Fernandez Marianella, Triplitt Curtis, Wajcberg Estela, Sriwijilkamol Apiradee A, Musi Nicholas, Cusi Kenneth, DeFronzo Ralph, Cersosimo Eugenio
Texas Diabetes Institute, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Diabetes Care. 2008 Jan;31(1):121-7. doi: 10.2337/dc07-0711. Epub 2007 Oct 1.
We examined the relationship between glycemic control, vascular reactivity, and inflammation in type 2 diabetic subjects.
Thirty subjects with type 2 diabetes were initiated on intensive insulin therapy (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [n = 12] or multiple daily injections [n = 18]) and then randomized to either pioglitazone (PIO group;45 mg/day), ramipril (RAM group; 10 mg/day), or placebo (PLC group) for 36 weeks. Euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamp was used to quantify insulin resistance, and plethysmography was used to assess changes in forearm blood flow (FBF) after 1) 5 min of reactive hyperemia and 2) brachial artery infusion of acetylcholine (7.5, 15, and 30 microg/min) and sodium nitroprusside (3 and 10 microg/min).
The decreases in A1C (approximately 9.0-7.0%) and fasting plasma glucose (approximately 190-128 mg/dl) were equal in all groups. In the PIO group, glucose disposal increased from 3.1 to 4.7 mg x kg(-1) x min(-1), and there was a greater decrease in plasma triglycerides ( approximately 148 vs. 123 mg/dl) and free fatty acids (approximately 838 vs. 595 mEq/l) compared with the RAM or PLC groups (P < 0.05). Plasma adiponectin doubled with pioglitazone treatment (6.2 +/- 0.7 to 13.1 +/- 1.8 microg/ml), while endothelin-1 decreased only with ramipril treatment (2.5 +/- 0.2 to 1.1 +/- 0.2 pg/ml) (P < 001). The increase in FBF during reactive hyperemia (215%) and acetylcholine (from 132 to 205%, 216 to 262%, and 222 to 323%) was greater in the PIO versus RAM or PLC groups. In contrast, FBF during sodium nitroprusside treatment was greater in the RAM group (141-221% and 218-336%) compared with the PIO or PLC groups (all P < 0.05).
Addition of pioglitazone or ramipril to intensive insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes further improves vascular dysfunction. Pioglitazone enhances endothelial-mediated vasodilation, whereas ACE inhibition enhances endothelial-independent vasodilation. These different vascular effects, combined with the observation that pioglitazone decreases free fatty acids and triglycerides and increases adiponectin, while ramipril reduces endothelin-1, suggest that different mechanisms underlie the vascular responses.
我们研究了2型糖尿病患者血糖控制、血管反应性和炎症之间的关系。
30例2型糖尿病患者开始接受强化胰岛素治疗(持续皮下胰岛素输注[n = 12]或每日多次注射[n = 18]),然后随机分为吡格列酮组(PIO组;45毫克/天)、雷米普利组(RAM组;10毫克/天)或安慰剂组(PLC组),治疗36周。采用正常血糖-高胰岛素钳夹技术定量胰岛素抵抗,用体积描记法评估在以下情况后前臂血流量(FBF)的变化:1)5分钟反应性充血后;2)肱动脉输注乙酰胆碱(7.5、15和30微克/分钟)和硝普钠(3和10微克/分钟)后。
所有组的糖化血红蛋白(A1C)下降幅度(约9.0%至7.0%)和空腹血糖下降幅度(约190至128毫克/分升)相同。在PIO组,葡萄糖处置率从3.1增加至4.7毫克·千克⁻¹·分钟⁻¹,与RAM组或PLC组相比,血浆甘油三酯下降幅度更大(约148对123毫克/分升),游离脂肪酸下降幅度更大(约838对595毫当量/升)(P < 0.05)。吡格列酮治疗使血浆脂联素增加一倍(6.2±0.7至13.1±1.8微克/毫升),而内皮素-1仅在雷米普利治疗后下降(2.5±0.2至1.1±0.2皮克/毫升)(P < 0.01)。与RAM组或PLC组相比,PIO组在反应性充血期间(215%)和乙酰胆碱输注期间(从132%至205%、216%至262%以及222%至323%)FBF的增加幅度更大。相反,与PIO组或PLC组相比,RAM组在硝普钠治疗期间FBF增加幅度更大(141%至221%和218%至336%)(所有P < 0.05)。
在2型糖尿病强化胰岛素治疗中加用吡格列酮或雷米普利可进一步改善血管功能障碍。吡格列酮增强内皮介导的血管舒张,而血管紧张素转换酶抑制增强非内皮依赖性血管舒张。这些不同的血管效应,再加上观察到吡格列酮降低游离脂肪酸和甘油三酯并增加脂联素,而雷米普利降低内皮素-1,提示血管反应存在不同机制。