4.7 Article

Novel hepatoselective insulin analog -: Studies with a covalently linked thyroxyl-insulin complex in humans

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 23, 期 8, 页码 1124-1129

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.23.8.1124

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - To test whether a thyroxyl-insulin analog with restricted access to receptor sites in peripheral tissues displays relative hepatoselectivity in humans. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - Five normal human subjects received a subcutaneous bolus injection of either N-alpha B1 L-thyroxyl-insulin (B1-T4-Ins) or NPH insulin in random order. Insulin kinetics, relative effects on hepatic glucose production, and peripheral glucose uptake were studied using euglycemic clamp and stable isotope [D-6,6-H-2(2)]glucose) dilution techniques. Blood samples were taken for the determination of total immunoreactive insulin/analog concentrations and for liquid chromatography to assess the protein binding of the analog in the circulation. RESULTS - After subcutaneous administration, B1-T4-Ins was well tolerated and rapidly absorbed. The analog had a long serum half-life and was highly protein bound (similar to 86%). Its duration of action, as judged by the duration of infusion of exogenous glucose to maintain euglycemia, was similar to that of NPH insulin. The effect of the analogs on hepatic glucose production was similar to that of NPH insulin, indicating equivalent hepatic potency. The analog demonstrated less effect on peripheral glucose uptake than NPH insulin (P = 0.025), had no effect on metabolic clearance rate of glucose, and exhibited a reduced capacity to inhibit lipolysis (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS - When injected subcutaneously into normal human subjects, B1-T4-Ins is well tolerated, quickly absorbed, and highly protein bound, resulting in a long plasma half-life. This analog appears to have a hepatoselective action, and, therefore, has the potential to provide more physiological insulin action than the insulin preparations currently used.

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