Bock, Gerlies

The present analysis tests the hypothesis that quantifiable disruption of the glucose-stimulated insulin-secretion dose-response pathway mediates impaired fasting glycemia (IFG) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). To this end, adults with normal and impaired fasting glycemia (NFG, n = 30), IFG ( n = 32), and DM ( n = 14) were given a mixed meal containing 75 g glucose. C-peptide and glucose were measured over 4 h, 13 times in NFG and IFG and 16 times in DM (age range 50–57 yr, body mass index 28–32 kg/m2). Wavelet-based deconvolution analysis was used to estimate time-varying C-peptide secretion rates. Logistic dose-response functions were constructed analytically of the sensitivity, potency, and efficacy (in the pharmacological sense of slope, one-half maximal stimulation, and maximal effect) of glucose's stimulation of prehepatic insulin (C-peptide) secretion. A hysteresis changepoint time, demarcating unequal glucose potencies for onset and recovery pathways, was estimated simultaneously. According to this methodology, NFG subjects exhibited distinct onset and recovery potencies of glucose in stimulating C-peptide secretion (6.5 and 8.5 mM), thereby defining in vivo hysteresis (potency shift −2.0 mM). IFG patients manifested reduced glucose onset potency (8.6 mM), and diminished C-peptide hysteretic shift (−0.80 mM). DM patients had markedly decreased glucose potency (18.8 mM), reversal of C-peptide's hysteretic shift (+4.5 mM), and 30% lower C-peptide sensitivity to glucose stimulation. From these data, we conclude that a dynamic dose-response model of glucose-dependent control of C-peptide secretion can identify disruption of in vivo hysteresis in patients with IFG and DM. Pathway-defined analytic models of this kind may aid in the search for prediabetes biomarkers.

OBJECTIVE—The purpose of this study was to determine the mechanism by which dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors lower postprandial glucose concentrations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We measured insulin secretion and action as well as glucose effectiveness in 14 subjects with type 2 diabetes who received vildagliptin (50 mg b.i.d.) or placebo for 10 days in random order separated by a 3-week washout. On day 9 of each period, subjects ate a mixed meal. Insulin sensitivity (SI), glucose effectiveness, and β-cell responsivity indexes were estimated using the oral glucose and C-peptide minimal models. At 300 min 0.02 unit/kg insulin was administered intravenously. RESULTS—Vildagliptin reduced postprandial glucose concentrations (905 ± 94 vs. 1,008 ± 104 mmol/6 h, P = 0.02). Vildagliptin did not alter net SI (7.71 ± 1.28 vs. 6.41 ± 0.84 10−4 dl · kg−1 · min−1 · μU−1 · ml−1, P = 0.13) or glucose effectiveness (0.019 ± 0.002 vs. 0.018 ± 0.002 dl · kg−1 · min−1, P = 0.65). However, the net β-cell responsivity index was increased (35.7 ± 5.2 vs. 28.9 ± 5.2 10−9 min−1, P = 0.03) as was total disposition index (381 ± 48 vs. 261 ± 35 10−14 dl · kg−1 · min−2 · pmol−1 · l−1, P = 0.006). Vildagliptin lowered postprandial glucagon concentrations (27.0 ± 1.1 vs. 29.7 ± 1.5 μg · l−1 · 6 h−1, P = 0.03), especially after administration of exogenous insulin (81.5 ± 6.4 vs. 99.3 ± 5.6 ng/l, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS—Vildagliptin lowers postprandial glucose concentrations by stimulating insulin secretion and suppressing glucagon secretion but not by altered insulin action or glucose effectiveness. A novel observation is that vildagliptin alters α-cell responsiveness to insulin administration, but the significance of this action is as yet unclear.

