Vilsbøll T, Krarup T, Madsbad S, Holst J J
Department of Internal Medicine F, Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Niels Andersens Vej 65, 2900 Hellerup, Denmark.
Diabetologia. 2002 Aug;45(8):1111-9. doi: 10.1007/s00125-002-0878-6. Epub 2002 Jul 4.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Glucagon-like-peptide-1 (GLP-1) is strongly insulinotropic in patients with Type II (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus, whereas glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) is less effective. Our investigation evaluated "early" (protocol 1) - and "late phase" (protocol 2) insulin and C-peptide responses to GLP-1 and GIP stimulation in patients with Type II diabetes.
Protocol 1: eight Type II diabetic patients and eight matched healthy subjects received i.v. bolus injections of GLP-1(2.5 nmol) or GIP(7.5 nmol) concomitant with an increase of plasma glucose to 15 mmol/l. Protocol 2: eight Type II diabetic patients underwent a hyperglycaemic clamp (15 mmol/l) with infusion (per kg body weight/min) of either: 1 pmol GLP-1 (7-36) amide (n=8), 4 pmol GIP (n=8), 16 pmol GIP (n=4) or no incretin hormone (n=5). For comparison, six matched healthy subjects were examined.
Protocol 1: Type II diabetic patients were characterised by a decreased "early phase" response to both stimuli, but their relative response to GIP versus GLP-1 stimulation was exactly the same as in healthy subjects [insulin (C-peptide): patients 59+/-9% (74+/-6%) and healthy subjects 62+/-5% (71+/-9%)]. Protocol 2, "Early phase" (0-20 min) insulin response to glucose was delayed and reduced in the patients, but enhanced slightly and similarly by GIP and GLP-1. GLP-1 augmented the "late phase" (20-120 min) insulin secretion to levels similar to those observed in healthy subjects. In contrast, the "late phase" responses to both doses of GIP were not different from those obtained with glucose alone. Accordingly, glucose infusion rates required to maintain the hyperglycaemic clamp in the "late phase" period (20-120 min) were similar with glucose alone and glucose plus GIP, whereas a doubling of the infusion rate was required during GLP-1 stimulation.
CONCLUSION/INTERPRETATION: Lack of GIP amplification of the late phase insulin response to glucose, which contrasts markedly to the normalising effect of GLP-1, could be a key defect in insulin secretion in Type II diabetic patients.
目的/假设:胰高血糖素样肽-1(GLP-1)对2型(非胰岛素依赖型)糖尿病患者具有强烈的促胰岛素分泌作用,而葡萄糖依赖性促胰岛素多肽(GIP)的作用则较弱。我们的研究评估了2型糖尿病患者对GLP-1和GIP刺激的“早期”(方案1)及“晚期”(方案2)胰岛素和C肽反应。
方案1:8名2型糖尿病患者和8名匹配的健康受试者静脉推注GLP-1(2.5 nmol)或GIP(7.5 nmol),同时将血浆葡萄糖浓度升至15 mmol/l。方案2:8名2型糖尿病患者接受高血糖钳夹(15 mmol/l),并按以下方式输注(每千克体重每分钟):1 pmol GLP-1(7-36)酰胺(n = 8)、4 pmol GIP(n = 8)、16 pmol GIP(n = 4)或不输注肠促胰岛素激素(n = 5)。作为对照,对6名匹配的健康受试者进行了检查。
方案1:2型糖尿病患者的特点是对两种刺激的“早期”反应均降低,但其对GIP与GLP-1刺激的相对反应与健康受试者完全相同[胰岛素(C肽):患者为59±9%(74±6%),健康受试者为62±5%(71±9%)]。方案2,患者对葡萄糖的“早期”(0-20分钟)胰岛素反应延迟且减弱,但GIP和GLP-1可使其略有增强且程度相似。GLP-1使“晚期”(20-120分钟)胰岛素分泌增加至与健康受试者相似的水平。相反,两种剂量GIP的“晚期”反应与仅用葡萄糖时无差异。因此,在“晚期”(20-120分钟)维持高血糖钳夹所需的葡萄糖输注速率,仅用葡萄糖和葡萄糖加GIP时相似,而在GLP-1刺激期间则需要加倍。
结论/解读:GIP缺乏对葡萄糖晚期胰岛素反应的放大作用,这与GLP-1的正常化作用形成鲜明对比,可能是2型糖尿病患者胰岛素分泌的关键缺陷。