CONTEXT: It is unclear whether the pattern of GH delivery to peripheral tissues has important effects. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the effects of pulsatile vs. continuous administration of GH upon metabolic and IGF-I parameters in obese subjects. SETTING: The study was conducted at the General Clinical Research Center at the University of Michigan Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS: Four men and five women with abdominal obesity (body mass index, 33 +/- 3 kg/m(2); body fat, 40 +/- 3%) participated in the study. INTERVENTION: GH (0.5 mg/m(2) . d) was given iv for 3 d as: 1) continuous infusion (C); and 2) pulsatile boluses (P) (15% of the dose at 0700, 1300, and 1800 h and 55% at 2400 h). These trials were preceded by a basal period (B) when subjects received normal saline. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of lipolysis and hepatic glucose production were evaluated using stable isotope tracer techniques. The composite index of insulin sensitivity (Matsuda index) was assessed using oral glucose tolerance test. RESULTS: The increase in plasma IGF-I concentrations was greater (P < 0.05) with continuous GH infusion (211 +/- 31, 423 +/- 38, and 309 +/- 34 microg/liter for B, C, and P, respectively). Muscle IGF-I mRNA was significantly increased (P < 0.05) only after the continuous GH infusion (1.2 +/- 0.4, 4.4 +/- 1.3, and 2.3 +/- 0.6 arbitrary units, for B, C, and P, respectively). Only pulsatile GH augmented the rate of lipolysis (4.1 +/- 0.3, 4.8 +/- 0.7, and 7.1 +/- 1.1 mumol/kg . min for B, C, and P, respectively). GH had no effect on hepatic glucose production, but both modes of GH administration were equally effective in impairing insulin sensitivity. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that, in obese subjects, discrete components of GH secretory pattern may differentially affect IGF-I generation and lipolytic responses.
CONTEXT: It is unclear whether the pattern of GH delivery to peripheral tissues has important effects. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the effects of pulsatile vs. continuous administration of GH upon metabolic and IGF-I parameters in obese subjects. SETTING: The study was conducted at the General Clinical Research Center at the University of Michigan Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS: Four men and five women with abdominal obesity (body mass index, 33 +/- 3 kg/m(2); body fat, 40 +/- 3%) participated in the study. INTERVENTION: GH (0.5 mg/m(2) . d) was given iv for 3 d as: 1) continuous infusion (C); and 2) pulsatile boluses (P) (15% of the dose at 0700, 1300, and 1800 h and 55% at 2400 h). These trials were preceded by a basal period (B) when subjects received normal saline. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of lipolysis and hepatic glucose production were evaluated using stable isotope tracer techniques. The composite index of insulin sensitivity (Matsuda index) was assessed using oral glucose tolerance test. RESULTS: The increase in plasma IGF-I concentrations was greater (P < 0.05) with continuous GH infusion (211 +/- 31, 423 +/- 38, and 309 +/- 34 microg/liter for B, C, and P, respectively). Muscle IGF-I mRNA was significantly increased (P < 0.05) only after the continuous GH infusion (1.2 +/- 0.4, 4.4 +/- 1.3, and 2.3 +/- 0.6 arbitrary units, for B, C, and P, respectively). Only pulsatile GH augmented the rate of lipolysis (4.1 +/- 0.3, 4.8 +/- 0.7, and 7.1 +/- 1.1 mumol/kg . min for B, C, and P, respectively). GH had no effect on hepatic glucose production, but both modes of GH administration were equally effective in impairing insulin sensitivity. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that, in obese subjects, discrete components of GH secretory pattern may differentially affect IGF-I generation and lipolytic responses.
Authors: A M Rosenfalck; S Maghsoudi; S Fisker; J O Jørgensen; J S Christiansen; J Hilsted; A A Vølund; S Madsbad Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: T Laursen; C H Gravholt; L Heickendorff; J Drustrup; A M Kappelgaard; J O Jørgensen; J S Christiansen Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Steen Nielsen; Jens O L Jørgensen; Tore Hartmund; Helene Nørrelund; K S Nair; Jens Sandahl Christiansen; Niels Møller Journal: Growth Horm IGF Res Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 2.372
Authors: Craig A Jaffe; D Kim Turgeon; Kenneth Lown; Roberta Demott-Friberg; Paul B Watkins Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: M Russell-Aulet; E V Dimaraki; C A Jaffe; R DeMott-Friberg; A L Barkan Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Eleni V Dimaraki; Craig A Jaffe; Roberta DeMott-Friberg; William F Chandler; Ariel L Barkan Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: C Höybye; V Chandramouli; S Efendic; A-L Hulting; B R Landau; W C Schumann; A Wajngot Journal: Horm Metab Res Date: 2008-03-31 Impact factor: 2.936
Authors: Christina Koutsari; Rita Basu; Robert A Rizza; K Sreekumaran Nair; Sundeep Khosla; Michael D Jensen Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Christopher L Mendias; Elizabeth R Sibilsky Enselman; Adam M Olszewski; Jonathan P Gumucio; Daniel L Edon; Maxwell A Konnaris; James E Carpenter; Tariq M Awan; Jon A Jacobson; Joel J Gagnier; Ariel L Barkan; Asheesh Bedi Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Andrea S Cornford; Ariel L Barkan; Alexander Hinko; Jeffrey F Horowitz Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2012-09-25 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: Takara L Stanley; Cindy Y Chen; Karen L Branch; Hideo Makimura; Steven K Grinspoon Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2010-10-13 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Manuel D Gahete; José Córdoba-Chacón; Qing Lin; Jens C Brüning; C Ronald Kahn; Justo P Castaño; Helen Christian; Raúl M Luque; Rhonda D Kineman Journal: Endocrinology Date: 2013-05-13 Impact factor: 4.736
Authors: Gwendolyn A Thomas; William J Kraemer; Brett A Comstock; Courtenay Dunn-Lewis; Carl M Maresh; Jeff S Volek Journal: Sports Med Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 11.136