OBJECTIVE—The deuterated water method uses the ratio of deuterium on carbons 5 and 2 (C5/C2) or 3 and 2 (C3/C2) to estimate the fraction of glucose derived from gluconeogenesis. The current studies determined whether C3 and C5 glucose enrichment is influenced by processes other than gluconeogenesis. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Six nondiabetic subjects were infused with [3,5-2H2]glucose and insulin while glucose was clamped at ∼5 mmol/l; the C5-to-C3 ratio was measured in the in UDP-glucose pool using nuclear magnetic resonance and the acetaminophen glucuronide method. RESULTS—Whereas the C5-to-C3 ratio of the infusate was 1.07, the ratio in UDP-glucose was <1.0 in all subjects both before (0.75 ± 0.07) and during (0.67 ± 0.05) the insulin infusion. CONCLUSIONS—These data indicate that the deuterium on C5 of glucose is lost more rapidly relative to the deuterium on C3. The decrease in the C5-to-C3 ratio could result from exchange of the lower three carbons of fructose-6-phosphate with unlabeled three-carbon precursors via the transaldolase reaction and/or selective retention of the C3 deuterium at the level of triosephosphate isomerase due to a kinetic isotope effect. After ingestion of 2H2O, these processes would increase the enrichment of C5 and decrease the enrichment of C3, respectively, with the former causing an overestimation of gluconeogenesis using the C2-to-C5 ratio and the latter an underestimation using the C3-to-C2 ratio. Future studies will be required to determine whether the impact of these processes on the measurement of gluconeogenesis differs among the disease states being evaluated (e.g., diabetes or obesity).

OBJECTIVE—To determine the contribution of hepatic insulin resistance to the pathogenesis of impaired fasting glucose (IFG). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Endogenous glucose production (EGP) and glucose disposal were measured in 31 subjects with IFG and 28 subjects with normal fasting glucose (NFG) after an overnight fast and during a clamp when endogenous secretion was inhibited with somatostatin and insulin infused at rates that approximated portal insulin concentrations present in IFG subjects after an overnight fast (∼80 pmol/l, “preprandial”) or within 30 min of eating (∼300 pmol/l, “prandial”). RESULTS—Despite higher (P < 0.001) insulin and C-peptide concentrations and visceral fat (P < 0.05), fasting EGP and glucose disposal did not differ between IFG and NFG subjects, implying hepatic and extrahepatic insulin resistance. This was confirmed during preprandial insulin infusion when glucose disposal was lower (P < 0.05) and EGP higher (P < 0.05) in IFG than in NFG subjects. Higher EGP was due to increased (P < 0.05) rates of gluconeogenesis in IFG. EGP was comparably suppressed in IFG and NFG groups during prandial insulin infusion, indicating that hepatic insulin resistance was mild. Glucose disposal remained lower (P < 0.01) in IFG than in NFG subjects. CONCLUSIONS—Hepatic and extrahepatic insulin resistance contribute to fasting hyperglycemia in IFG with the former being due at least in part to impaired insulin-induced suppression of gluconeogenesis. However, since hepatic insulin resistance is mild and near-maximal suppression of EGP occurs at portal insulin concentrations typically present in IFG subjects within 30 min of eating, extrahepatic (but not hepatic) insulin resistance coupled with accompanying defects in insulin secretion is the primary cause of postprandial hyperglycemia.

OBJECTIVE— We sought to determine whether alterations in meal absorption and gastric emptying contribute to the mechanism by which inhibitors of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) lower postprandial glucose concentrations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS— We simultaneously measured gastric emptying, meal appearance, endogenous glucose production, and glucose disappearance in 14 subjects with type 2 diabetes treated with either vildaglipitin (50 mg b.i.d.) or placebo for 10 days using a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, crossover design. RESULTS— Fasting (7.3 ± 0.5 vs. 7.9 ± 0.5 mmol/l) and peak postprandial (14.1 ± 0.6 vs. 15.9 ± 0.9 mmol/l) glucose concentrations were lower (P < 0.01) after vildagliptin treatment than placebo. Despite lower glucose concentrations, postprandial insulin and C-peptide concentrations did not differ during the two treatments. On the other hand, the integrated (area under the curve) postprandial glucagon concentrations were lower (20.9 ± 1.6 vs. 23.7 ± 1.3 mg/ml per 5 h, P < 0.05), and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) concentrations were higher (1,878 ± 270 vs. 1,277 ± 312 pmol/l per 5 h, P = 0.001) during vildagliptin administration compared with placebo. Gastric emptying and meal appearance did not differ between treatments. CONCLUSIONS— Vildagliptin does not alter gastric emptying or the rate of entry of ingested glucose into the systemic circulation in humans. DPP-4 inhibitors do not lower postprandial glucose concentrations by altering the rate of nutrient absorption or delivery to systemic circulation. Alterations in islet function, secondary to increased circulating concentrations of active GLP-1, are associated with the decreased postprandial glycemic excursion observed in the presence of vildagliptin.

