Citations

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.

OBJECTIVE—Multiple daily insulin injection programs are commonly accompanied by considerable glycemic variation and hypoglycemia. We conducted a randomized crossover design clinical trial to compare glargine with ultralente insulin as a basal insulin in type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—To determine whether the use of glargine insulin as a basal insulin would result in a comparable HbA1c and less glycemic variation and hypoglycemia than ultralente insulin, 22 individuals (aged 44 ± 14 years [±SD], 55% men) with type 1 diabetes who were experienced with multiple daily insulin injections and had an HbA1c of <7.8% were randomized in a crossover design to receive either glargine or ultralente as the basal insulin for 4 months. Aspart insulin was used as the prandial insulin. Physicians providing insulin dose adjustment advice were masked to the type of basal insulin. RESULTS—Treatment with glargine resulted in lower mean HbA1c (6.82 ± 0.13 vs. 7.02 ± 0.13, difference: 0.2 ± 0.08, P = 0.026), less nocturnal variability (plasma glucose 49.06 ± 4.74 vs. 62.36 ± 5.21 mg/dl, P = 0.04), and less hypoglycemia (24.5 ± 2.99 vs. 31.3 ± 4.04 events, P = 0.05), primarily due to less daytime hypoglycemia (P = 0.002). On the other hand, serious hypoglycemia and average glucose concentration measured with continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring did not differ. CONCLUSIONS—We conclude that while use of either ultralente or glargine as a basal insulin can result in excellent glycemic control, treatment with glargine is associated with slightly but significantly lower HbA1c and less nocturnal glycemic variability and hypoglycemia.

OBJECTIVES— To systematically review the incidence of posttransplantation diabetes (PTD), risk factors for its development, prognostic implications, and optimal management.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS— We searched databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and others) from inception to September 2000, reviewed bibliographies in reports retrieved, contacted transplantation experts, and reviewed specialty journals. Two reviewers independently determined report inclusion (original studies, in all languages, of PTD in adults with no history of diabetes before transplantation), assessed study methods, and extracted data using a standardized form. Meta-regression was used to explain between-study differences in incidence.RESULTS— Nineteen studies with 3,611 patients were included. The 12-month cumulative incidence of PTD is lower (<10% in most studies) than it was 3 decades ago. The type of immunosuppression explained 74% of the variability in incidence (P = 0.0004). Risk factors were patient age, nonwhite ethnicity, glucocorticoid treatment for rejection, and immunosuppression with high-dose cyclosporine and tacrolimus. PTD was associated with decreased graft and patient survival in earlier studies; later studies showed improved outcomes. Randomized trials of treatment regimens have not been conducted.CONCLUSIONS— Physicians should consider modification of immunosuppressive regimens to decrease the risk of PTD in high-risk transplant recipients. Randomized trials are needed to evaluate the use of oral glucose-lowering agents in transplant recipients, paying particular attention to interactions with immunosuppressive drugs.

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.

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.

To determine the effects of age and sex on the regulation of postprandial glucose metabolism, glucose turnover, insulin secretion, insulin action, and hepatic insulin extraction were concurrently measured in 145 healthy elderly (aged 70 ± 1 years) and in 58 young (aged 28 ± 1 years) men and women before and after ingestion of a mixed meal containing [1-13C]glucose. At the time of meal ingestion, [6-3H]glucose and [6,6-2H2]glucose were infused intravenously to enable concurrent measurement of the rates of postprandial endogenous glucose production (EGP), meal appearance, and glucose disappearance. Fasting and postprandial glucose concentrations were higher (P < 0.001) in both elderly women and elderly men compared with young individuals of the same sex. The higher postprandial glucose concentrations in the elderly than young women were caused by higher rates of meal appearance (P < 0.01) and slightly lower (P < 0.05) rates of glucose disappearance immediately after eating. In contrast, higher glucose concentrations in the elderly than young men were solely due to decreased (P < 0.001) glucose disappearance. Although postprandial glucose concentrations did not differ in elderly women and elderly men, rates of meal appearance and glucose disappearance rates both were higher (P < 0.001) in the women. Fasting EGP was higher (P < 0.05) in elderly than young subjects of both sexes and in women than men regardless of age. On the other hand, postprandial suppression of EGP was rapid all groups. Insulin action and secretion were lower (P < 0.001) in the elderly than young men but did not differ in the elderly and young women. This resulted in lower (P < 0.001) meal disposition indexes in elderly than young men but no difference in elderly and young women. Total meal disposition indexes were lower (P < 0.05) in elderly men than elderly women, indicating impaired insulin secretion, whereas disposition indexes were higher (P < 0.05) in young men than young women. Hepatic insulin clearance was greater (P < 0.001) in the elderly than young subjects of both sexes but did not differ between men and women regardless of age. In contrast, the ability of glucose to facilitate its own uptake (glucose effectiveness) was higher (P < 0.001) in women than men but did not differ in elderly and young subjects. Thus, age and sex impact on insulin secretion, insulin action, hepatic insulin extraction, and glucose effectiveness, resulting in substantial differences in the regulation of postprandial glucose metabolism in men and women and in elderly and young subjects.

OBJECTIVE—Pioglitazone, a peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor agonist and glipizide, an insulin secretagogue, are commonly used to treat type 2 diabetes. Our study was designed to examine the effects of pioglitazone versus glipizide on body water, body composition, and hemodynamic parameters in the presence of comparable glycemic control between groups. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We studied 19 diabetic subjects randomly assigned to either 45 mg pioglitazone (n = 8) or 10 mg (median dose) glipizide (n = 11) for 12 weeks. Body water content was measured with deuterated water, body composition by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and computed tomography, and cardiac output and systemic vascular resistance by acetylene rebreathing technique both before and after therapy. RESULTS—Pioglitazone increased (P < 0.001 from baseline) total body water (+2.4 ± 0.5 l) accounting for 75% of the total weight gain (+3.1 ± 2.0 kg) but did not alter vascular endothelial growth factor concentrations. Total abdominal (−32.2 ± 19 cm2) and visceral fat area (−16.1 ± 8 cm2) tended to decrease with pioglitazone but increased (P < 0.02 for differences between groups) with glipizide (+38.4 ± 17 cm2 abdominal; +19.1 ± 9 cm2 visceral). Pioglitazone tended to reduce (P = 0.05) diastolic (−8.4 ± 4 mmHg) and mean (−9.5 ± 5 mmHg; P = 0.08) blood pressure and reduced (P < 0.001) systemic vascular resistance (2,785 ± 336 vs. 2,227 ± 136 dynes/s per m2), while there were no differences in these parameters with glipizide. Neither therapy altered circulating catecholamine concentrations. CONCLUSIONS—When pioglitazone and glipizide are given in doses sufficient to achieve equivalent glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes, pioglitazone increases total body water, thereby accounting for the majority of weight gain, tended to decrease visceral and abdominal fat content and blood pressure, and reduces systemic vascular resistance.