Jonatan I. Bagger

Impaired Regulation of the Incretin Effect in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE In healthy subjects, the incretin effect during an oral glucose tolerance test increases with the size of glucose load, resulting in similar glucose excursions independently of the glucose loads. Whether patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are able to regulate their incretin effect is unknown. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Incretin effect was measured over 6 d by means of three 4-h oral glucose tolerance test with increasing glucose loads (25, 75, and 125 g) and three corresponding isoglycemic iv glucose infusions in eight patients with T2DM [fasting plasma glucose, mean 7.7 (range 7.0-8.9) mM; glycosylated hemoglobin, 7.0% (6.2-8.4%)] and eight matched healthy control subjects [fasting plasma glucose, 5.3 (4.8-5.7) mM; glycosylated hemoglobin, 5.4% (5.0-5.7%)]. RESULTS Patients with T2DM exhibited higher peak plasma glucose in response to increasing oral glucose loads, whereas no differences in peak plasma glucose values among control subjects were observed. The incretin effect was significantly (P < 0.003) lower in patients with T2DM (0 ± 7, 11 ± 9, and 36 ± 5%) as compared with control subjects (36 ± 5, 53 ± 6, and 65 ± 6%). Equal and progressively delayed gastric emptying due to the increasing loads was found in both groups. Incretin hormone responses were similar. CONCLUSIONS Up-regulation of the incretin effect in response to increasing oral glucose loads seems to be crucial for controlling glucose excursions in healthy subjects. Patients with T2DM are characterized by an impaired capability to regulate their incretin effect, which may contribute to the exaggerated glucose excursions after oral ingestion of glucose in these patients.

The separate and combined impact of the intestinal hormones, GIP, GLP-1, and GLP-2, on glucagon secretion in type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with reduced suppression of glucagon during oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), whereas isoglycemic intravenous glucose infusion (IIGI) results in normal glucagon suppression in these patients. We examined the role of the intestinal hormones glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), and glucagon-like peptide-2 (GLP-2) in this discrepancy. Glucagon responses were measured during a 3-h 50-g OGTT (day A) and an IIGI (day B) in 10 patients with T2DM [age (mean ± SE), 51 ± 3 yr; body mass index, 33 ± 2 kg/m(2); HbA(1c), 6.5 ± 0.2%]. During four additional IIGIs, GIP (day C), GLP-1 (day D), GLP-2 (day E) and a combination of the three (day F) were infused intravenously. Isoglycemia during all six study days was obtained. As expected, no suppression of glucagon occurred during the initial phase of the OGTT, whereas significantly (P < 0.05) lower plasma levels of glucagon during the first 30 min of the IIGI (day B) were observed. The glucagon response during the IIGI + GIP + GLP-1 + GLP-2 infusion (day F) equaled the inappropriate glucagon response to OGTT (P = not significant). The separate GIP infusion (day C) elicited significant hypersecretion of glucagon, whereas GLP-1 infusion (day D) resulted in enhancement of glucagon suppression during IIGI. IIGI + GLP-2 infusion (day E) resulted in a glucagon response in the midrange between the glucagon responses to OGTT and IIGI. Our results indicate that the intestinal hormones, GIP, GLP-1, and GLP-2, may play a role in the inappropriate glucagon response to orally ingested glucose in T2DM with, especially, GIP, acting to increase glucagon secretion.

Glucagon antagonism as a potential therapeutic target in type 2 diabetes.

Glucagon is a hormone secreted from the alpha cells of the pancreatic islets. Through its effect on hepatic glucose production (HGP), glucagon plays a central role in the regulation of glucose homeostasis. In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), abnormal regulation of glucagon secretion has been implicated in the development of fasting and postprandial hyperglycaemia. Therefore, new therapeutic agents based on antagonizing glucagon action, and hence blockade of glucagon‐induced HGP, could be effective in lowering both fasting and postprandial hyperglycaemia in patients with T2DM. This review focuses on the mechanism of action, safety and efficacy of glucagon antagonists in the treatment of T2DM and discusses the challenges associated with this new potential antidiabetic treatment modality.

