In type-2 diabetes, the overall incretin effect is reduced. The present investigation was designed to compare insulinotropic actions of exogenous incretin hormones (gastric inhibitory peptide [GIP] and glucagon-like peptide 1 [GLP-1] [7-36 amide]) in nine type-2 diabetic patients (fasting plasma glucose 7.8 mmol/liter; hemoglobin A1c 6.3 +/- 0.6%) and in nine age- and weight-matched normal subjects. Synthetic human GIP (0.8 and 2.4 pmol/kg.min over 1 h each), GLP-1 [7-36 amide] (0.4 and 1.2 pmol/kg.min over 1 h each), and placebo were administered under hyperglycemic clamp conditions (8.75 mmol/liter) in separate experiments. Plasma GIP and GLP-1 [7-36 amide] concentrations (radioimmunoassay) were comparable to those after oral glucose with the low, and clearly supraphysiological with the high infusion rates. Both GIP and GLP-1 [7-36 amide] dose-dependently augmented insulin secretion (insulin, C-peptide) in both groups (P < 0.05). With GIP, the maximum effect in type-2 diabetic patients was significantly lower (by 54%; P < 0.05) than in normal subjects. With GLP-1 [7-36 amide] type-2 diabetic patients reached 71% of the increments in C-peptide of normal subjects (difference not significant). Glucagon was lowered during hyperglycemic clamps in normal subjects, but not in type-2 diabetic patients, and further by GLP-1 [7-36 amide] in both groups (P < 0.05), but not by GIP. In conclusion, in mild type-2 diabetes, GLP-1 [7-36 amide], in contrast to GIP, retains much of its insulinotropic activity. It also lowers glucagon concentrations.
M A Nauck, M M Heimesaat, C Orskov, J J Holst, R Ebert, W Creutzfeldt
Usage data is cumulative from November 2023 through November 2024.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 2,548 | 19 |
276 | 277 | |
Scanned page | 554 | 203 |
Citation downloads | 112 | 0 |
Totals | 3,490 | 499 |
Total Views | 3,989 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.