Katrine B. Hansen

2-Oleoyl Glycerol Is a GPR119 Agonist and Signals GLP-1 Release in Humans

OBJECTIVE Dietary fat is thought to stimulate release of incretin hormones via activation of fatty acid receptors in the intestine. However, dietary fat (triacylglycerol) is digested to 2-monoacylglycerol and fatty acids. Activation of G protein-coupled receptor 119 (GPR119) stimulates glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) release from the intestinal L-cells. We aimed to investigate if 2-oleoyl glycerol (2OG) can activate GPR119 in vitro and stimulate GLP-1 secretion in vivo. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Agonist activity for various lipids was tested on transiently expressed human GPR119 in COS-7 cells. The effect of a jejunal bolus of 2 g 2OG on plasma levels of GLP-1 was evaluated in eight healthy human volunteers. The effect of 2OG was compared to an equimolar amount of oleic acid, a degradation product from 2OG, and the vehicle, glycerol. Digestion of 5 ml olive oil with pancreatic lipase will result in formation of approximately 2 g 2OG and 3.2 g oleic acid. RESULTS 2OG and other 2-monoacylglycerols increased intracellular concentrations of cAMP in GPR119-expressing COS-7 cells (2OG EC(50) = 2.5 μm). Administration of 2OG to humans significantly increased plasma GLP-1 (0-25 min) when compared to the two controls, oleic acid and vehicle. Plasma levels of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide also increased. CONCLUSION 2OG and other 2-monoacylglycerols formed during fat digestion can activate GPR119 and cause incretin release from the human intestine. This mechanism is likely to contribute to the known stimulatory effect of dietary fat on incretin secretion, and it indicates that GPR119 is a fat sensor.

Treatment of type 2 diabetes with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists

The incretin system is an area of great interest for the development of new therapies for the management of type 2 diabetes. Existing antidiabetic drugs are often insufficient at getting patients to glycaemic goals. Furthermore, current treatment modalities are not able to prevent the continued ongoing decline in pancreatic beta‐cell function and, lastly, they have a number of side effects including hypoglycaemia and weight gain. Glucagon‐like peptide‐1 (GLP‐1) receptor agonists are a new class of pharmacological agents, which improve glucose homeostasis in a multifaceted way. Their effects include potentiation of glucose‐stimulated insulin secretion, glucose‐dependent inhibition of glucagon secretion and reduction in gastric emptying, appetite, food intake and body weight. Additionally, preclinical data suggest that they may preserve beta‐cell mass and function. The incidence of hypoglycaemia with GLP‐1 receptor agonists is low, the compounds have clinically relevant effects on body weight, and data are suggesting beneficial effects on cardiovascular risk factors. Exenatide was released in 2005 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and liraglutide is expected to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration in US and the European Medical Agency in Europe for use in 2009. In this review, the available data on the two drugs are presented and 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.

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.

Incretin mimetics: a novel therapeutic option for patients with type 2 diabetes – a review

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a metabolic disease associated with low quality of life and early death. The goal in diabetes treatment is to prevent these outcomes by tight glycemic control and minimizing vascular risk factors. So far, even intensified combination regimen with the traditional antidiabetes agents have failed to obtain these goals. Incretin mimetics are a new class of antidiabetes drugs which involve modulation of the incretin system. They bind to and activate glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptors on pancreatic beta-cells following which insulin secretion and synthesis are initiated. Since the compounds have no insulinotropic activity at lower glucose concentrations the risk of hypoglycemia – a well-known shortcoming of existing antidiabetes treatments – is low. Additionally, incretin mimetics have been shown to be associated with beneficial effects on cardiovascular risk factors such as weight loss, decrease in blood pressure and changes in lipid profile. Current clinical data on the two available incretin mimetics, exenatide and liraglutide, are evaluated in this review, focusing on pharmacology, efficacy, safety and tolerability. The review is built on a systematic PubMed and Medline search for publications with the key words GLP-1 receptor agonist, exenatide, liraglutide and type 2 diabetes mellitus up to January 2009.