Reduced glucose tolerance and insulin resistance induced by steroid treatment, relative physical inactivity, and high-calorie diet impairs the incretin effect in healthy subjects.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS The loss of incretin effect in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus may be secondary to impaired glucose homeostasis. We investigated whether reduced glucose tolerance and insulin resistance induced by steroid treatment, relative physical inactivity, and high-calorie diet in healthy young males would impair the incretin effect. METHODS The incretin effect was measured using 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and isoglycemic iv glucose infusion (IIGI) in 10 healthy Caucasian normal glucose-tolerant male subjects without any family history of diabetes [age 24 + or - 3 yr (mean + or - sd); body mass index 23 + or - 2 kg/m(2); glycosylated hemoglobin 5.4 + or - 0.1%] before and at the end of a 12-d period with oral administration of prednisolone (37.5 mg once daily), high-calorie diet, and relative physical inactivity. RESULTS The 12-d intervention period resulted in significant increases in body weight [79 + or - 5 vs. 80 + or - 6 kg (mean + or - sd), P = 0.03] and fasting plasma glucose (5.1 + or - 0.1 vs. 5.6 + or - 0.2 mm, P = 0.016), whereas insulin sensitivity (Matsuda index 17.6 + or - 1.7 vs. 9.2 + or - 1.0, P = 0.0001) decreased. Glucose tolerance [as assessed by the 120-min plasma glucose value after OGTT (4.9 + or - 1.1 vs. 7.8 + or - 2.5 mm, P < 0.0001) and area under curve (AUC) (152 + or - 45 vs. 384 + or - 53 mm.4 h, P = 0.002)] during the OGTT deteriorated. Also, the incretin effect [incretin effect (percent) = 100% x (AUC(insulin,OGTT) - AUC(insulin,IIGI))/AUC(insulin,OGTT))] deteriorated (72 + or - 5 vs. 43 + or - 7%, P = 0.002). An increase in glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide response during OGTT, but no significant changes in glucagon-like peptide-1 or glucagon responses, was observed after glucose homeostatic dysregulation. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION Impairment of the incretin effect can be elicited by a short period of reduced glucose tolerance and insulin resistance in healthy male subjects not disposed for type 2 diabetes.

Evidence of Extrapancreatic Glucagon Secretion in Man.

Glucagon is believed to be a pancreas-specific hormone, and hyperglucagonemia has been shown to contribute significantly to the hyperglycemic state of patients with diabetes. This hyperglucagonemia has been thought to arise from α-cell insensitivity to suppressive effects of glucose and insulin combined with reduced insulin secretion. We hypothesized that postabsorptive hyperglucagonemia represents a gut-dependent phenomenon and subjected 10 totally pancreatectomized patients and 10 healthy control subjects to a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test and a corresponding isoglycemic intravenous glucose infusion. We applied novel analytical methods of plasma glucagon (sandwich ELISA and mass spectrometry–based proteomics) and show that 29–amino acid glucagon circulates in patients without a pancreas and that glucose stimulation of the gastrointestinal tract elicits significant hyperglucagonemia in these patients. These findings emphasize the existence of extrapancreatic glucagon (perhaps originating from the gut) in man and suggest that it may play a role in diabetes secondary to total pancreatectomy.

Glucagon and Type 2 Diabetes: the Return of the Alpha Cell

In normal physiology, glucagon from pancreatic alpha cells plays an important role in maintaining glucose homeostasis via its regulatory effect on hepatic glucose production. Patients with type 2 diabetes suffer from fasting and postprandial hyperglucagonemia, which stimulate hepatic glucose production and, thus, contribute to the hyperglycemia characterizing these patients. Although this has been known for years, research focusing on alpha cell (patho)physiology has historically been dwarfed by research on beta cells and insulin. Today the mechanisms behind type 2 diabetic hyperglucagonemia are still poorly understood. Preclinical and clinical studies have shown that the gastrointestinal hormone glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) might play an important role in this pathophysiological phenomenon. Furthermore, it has become apparent that suppression of glucagon secretion or antagonization of the glucagon receptor constitutes potentially effective treatment strategies for patients with type 2 diabetes. In this review, we focus on the regulation of glucagon secretion by the incretin hormones glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and GIP. Furthermore, potential advantages and limitations of suppressing glucagon secretion or antagonizing the glucagon receptor, respectively, in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes will be discussed.