To determine whether nonglucose nutrient–induced insulin secretion is impaired in pre-diabetes, subjects with impaired or normal fasting glucose were studied after ingesting either a mixed meal containing 75 g glucose or 75 g glucose alone. Despite comparable glucose areas above basal, glucose-induced insulin secretion was higher (P < 0.05) and insulin action lower (P < 0.05) during the meal than the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in all subgroups regardless of whether they had abnormal or normal glucose tolerance (NGT). However, the nutrient-induced δ (meal minus OGTT) in insulin secretion and glucagon concentrations did not differ among groups. Furthermore, the decrease in insulin action after meal ingestion was compensated in all groups by an appropriate increase in insulin secretion resulting in disposition indexes during meals that were equal to or greater than those present during the OGTT. In contrast, disposition indexes were reduced (P < 0.01) during the OGTT in the impaired glucose tolerance groups, indicating that reduced glucose induced insulin secretion. We conclude that, whereas glucose-induced insulin secretion is impaired in people with abnormal glucose tolerance, nonglucose nutrient–induced secretion is intact, suggesting that a glucose-specific defect in the insulin secretory pathway is an early event in the evolution of type 2 diabetes.

Thirty-two subjects with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and 28 subjects with normal fasting glucose (NFG) ingested a labeled meal and 75 g glucose (oral glucose tolerance test) on separate occasions. Fasting glucose, insulin, and C-peptide were higher (P < 0.05) in subjects with IFG than in those with NFG, whereas endogenous glucose production (EGP) did not differ, indicating hepatic insulin resistance. EGP was promptly suppressed, and meal glucose appearance comparably increased following meal ingestion in both groups. In contrast, glucose disappearance (Rd) immediately after meal ingestion was lower (P < 0.001) in subjects with IFG/impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and IFG/diabetes but did not differ in subjects with IFG/normal glucose tolerance (NGT) or NFG/NGT. Net insulin action (Si) and insulin-stimulated glucose disposal (Si*) were reduced (P < 0.001, ANOVA) in subjects with NFG/IGT, IFG/IGT, and IFG/diabetes but did not differ in subjects with NFG/NGT or IFG/NGT. Defective insulin secretion also contributed to lower postprandial Rd since disposition indexes were lower (P < 0.001, ANOVA) in subjects with NFG/IGT, IFG/IGT, and IFG/diabetes but did not differ in subjects with NFG/NGT and IFG/NGT. We conclude that postprandial hyperglycemia in individuals with early diabetes is due to lower rates of glucose disappearance rather than increased meal appearance or impaired suppression of EGP, regardless of their fasting glucose. In contrast, insulin secretion, action, and the pattern of postprandial turnover are essentially normal in individuals with isolated IFG.

OBJECTIVE—To determine the best predictors of total postprandial glycemic exposure and peak glucose concentrations in nondiabetic humans. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Data from 203 nondiabetic volunteers who ingested a carbohydrate-containing mixed meal were analyzed. RESULTS—Fasting glucose and insulin concentrations were poor predictors of postprandial glucose area above basal (R2 = ∼0.07, P < 0.001). The correlation was stronger for 2-h glucose concentration (R2 = 0.55, P < 0.001) and improved slightly but significantly (P < 0.001) with the addition of fasting glucose, insulin, age, sex, and body weight to the model (r2 = 0.58). The 2-h glucose concentration also predicted the peak glucose concentration (R2 = 0.37, P < 0.001) with strength of the prediction increasing (P < 0.001) modestly with the addition of fasting glucose, insulin, age, sex, and body weight to the model (R2 = 0.48, P < 0.001). On the other hand, addition of measures of body function and composition did not improve prediction of total glycemic exposure or peak glucose concentration. CONCLUSIONS—Isolated measures of fasting or 2-h glucose concentrations alone or in combination with more complex measures of body composition and function are poor predictors of postprandial glycemic exposure or peak glucose concentration. This may explain, at least in part, the weak and at times inconsistent relationship between these parameters and cardiovascular risk.