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - To evaluate the effect of combination therapy With pioglitazone and glucagon-like peptide (GLP)- I in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - Eight patients with type 2 diabetes (BMI 32.7 +/- 1.3 kg/m(2) and fasting plasma glucose 13.5 +/- 1.2 mmoL/1) underwent four different treatment regimens in random order: saline therapy, monotherapy With Continuous subcutaneous infusion of GLP-1 (4.8 pmol . kg(-1) . min(-1)), monotherapy with pioglitazone (30-mg tablet of Actos), and combination therapy with GLP-1 and pioglitazone. The observation period was 48 h. End points were plasma levels of glucose, insulin, glucagon, free fatty acids (FFAs), and sensation of appetite. RESULTS - Fasting plasma glucose decreased from 13.5 +/- 1.2 mmol/l (saline) to 11.7 +/- 1.2 (GLP-1) and 11.5 +/- 1.2 (pioglitazone) and further decreased to 9.9 +/- 1.0 (combination) (P < 0.001). Eight-hour mean plasma glucose levels were reduced from 13.7 +/- 1.1 mmoM (saline) to 10.6 +/- 1.0 (GLP-1) and 12.0 +/- 1.2 (pioglitazone) and were further reduced to 9.5 +/- 0.8 (combination) (P +/- 0.0001). Insulin levels increased during monotherapy with GLP-1 compared with monotherapy with pioglitazone (P < 0.01). Glucagon levels were reduced in GLP-1 and combination therapy compared with saline and monotherapy with pioglitazone (P < 0.01). FFAs during breakfast (area under the curve, 0-3 h) were reduced in combination therapy compared with saline (P = 0.03). Sensation of appetite was reduced during monotherapy with GLP-1 and combination therapy (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS - GLP-1 and pioglitazone show an additive glucose-lowering effect. A combination of the two agents may, therefore, be a Valuable therapeutic approach for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

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

4.7
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