Basu, Rita

To determine whether the insulin dose-response curves for suppression of endogenous glucose production (EGP) and stimulation of splanchnic glucose uptake (SGU) differ in nondiabetic humans and are abnormal in type 2 diabetes, 14 nondiabetic and 12 diabetic subjects were studied. Glucose was clamped at ∼9.5 mmol/l and endogenous hormone secretion inhibited by somatostatin, while glucagon and growth hormone were replaced by an exogenous infusion. Insulin was progressively increased from ∼150 to ∼350 and ∼700 pmol/l by means of an exogenous insulin infusion, while EGP, SGU, and leg glucose uptake (LGU) were measured using the splanchnic and leg catheterization methods, combined with a [3-3H]glucose infusion. In nondiabetic subjects, an increase in insulin from ∼150 to ∼350 pmol/l resulted in maximal suppression of EGP, whereas SGU continued to increase (P < 0.001) when insulin was increased to ∼700 pmol/l. In contrast, EGP progressively decreased (P < 0.001) and SGU progressively increased (P < 0.001) in the diabetic subjects as insulin increased from ∼150 to ∼700 pmol/l. Although EGP was higher (P < 0.01) in the diabetic than nondiabetic subjects only at the lowest insulin concentration, SGU was lower (P < 0.01) in the diabetic subjects at all insulin concentrations tested. On the other hand, in contrast to LGU and overall glucose disposal, the increment in SGU in response to both increments in insulin did not differ in the diabetic and nondiabetic subjects, implying a right shifted but parallel dose-response curve. These data indicate that the dose-response curves for suppression of glucose production and stimulation of glucose uptake differ in nondiabetic subjects and are abnormal in people with type 2 diabetes. Taken together, these data also suggest that agents that enhance SGU in diabetic patients (e.g. glucokinase activators) are likely to improve glucose tolerance.

The present study sought to determine whether elevated plasma free fatty acids (FFAs) alter the splanchnic and muscle glucose metabolism in women. To do so, FFAs were increased in seven women by an 8-h Intralipid/heparin (IL/hep) infusion, and the results were compared with those observed in nine women who were infused with glycerol alone. Glucose was clamped at ∼8.3 mmol/l and insulin was increased to ∼300 pmol/l to stimulate both muscle and hepatic glucose uptake. Insulin secretion was inhibited with somatostatin. Leg and splanchnic glucose metabolism were assessed using a combined catheter and tracer dilution approach. The glucose infusion rates required to maintain target plasma glucose concentrations were lower (P < 0.01) during IL/hep than glycerol infusion (30.8 ± 2.6 vs. 65.0 ± 7.9 μmol · kg−1 · min−1). Whole-body glucose disappearance (37.0 ± 2.2 vs. 70.9 ± 8.7 μmol · kg−1 · min−1; P < 0.001) and leg glucose uptake (24.3 ± 4.2 vs. 59.6 ± 10.0 μmol · kg fat-free mass of the leg−1 · min−1; P < 0.02) were also lower, whereas splanchnic glucose production (8.2 ± 0.8 vs. 4.3 ± 0.7 μmol · kg−1 · min−1; P < 0.01) was higher during IL/hep than glycerol infusion. We conclude that in the presence of combined hyperinsulinemia and hyperglycemia, elevated FFAs impair glucose metabolism in women by inhibiting whole- body glucose disposal, muscle glucose uptake, and suppression of splanchnic glucose production.

The present study sought to determine whether elevated plasma free fatty acids (FFAs) alter the ability of insulin and glucose to regulate splanchnic as well as muscle glucose metabolism. To do so, FFAs were increased in 10 subjects to ∼1 mmol/l by an 8-h Intralipid/heparin (IL/Hep) infusion, whereas they fell to levels near the detection limit of the assay (<0.05 mmol/l) in 13 other subjects who were infused with glycerol alone at rates sufficient to either match (n = 5, low glycerol) or double (n = 8, high glycerol) the plasma glycerol concentrations observed during the IL/Hep infusion. Glucose was clamped at ∼8.3 mmol/l, and insulin was increased to ∼300 pmol/l to stimulate both muscle and hepatic glucose uptake. Insulin secretion was inhibited with somatostatin. Leg and splanchnic glucose metabolism were assessed using a combined catheter and tracer dilution approach. Leg glucose uptake (21.7 ± 3.5 vs. 48.3 ± 9.3 and 57.8 ± 11.7 μmol · kg−1 leg · min−1) was lower (P < 0.001) during IL/Hep than the low- or high-glycerol infusions, confirming that elevated FFAs caused insulin resistance in muscle. IL/Hep did not alter splanchnic glucose uptake or the contribution of the extracellular direct pathway to UDP-glucose flux. On the other hand, total UDP-glucose flux (13.2 ± 1.7 and 12.5 ± 1.0 vs. 8.1 ± 0.5 μmol · kg−1 · min−1) and flux via the indirect intracellular pathway (8.4 ± 1.2 and 8.1 ± 0.6 vs. 4.8 ± 0.05 μmol · kg−1 · min−1) were greater (P < 0.05) during both the IL/Hep and high-glycerol infusions than the low-glycerol infusion. In contrast, only IL/Hep increased (P < 0.05) splanchnic glucose production, indicating that elevated FFAs impaired the ability of the liver to autoregulate. Splanchnic insulin extraction, directly measured using the arterial and hepatic vein catheters, did not differ (67 ± 3 vs. 71 ± 5 vs. 69 ± 1%) during IL/Hep and high- and low-glycerol infusions. We conclude that elevated FFAs exert multiple effects on glucose metabolism. They inhibit insulin- and glucose-induced stimulation of muscle glucose uptake and suppression of splanchnic glucose production. They increase the contribution of the indirect pathway to glycogen synthesis and impair hepatic autoregulation. On the other hand, they do not alter either splanchnic glucose uptake or splanchnic insulin extraction in nondiabetic humans.