The 2-monoacylglycerol moiety of dietary fat appears to be responsible for the fat-induced release of GLP-1 in humans

BACKGROUND Dietary triglycerides can, after digestion, stimulate the intestinal release of incretin hormones through activation of G protein-coupled receptor (GPR) 119 by 2-monoacylglycerol and by the activation of fatty acid receptors for long- and short-chain fatty acids. Medium-chain fatty acids do not stimulate the release of intestinal hormones. OBJECTIVE To dissect the mechanism of fat-induced glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) release in humans, we compared the effects of tributyrin (containing short-chain fatty acids; i.e., butyric acid), olive oil [containing long-chain fatty acids; e.g., oleic acid plus 2-oleoyl glycerol (2-OG)], and 1,3-dioctanoyl-2-oleoyl glycerol (C8-dietary oil), which is digested to form medium-chain fatty acids : i.e., octanoic acid : and 2-OG. DESIGN In a randomized, single-blinded crossover study, 12 healthy white men [mean age: 24 y; BMI (in kg/m(2)): 22] were given the following 4 meals on 4 different days: 200 g carrots + 6.53 g tributyrin, 200 g carrots + 13.15 g C8-dietary oil, 200 g carrots + 19 g olive oil, or 200 g carrots. All of the lipids totaled 0.0216 mol. Main outcome measures were incremental areas under the curve for total GLP-1, GIP, and cholecystokinin (CCK) in plasma. RESULTS C8-dietary oil and olive oil showed the same GLP-1 response [583 ± 101 and 538 ± 71 (pmol/L) × 120 min; P = 0.733], whereas the GIP response was higher for olive oil than for C8-dietary oil [3293 ± 404 and 1674 ± 270 (pmol/L) × 120 min; P = 0.002]. Tributyrin and carrots alone resulted in no increase in any of the measured hormones. Peptide YY (PYY) and neurotensin responses resembled those of GLP-1. Only olive oil stimulated CCK release. CONCLUSIONS Under our study conditions, 2-OG and GPR119 activation can fully explain the olive oil-induced secretion of GLP-1, PYY, and neurotensin. In contrast, both oleic acid and 2-OG contributed to the GIP response. Dietary butyrate did not stimulate gut hormone secretion. Olive oil-derived oleic acid seems to be fully responsible for olive oil-induced CCK secretion. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02264951.

Effect of an Intensive Lifestyle Intervention on Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance It is unclear whether a lifestyle intervention can maintain glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Objective To test whether an intensive lifestyle intervention results in equivalent glycemic control compared with standard care and, secondarily, leads to a reduction in glucose-lowering medication in participants with type 2 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized, assessor-blinded, single-center study within Region Zealand and the Capital Region of Denmark (April 2015-August 2016). Ninety-eight adult participants with non–insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes who were diagnosed for less than 10 years were included. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1; stratified by sex) to the lifestyle group (n = 64) or the standard care group (n = 34). Interventions All participants received standard care with individual counseling and standardized, blinded, target-driven medical therapy. Additionally, the lifestyle intervention included 5 to 6 weekly aerobic training sessions (duration 30-60 minutes), of which 2 to 3 sessions were combined with resistance training. The lifestyle participants received dietary plans aiming for a body mass index of 25 or less. Participants were followed up for 12 months. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome was change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to 12-month follow-up, and equivalence was prespecified by a CI margin of ±0.4% based on the intention-to-treat population. Superiority analysis was performed on the secondary outcome reductions in glucose-lowering medication. Results Among 98 randomized participants (mean age, 54.6 years [SD, 8.9]; women, 47 [48%]; mean baseline HbA1c, 6.7%), 93 participants completed the trial. From baseline to 12-month follow-up, the mean HbA1c level changed from 6.65% to 6.34% in the lifestyle group and from 6.74% to 6.66% in the standard care group (mean between-group difference in change of −0.26% [95% CI, −0.52% to −0.01%]), not meeting the criteria for equivalence (P = .15). Reduction in glucose-lowering medications occurred in 47 participants (73.5%) in the lifestyle group and 9 participants (26.4%) in the standard care group (difference, 47.1 percentage points [95% CI, 28.6-65.3]). There were 32 adverse events (most commonly musculoskeletal pain or discomfort and mild hypoglycemia) in the lifestyle group and 5 in the standard care group. Conclusions and Relevance Among adults with type 2 diabetes diagnosed for less than 10 years, a lifestyle intervention compared with standard care resulted in a change in glycemic control that did not reach the criterion for equivalence, but was in a direction consistent with benefit. Further research is needed to assess superiority, as well as generalizability and durability of findings. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02417012

Head-to-head comparison of intensive lifestyle intervention (U-TURN) versus conventional multifactorial care in patients with type 2 diabetes: protocol and rationale for an assessor-blinded, parallel group and randomised trial

