Cohen, Ohad

OBJECTIVE—To determine mechanisms by which pioglitazone and metformin effect hepatic and extra-hepatic insulin action. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Thirty-one subjects with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to pioglitazone (45 mg) or metformin (2,000 mg) for 4 months. RESULTS—Glucose was clamped before and after therapy at ∼5 mmol/l, insulin raised to ∼180 pmol/l, C-peptide suppressed with somatostatin, glucagon replaced at ∼75 pg/ml, and glycerol maintained at ∼200 mmol/l to ensure comparable and equal portal concentrations on all occasions. Insulin-induced stimulation of glucose disappearance did not differ before and after treatment with either pioglitazone (23 ± 3 vs. 24 ± 2 μmol · kg−1 · min−1) or metformin (22 ± 2 vs. 24 ± 3 μmol · kg−1 · min−1). In contrast, pioglitazone enhanced (P < 0.01) insulin-induced suppression of both glucose production (6.0 ± 1.0 vs. 0.2 ± 1.6 μmol · kg−1 · min−1) and gluconeogenesis (n = 11; 4.5 ± 0.9 vs. 0.8 ± 1.2 μmol · kg−1 · min−1). Metformin did not alter either suppression of glucose production (5.8 ± 1.0 vs. 5.0 ± 0.8 μmol · kg−1 · min−1) or gluconeogenesis (n = 9; 3.7 ± 0.8 vs. 2.6 ± 0.7 μmol · kg−1 · min−1). Insulin-induced suppression of free fatty acids was greater (P < 0.05) after treatment with pioglitazone (0.14 ± 0.03 vs. 0.06 ± 0.01 mmol/l) but unchanged with metformin (0.12 ± 0.03 vs. 0.15 ± 0.07 mmol/l). CONCLUSIONS—Thus, relative to metformin, pioglitazone improves hepatic insulin action in people with type 2 diabetes, partly by enhancing insulin-induced suppression of gluconeogenesis. On the other hand, both drugs have comparable effects on insulin-induced stimulation of glucose uptake.

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.