Citations

OBJECTIVE Glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 receptor is encoded by GLP1R. The effect of genetic variation at this locus on the response to GLP-1 is unknown. This study assessed the effect of GLP1R polymorphisms on insulin secretion in response to hyperglycemia and to infused GLP-1 in nondiabetic subjects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Eighty-eight healthy individuals (aged 26.3 ± 0.6 years, fasting glucose 4.83 ± 0.04 mmol/l) were studied using a hyperglycemic clamp. GLP-1 was infused for the last 2 h of the study (0.75 pmol/kg/min over 121–180 min, 1.5 pmol/kg/min over 181–240 min). β-Cell responsivity (ΦTotal) was measured using a C-peptide minimal model. The effect of 21 tag single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in GLP1R on ΦTotal was examined. RESULTS Two SNPs (rs6923761 and rs3765467) were nominally associated with altered β-cell responsivity in response to GLP-1 infusion. CONCLUSIONS Variation in GLP1R may alter insulin secretion in response to exogenous GLP-1. Future studies will determine whether such variation accounts for interindividual differences in response to GLP-1–based therapy.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1)-based therapies for diabetes have aroused interest because of their effects on insulin secretion and glycemic control. However, a mechanistic model enabling quantitation of pancreatic response to GLP-1 has never been developed. To develop such a model we studied 88 healthy individuals (age 26.3 ± 0.6 yr, BMI 24.9 ± 0.4 kg/m 2 ) by use of a hyperglycemic clamp. A variable infusion maintained glucose concentrations at 150 mg/dl for 240 min. At 120 min, an intravenous infusion of GLP-1 was started (0.75 pmol·kg −1 ·min −1 from 120–180 min, 1.5 pmol·kg −1 ·min −1 from 181–240 min). Consequently, plasma C-peptide concentration rose from 1,852.0 ± 62.8 pmol/l at 120 min to 4,272.2 ± 176.4 pmol/l at 180 min and to 6,995.8 ± 323.5 pmol/l at 240 min. Four models of GLP-1 action on insulin secretion were considered. All models share the common assumption that insulin secretion is made up of two components, one proportional to glucose rate of change through dynamic responsivity, Φ d , and one proportional to glucose through static responsivity, Φ s , but differing by modality of GLP-1 control. The model that best fit C-peptide data assumes that above-basal insulin secretion depends linearly on GLP-1 concentration and its rate of change. An index (Π) measuring the percentage increase of secretion due to GLP-1 is derived. Before GLP-1 infusion, Φ d = 245.7 ± 15.6 10 −9 and Φ s = 25.2 ± 1.4 10 −9 min −1 . Under GLP-1 stimulus, Π = 12.6 ± 0.71% per pmol/l, meaning that an increase of 5 pmol/l in peripheral GLP-1 concentrations induces an ∼60% increase in over-basal insulin secretion.

OBJECTIVE In this study, we sought to determine whether postprandial insulin secretion, insulin action, glucose effectiveness, and glucose turnover were abnormal in type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Fourteen subjects with type 2 diabetes and 11 nondiabetic subjects matched for age, weight, and BMI underwent a mixed-meal test using the triple-tracer technique. Indexes of insulin secretion, insulin action, and glucose effectiveness were assessed using the oral “minimal” and C-peptide models. RESULTS Fasting and postprandial glucose concentrations were higher in the diabetic than nondiabetic subjects. Although peak insulin secretion was delayed (P < 0.001) and lower (P < 0.05) in type 2 diabetes, the integrated total postprandial insulin response did not differ between groups. Insulin action, insulin secretion, disposition indexes, and glucose effectiveness all were lower (P < 0.05) in diabetic than in nondiabetic subjects. Whereas the rate of meal glucose appearance did not differ between groups, the percent suppression of endogenous glucose production (EGP) was slightly delayed and the increment in glucose disappearance was substantially lower (P < 0.01) in diabetic subjects during the first 3 h after meal ingestion. Together, these defects resulted in an excessive rise in postprandial glucose concentrations in the diabetic subjects. CONCLUSIONS When measured using methods that avoid non–steady-state error, the rate of appearance of ingested glucose was normal and suppression of EGP was only minimally impaired. However, when considered in light of the prevailing glucose concentration, both were abnormal. In contrast, rates of postprandial glucose disappearance were substantially decreased due to defects in insulin secretion, insulin action, and glucose effectiveness.

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—We sought to determine whether, and if so the mechanism by which, testosterone replacement improves carbohydrate tolerance. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Fifty-five elderly men with relative testosterone deficiency ingested a labeled mixed meal and underwent a frequently sampled labeled intravenous glucose tolerance test before and after either placebo or treatment with testosterone patch (5 mg/day) for 2 years. RESULTS—Despite restoring bioavailable testosterone to values observed in young men, the change (24 months minus baseline values) in fasting and postprandial glucose, insulin, and C-peptide concentrations and meal appearance, glucose disposal, and endogenous glucose production were virtually identical to those observed after 2 years of placebo. The change over time in insulin and C-peptide concentrations post–intravenous glucose injection also did not differ. Furthermore, the change over time in insulin action and glucose effectiveness (measured with the unlabeled and labeled “oral” and “intravenous” minimal models), as well as insulin secretion and hepatic insulin clearance (measured with the C-peptide model), did not differ in the testosterone and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS—We conclude that 2 years of treatment with testosterone in elderly men does not improve carbohydrate tolerance or alter insulin secretion, insulin action, glucose effectiveness, hepatic insulin clearance, or the pattern of postprandial glucose metabolism. Thus, testosterone deficiency is unlikely the cause of the age-associated deterioration in glucose tolerance commonly observed in elderly men.

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.

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.