Impaired Incretin-Induced Amplification of Insulin Secretion after Glucose Homeostatic Dysregulation in Healthy Subjects

OBJECTIVE The insulinotropic effect of the incretin hormones, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) is impaired in patients with type 2 diabetes. It remains unclear whether this impairment is a primary pathophysiological trait or a consequence of developing diabetes. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the insulinotropic effect of GIP and GLP-1 compared with placebo before and after 12 d of glucose homeostatic dysregulation in healthy subjects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS The insulinotropic effect was measured using hyperglycemic clamps and infusion of physiological doses of GIP, GLP-1, or saline in 10 healthy Caucasian males before and after intervention using a high-calorie diet, sedentary lifestyle, and administration of prednisolone (37.5 mg once daily) for 12 d. RESULTS The intervention resulted in increased insulin resistance according to the homeostatic model assessment (1.2 ± 0.2 vs. 2.6 ± 0.5, P = 0.01), and glucose tolerance deteriorated as assessed by the area under curve for plasma glucose during a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (730 ± 30 vs. 846 ± 57 mm for 2 h, P = 0.021). The subjects compensated for the change in insulin resistance by significantly increasing their postintervention insulin responses during saline infusion by 2.9 ± 0.5-fold (P = 0.001) but were unable to do so in response to incretin hormones (which caused insignificant increases of only 1.78 ± 0.3 and 1.38 ± 0.3-fold, P value not significant). CONCLUSIONS These data show that impairment of the insulinotropic effect of both GIP and GLP-1 can be induced in healthy male subjects without risk factors for type 2 diabetes, indicating that the reduced insulinotropic effect of the incretin hormones observed in type 2 diabetes most likely is a consequence of insulin resistance and glucose intolerance rather than a primary event causing the disease.

The Alpha-Cell as Target for Type 2 Diabetes Therapy

Glucagon is the main secretory product of the pancreatic alpha-cells. The main function of this peptide hormone is to provide sustained glucose supply to the brain and other vital organs during fasting conditions. This is exerted by stimulation of hepatic glucose production via specific G protein-coupled receptors in the hepatocytes. Type 2 diabetic patients are characterized by elevated glucagon levels contributing decisively to hyperglycemia in these patients. Accumulating evidence demonstrates that targeting the pancreatic alpha-cell and its main secretory product glucagon is a possible treatment for type 2 diabetes. Several lines of preclinical evidence have paved the way for the development of drugs, which suppress glucagon secretion or antagonize the glucagon receptor. In this review, the physiological actions of glucagon and the role of glucagon in type 2 diabetic pathophysiology are outlined. Furthermore, potential advantages and limitations of antagonizing the glucagon receptor or suppressing glucagon secretion in the treatment of type 2 diabetes are discussed with a focus on already marketed drugs and drugs in clinical development. It is concluded that the development of novel glucagon receptor antagonists are confronted with several safety issues. At present, available pharmacological agents based on the glucose-dependent glucagonostatic effects of GLP-1 represent the most favorable way to apply constraints to the alpha-cell in type 2 diabetes.

Increased postprandial GIP and glucagon responses, but unaltered GLP-1 response after intervention with steroid hormone, relative physical inactivity, and high-calorie diet in healthy subjects.

