GLP-1 agonists control postprandial glucose and lipid excursion in type 2 diabetes; however the mechanism(s) are unclear.
To determine the mechanism(s) of postprandial lipid and glucose control with lixisenatide (GLP-1 analogue) in type 2 diabetes.
Randomised, double-blind, cross-over study.
Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Research, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK.
Eight obese men with type 2 diabetes (57.3±1.9yrs; BMI 30.3±1.0kg/m2, HbA1C 66.5±2.6mmol/mol, [8.2±0.3%]).
Two metabolic studies, four-weeks after lixisenatide or placebo; with cross-over and repetition of studies.
Study one: very-low density lipoprotein (VLDL) and chylomicron (CM) triacylglycerol (TAG) kinetics were measured with iv bolus of [2H5]glycerol in a 12h study, with hourly feeding. Oral [13C]triolein, in a single meal, labelled enterally-derived TAG. Study two: glucose kinetics were measured with [U-13C]glucose in a mixed-meal (plus acetaminophen to measure gastric emptying) and variable iv [6,6-2H2]glucose infusion.
Study one: CM-TAG (but not VLDL-TAG) pool-size, was lower with lixisenatide (P=0.046). Lixisenatide reduced CM [13C]oleate AUC60-480min concentration (P=0.048) and increased CM-TAG clearance; with no effect on CM-TAG production rate. Study two: postprandial glucose and insulin AUC0-240min were reduced with lixisenatide (P=0.0051, P<0.05). Total glucose production rate (Ra) (P=0.015), Rameal (P=0.0098) and acetaminophen AUC0-360min (P=0.006) were lower with lixisenatide than placebo.
Lixisenatide reduced [13C]oleate concentration, derived from a single meal in CM-TAG, as well as glucose Rameal, through delayed gastric emptying. However day-long CM production, measured with repeated meal-feeding, was not reduced by lixisenatide and decreased CM-TAG concentration was due to increased CM-TAG clearance.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
3
3%
Neuroscience
3
3%
Other
6
6%
Unknown
49
51%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 September 2018.
All research outputs
#9,462,732
of 34,411,289 outputs
Outputs from JCEM
#9,194
of 20,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,893
of 378,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JCEM
#77
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,411,289 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,898 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 378,593 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