We have previously reported that splanchnic glucose uptake, hepatic glycogen synthesis, and hepatic glucokinase activity are decreased in people with type 2 diabetes during intravenous glucose infusion. To determine whether these defects are also present during more physiological enteral glucose administration, we studied 11 diabetic and 14 nondiabetic volunteers using a combined organ catheterization-tracer infusion technique. Glucose was infused into the duodenum at a rate of 22 μmol · kg−1 · min−1 while supplemental glucose was given intravenously to clamp glucose at ∼10 mmol/l in both groups. Endogenous hormone secretion was inhibited with somatostatin, and insulin was infused to maintain plasma concentrations at ∼300 pmol/l (i.e., twofold higher than our previous experiments). Total body glucose disappearance, splanchnic, and leg glucose extractions were markedly lower (P < 0.01) in the diabetic subjects than in the nondiabetic subjects. UDP-glucose flux, a measure of glycogen synthesis, was ∼35% lower (P < 0.02) in the diabetic subjects than in the nondiabetic subjects. This was entirely accounted for by a decrease (P < 0.01) in the contribution of extracellular glucose because the contribution of the indirect pathway to hepatic glycogen synthesis was similar between groups. Neither endogenous and splanchnic glucose productions nor rates of appearance of the intraduodenally infused glucose in the portal vein differed between groups. In summary, both muscle and splanchnic glucose uptake are impaired in type 2 diabetes during enteral glucose administration. The defect in splanchnic glucose uptake appears to be due to decreased uptake of extracellular glucose, implying decreased glucokinase activity. Thus, abnormal hepatic and muscle (but not gut) glucose metabolism are likely to contribute to postprandial hyperglycemia in people with type 2 diabetes.

In vitro studies indicate that glucagon-like peptide-1(7-36)-amide (GLP-1) can enhance hepatic glucose uptake. To determine whether GLP-1 increases splanchnic glucose uptake in humans, we studied seven subjects with type 1 diabetes on two occasions. On both occasions, glucose was maintained at ∼5.5 mmol/l during the night using a variable insulin infusion. On the morning of the study, a somatostatin, glucagon, and growth hormone infusion was started to maintain basal hormone levels. Glucose (containing [3H]glucose) was infused via an intraduodenal tube at a rate of 20 μmol · kg−1 · min−1. Insulin concentrations were increased to ∼500 pmol/l while glucose was clamped at ∼8.8 mmol/l for the next 4 h by means of a variable intravenous glucose infusion labeled with [6,6-2H2]glucose. Surprisingly, the systemic appearance of intraduodenally infused glucose was higher (P = 0.01) during GLP-1 infusion than saline infusion, indicating a lower (P < 0.05) rate of initial splanchnic glucose uptake (1.4 ± 1.5 vs. 4.8 ± 0.8 μmol · kg−1 · min−1). On the other hand, flux through the hepatic uridine-diphosphate–glucose pool did not differ between study days (14.2 ± 5.5 vs. 13.0 ± 4.2 μmol · kg−1 · min−1), implying equivalent rates of glycogen synthesis. GLP-1 also impaired (P < 0.05) insulin-induced suppression of endogenous glucose production (6.9 ± 2.9 vs. 1.3 ± 1.4 μmol · kg−1 · min−1), but caused a time-dependent increase (P < 0.01) in glucose disappearance (93.7 ± 10.0 vs. 69.3 ± 6.3 μmol · kg−1 · min−1; P < 0.01) that was evident only during the final hour of study. We conclude that in the presence of hyperglycemia, hyperinsulinemia, and enterally delivered glucose, GLP-1 increases total body but not splanchnic glucose uptake in humans with type 1 diabetes.