OBJECTIVE Increased postprandial glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon responses and reduced postprandial glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) responses have been observed in some patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The causality of these pathophysiological traits is unknown. We aimed to determine the impact of insulin resistance and reduced glucose tolerance on postprandial GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon responses in healthy subjects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A 4-h 2200 KJ-liquid meal test was performed in 10 healthy Caucasian males without family history of diabetes [age, 24 ± 3 yr (mean ± sd); body mass index, 24 ± 2 kg/m(2); fasting plasma glucose, 4.9 ± 0.3 mm; hemoglobin A(1)c, 5.4 ± 0.1%] before and after intervention using high-calorie diet, relative physical inactivity, and administration of prednisolone (37.5 mg/d) for 12 d. RESULTS The intervention resulted in insulin resistance according to the homeostatic model assessment [1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 2.3 (mean ± SEM) ± 1.3; P = 0.02] and increased postprandial glucose excursions [area under curve (AUC), 51 ± 28 vs. 161 ± 32 mm · 4 h; P = 0.045], fasting plasma insulin (36 ± 3 vs. 61 ± 6 pm; P = 0.02), and postprandial insulin responses (AUC, 22 ± 6 vs. 43 ± 13 nm · 4 h; P = 0.03). This disruption of glucose homeostasis had no impact on postprandial GLP-1 responses (AUC, 1.5 ± 0.7 vs. 2.0 ± 0.5 nm · 4 h; P = 0.56), but resulted in exaggerated postprandial GIP (6.2 ± 1.0 vs. 10.0 ± 1.3 nm · 4 h; P = 0.003) and glucagon responses (1.6 ± 1.5 vs. 2.4 ± 3.2; P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS These data suggest that increased postprandial GIP and glucagon responses may occur as a consequence of insulin resistance and/or reduced glucose tolerance. Our data suggest that acute disruption of glucose homeostasis does not result in reduced postprandial GLP-1 responses as observed in some individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Glucose-Lowering Effects and Low Risk of Hypoglycemia in Patients With Maturity-Onset Diabetes of the Young When Treated With a GLP-1 Receptor Agonist: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Crossover Trial

OBJECTIVE The most common form of maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY), hepatocyte nuclear factor 1α (HNF1A diabetes: MODY3) is often treated with sulfonylureas that confer a high risk of hypoglycemia. We evaluated treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) in patients with HNF1A diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Sixteen patients with HNF1A diabetes (8 women; mean age 39 years [range 23–67 years]; BMI 24.9 ± 0.5 kg/m2 [mean ± SEM]; fasting plasma glucose [FPG] 9.9 ± 0.9 mmol/L; HbA1c 6.4 ± 0.2% [47 ± 3 mmol/mol]) received 6 weeks of treatment with a GLP-1RA (liraglutide) and placebo (tablets), as well as a sulfonylurea (glimepiride) and placebo (injections), in randomized order, in a double-blind, crossover trial. Glimepiride was up-titrated once weekly in a treat-to-target manner; liraglutide was up-titrated once weekly to 1.8 mg once daily. At baseline and at the end of each treatment period a standardized liquid meal test was performed, including a 30-min light bicycle test. RESULTS FPG decreased during the treatment periods (−1.6 ± 0.5 mmol/L liraglutide [P = 0.012] and −2.8 ± 0.7 mmol/L glimepiride [P = 0.003]), with no difference between treatments (P = 0.624). Postprandial plasma glucose (PG) responses (total area under the curve) were lower with both glimepiride (2,136 ± 292 min × mmol/L) and liraglutide (2,624 ± 340 min × mmol/L) compared with baseline (3,127 ± 291 min × mmol/L; P < 0.001, glimepiride; P = 0.017, liraglutide), with no difference between treatments (P = 0.121). Eighteen episodes of hypoglycemia (PG ≤3.9 mmol/L) occurred during glimepiride treatment and one during liraglutide treatment. CONCLUSIONS Six weeks of treatment with glimepiride or liraglutide lowered FPG and postprandial glucose excursions in patients with HNF1A diabetes. The glucose-lowering effect was greater with glimepiride at the expense of a higher risk of exclusively mild hypoglycemia.