4.7 Article

GIP Does Not Potentiate the Antidiabetic Effects of GLP-1 in Hyperglycemic Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

期刊

DIABETES
卷 60, 期 4, 页码 1270-1276

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/db10-1332

关键词

-

资金

  1. Eli Lilly & Company (Indianapolis, IN)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE-The incretin glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) exerts insulinotropic activity in type 2 diabetic patients, whereas glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) no longer does. We studied whether GIP can alter the insulinotropic or glucagonostatic activity of GLP-1 in type 2 diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-Twelve patients with type 2 diabetes (nine men and three women; 61 +/- 10 years; BMI 30.0 +/- 3.7 kg/m(2); HbA(1c) 7.3 +/- 1.5%) were studied. In randomized order, intravenous infusions of GLP-1(7-36)-amide (1.2 pmol . kg(-1) . min(-1)), GIP (4 pmol . kg(-1) . min(-1)), GLP-1 plus GIP, and placebo were administered over 360 min after an overnight fast (>= 1 day wash-out period between experiments). Capillary blood glucose, plasma insulin, C-peptide, glucagon, GIP, GLP-1, and free fatty acids (FFA) were determined. RESULTS-Exogenous GLP-1 alone reduced glycemia from 10.3 to 5.1 +/- 0.2 mmol/L. Insulin secretion was stimulated (insulin, C-peptide, P < 0.0001), and glucagon was suppressed (P = 0.009). With GIP alone, glucose was lowered slightly (P = 0.0021); insulin and C-peptide were stimulated to a lesser degree than with GLP-1 (P < 0.001). Adding GIP to GLP-1 did not further enhance the insulinotropic activity of GLP-1 (insulin, P = 0.90; C-peptide, P = 0.85). Rather, the suppression of glucagon elicited by GLP-1 was antagonized by the addition of GIP (P = 0.008). FFA were suppressed by GLP-1 (P < 0.0001) and hardly affected by GIP (P = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS-GIP is unable to further amplify the insulinotropic and glucose-lowering effects of GLP-1 in type 2 diabetes. Rather, the suppression of glucagon by GLP-1 is antagonized by GIP. Diabetes 60:1270-1276, 2011

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