Although it is well established that glucagon-like peptide 1(7-36) amide (GLP-1) is a potent stimulator of insulin secretion, its effects on insulin action and glucose effectiveness are less clear. To determine whether GLP-1 increases insulin action and glucose effectiveness, subjects with type 2 diabetes were studied on two occasions. Insulin was infused during the night on both occasions to ensure that baseline glucose concentrations were comparable. On the morning of study, either GLP-1 (1.2 pmol x kg(-1) x min(-1)) or saline were infused along with somatostatin and replacement amounts of glucagon. Glucose also was infused in a pattern mimicking that typically observed after a carbohydrate meal. Insulin concentrations were either kept constant at basal levels (n = 6) or varied so as to create a prandial insulin profile (n = 6). The increase in glucose concentration was virtually identical on the GLP-1 and saline study days during both the basal (1.21 +/- 0.15 vs. 1.32 +/- 0.19 mol/l per 6 h) and prandial (0.56 +/- 0.14 vs. 0.56 +/- 0.10 mol/l per 6 h) insulin infusions. During both the basal and prandial insulin infusions, glucose disappearance promptly increased after initiation of the glucose infusion to rates that did not differ on the GLP-1 and saline study days. Suppression of endogenous glucose production also was comparable on the GLP-1 and saline study days during both the basal (-2.7 +/- 0.3 vs. -3.1 +/- 0.2 micromol/kg) and prandial (-3.1 +/- 0.4 vs. -3.0 +/- 0.6 pmol/kg) insulin infusions. We conclude that when insulin and glucagon concentrations are matched, GLP-1 has negligible effects on either insulin action or glucose effectiveness in people with type 2 diabetes. These data strongly support the concept that GLP-1 improves glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes by increasing insulin secretion, by inhibiting glucagon secretion, and by delaying gastric emptying rather than by altering extrapancreatic glucose metabolism.

Highly informative yet simple protocols to assess insulin secretion and action would considerably enhance the quality of epidemiological and large-scale clinical trials. In an effort to develop such protocols, a 5-h, 11-sample oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed in 100 individuals and a 7-h, 21-sample meal in another 100. Plasma glucose, insulin, and C-peptide concentrations were measured. We show that virtually the same minimal model assessment of β-cell responsivity (dynamic [Φd] and static [Φs]), insulin sensitivity (Si), and disposition index (DI) can be obtained with a reduced seven-sample 2-h protocol: Φd, reduced versus full: 871.50 vs. 873.32, r = 0.98 in OGTT and 494.88 vs. 477.99 10−9, r = 0.91 in meal; Φs: 42.36 vs. 44.35, r = 0.88 in OGTT and 35.31 vs. 35.37 10−9 min−1, r = 0.90 in meal; Si: 24.33 vs. 22.77 10−5 dl · kg−1 · min−1 per pmol/l, r = 0.89 in OGTT and 19.03 vs. 19.77 10−5 dl · kg−1 · min−1 per pmol/l, r = 0.85 in meal; and DI: 1,282.26 vs. 1,273.23, r = 0.84 in OGTT and 726.92 vs. 776.97 10−14 dl · kg−1 · min−2 per pmol/l, r = 0.84 in meal. This reduced protocol will facilitate the study of insulin secretion and action under physiological conditions in nondiabetic humans.

To determine if dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) replacement improves insulin secretion, insulin action, and/or postprandial glucose metabolism, 112 elderly subjects with relative DHEA deficiency ingested a labeled mixed meal and underwent a frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test before and after 2 years of either DHEA or placebo. Despite restoring DHEA sulphate concentrations to values observed in young men and women, the changes over time in fasting and postprandial glucose concentrations, meal appearance, glucose disposal, and endogenous glucose production were identical to those observed after 2 years of placebo. The change over time in postmeal and intravenous glucose tolerance test insulin and C-peptide concentrations did not differ in men treated with DHEA or placebo. In contrast, postmeal and intravenous glucose tolerance test change over time in insulin and C-peptide concentrations were greater (P < 0.05) in women after DHEA than after placebo. However, since DHEA tended to decrease insulin action, the change over time in disposition indexes did not differ between DHEA- and placebo-treated women, indicating that the slight increase in insulin secretion was a compensatory response to a slight decrease in insulin action. We conclude that 2 years of replacement of DHEA in elderly men and women does not improve insulin secretion, insulin action, or the pattern of postprandial glucose metabolism.

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.