Introduction Current pharmacological therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are challenged by lack of sustainability and borderline firm evidence of real long-term health benefits. Accordingly, lifestyle intervention remains the corner stone in the management of T2D. However, there is a lack of knowledge regarding the optimal intervention programmes in T2D ensuring both compliance as well as long-term health outcomes. Our objective is to assess the effects of an intensive lifestyle intervention (the U-TURN intervention) on glycaemic control in patients with T2D. Our hypothesis is that intensive lifestyle changes are equally effective as standard diabetes care, including pharmacological treatment in maintaining glycaemic control (ie, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)) in patients with T2D. Furthermore, we expect that intensive lifestyle changes will decrease the need for antidiabetic medications. Methods and analysis The study is an assessor-blinded, parallel group and a 1-year randomised trial. The primary outcome is change in glycaemic control (HbA1c), with the key secondary outcome being reductions in antidiabetic medication. Participants will be patients with T2D (T2D duration <10 years) without complications who are randomised into an intensive lifestyle intervention (U-TURN) or a standard care intervention in a 2:1 fashion. Both groups will be exposed to the same standardised, blinded, target-driven pharmacological treatment and can thus maintain, increase, reduce or discontinue the pharmacological treatment. The decision is based on the standardised algorithm. The U-TURN intervention consists of increased training and basal physical activity level, and an antidiabetic diet including an intended weight loss. The standard care group as well as the U-TURN group is offered individual diabetes management counselling on top of the pharmacological treatment. Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the Scientific Ethical Committee at the Capital Region of Denmark (H-1–2014–114). Positive, negative or inconclusive findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, at national and international conferences. Trial registration number NCT02417012.

Why prescribe exercise as therapy in type 2 diabetes? We have a pill for that!

The majority of T2D cases are preventable through a healthy lifestyle, leaving little room for questions that lifestyle should be the first line of defence in the fight against the development of T2D. However, when it comes to the clinical care of T2D, the potential efficacy of lifestyle is much less clear‐cut, both in terms of impacting the pathological metabolic biomarkers of the disease, and long‐term complications. A healthy diet, high leisure‐time physical activity, and exercise are considered to be cornerstones albeit adjunct to drug therapy in the management of T2D. The prescription and effective implementation of structured exercise and other lifestyle interventions in the treatment of T2D have not been routinely used. In this article, we critically appraise and debate our reflections as to why exercise and physical activity may not have reached the status of a viable and effective treatment in the clinical care of T2D to the same extent as pharmaceutical drugs. We argue that the reason why exercise therapy is not utilized to a satisfactory degree is multifaceted and primarily relates to a “vicious cycle” with lack of proven efficacy on T2D complications and a lack of proven effectiveness on risk factors in the primary care of T2D. Furthermore, there is a lack of experimental research establishing the optimal dose of exercise. This precludes widespread and sustained implementation of physical activity and exercise in the clinical treatment of T2D will not succeed.

Comparing olive oil and C4-dietary oil, a prodrug for the GPR119 agonist, 2-oleoyl glycerol, less energy intake of the latter is needed to stimulate incretin hormone secretion in overweight subjects with type 2 diabetes

Background/objective After digestion, dietary triacylglycerol stimulates incretin release in humans, mainly through generation of 2-monoacylglycerol, an agonist for the intestinal G protein-coupled receptor 119 (GPR119). Enhanced incretin release may have beneficial metabolic effects. However, dietary fat may promote weight gain and should therefore be restricted in obesity. We designed C4-dietary oil (1,3-di-butyryl-2-oleoyl glycerol) as a 2-oleoyl glycerol (2-OG)-generating fat type, which would stimulate incretin release to the same extent while providing less calories than equimolar amounts of common triglycerides, e.g., olive oil.Subjects and methodsWe studied the effect over 180 min of (a) 19 g olive oil plus 200 g carrot, (b) 10.7 g C4 dietary oil plus 200 g carrot and (c) 200 g carrot, respectively, on plasma responses of gut and pancreatic hormones in 13 overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Theoretically, both oil meals result in formation of 7.7 g 2-OG during digestion.ResultsBoth olive oil and C4-dietary oil resulted in greater postprandial (P ≤ 0.01) glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) responses (incremental area under curve (iAUC)): iAUCGLP−1: 645 ± 194 and 702 ± 97 pM × min; iAUCGIP: 4,338 ± 764 and 2,894 ± 601 pM × min) compared to the carrot meal (iAUCGLP−1: 7 ± 103 pM × min; iAUCGIP: 266 ± 234 pM × min). iAUC for GLP-1 and GIP were similar for C4-dietary oil and olive oil, although olive oil resulted in a higher peak value for GIP than C4-dietary oil.ConclusionC4-dietary oil enhanced secretion of GLP-1 and GIP to almost the same extent as olive oil, in spite of liberation of both 2-OG and oleic acid, which also may stimulate incretin secretion, from olive oil. Thus, C4-dietary oil is more effective as incretin releaser than olive oil per unit of energy and may be useful for dietary intervention.