AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We carried out a systematic review of clinical studies investigating glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) secretion in patients with type 2 diabetes and non-diabetic controls and performed meta-analyses of plasma total GLP-1 concentrations during an OGTT and/or meal test. METHODS: Random effects models for the primary meta-analysis and random effects meta-regression, subgroup and regression analyses were applied. RESULTS: Random effects meta-analysis of GLP-1 responses in 22 trials during 29 different stimulation tests showed that patients with type 2 diabetes (n = 275) and controls without type 2 diabetes (n = 279) exhibited similar responses of total GLP-1 (p = NS) as evaluated from peak plasma concentrations (weighted mean difference [95% CI] 1.09 pmol/l [-2.50, 4.67]), total AUC (tAUC) (159 pmol/l × min [-270, 589]), time-corrected tAUC (tAUC min⁻¹) (0.99 pmol/l [-1.28, 3.27]), incremental AUC (iAUC) (-122 pmol/l × min [-410, 165]) and time-corrected iAUC (iAUC min⁻¹) (-0.49 pmol/l [-2.16, 1.17]). Fixed effects meta-analysis revealed higher peak plasma GLP-1 concentrations in patients with type 2 diabetes. Subgroup analysis showed increased responses after a liquid mixed meal test (peak, tAUC and tAUC min⁻¹) and after a 50 g OGTT (AUC and tAUC min⁻¹), and reduced responses after a solid mixed meal test (tAUC min⁻¹) among patients with type 2 diabetes. Meta-regression analyses showed that HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose predicted the outcomes iAUC and iAUC min⁻¹, respectively. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: The present analysis suggests that patients with type 2 diabetes, in general, do not exhibit reduced GLP-1 secretion in response to an OGTT or meal test, and that deteriorating glycaemic control may be associated with reduced GLP-1 secretion.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We carried out a systematic review of clinical studies investigating glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) secretion in patients with type 2 diabetes and non-diabetic controls and performed meta-analyses of plasma total GLP-1 concentrations during an OGTT and/or meal test. METHODS: Random effects models for the primary meta-analysis and random effects meta-regression, subgroup and regression analyses were applied. RESULTS: Random effects meta-analysis of GLP-1 responses in 22 trials during 29 different stimulation tests showed that patients with type 2 diabetes (n = 275) and controls without type 2 diabetes (n = 279) exhibited similar responses of total GLP-1 (p = NS) as evaluated from peak plasma concentrations (weighted mean difference [95% CI] 1.09 pmol/l [-2.50, 4.67]), total AUC (tAUC) (159 pmol/l × min [-270, 589]), time-corrected tAUC (tAUC min⁻¹) (0.99 pmol/l [-1.28, 3.27]), incremental AUC (iAUC) (-122 pmol/l × min [-410, 165]) and time-corrected iAUC (iAUC min⁻¹) (-0.49 pmol/l [-2.16, 1.17]). Fixed effects meta-analysis revealed higher peak plasma GLP-1 concentrations in patients with type 2 diabetes. Subgroup analysis showed increased responses after a liquid mixed meal test (peak, tAUC and tAUC min⁻¹) and after a 50 g OGTT (AUC and tAUC min⁻¹), and reduced responses after a solid mixed meal test (tAUC min⁻¹) among patients with type 2 diabetes. Meta-regression analyses showed that HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose predicted the outcomes iAUC and iAUC min⁻¹, respectively. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: The present analysis suggests that patients with type 2 diabetes, in general, do not exhibit reduced GLP-1 secretion in response to an OGTT or meal test, and that deteriorating glycaemic control may be associated with reduced GLP-1 secretion.
Authors: Jerry R Greenfield; I Sadaf Farooqi; Julia M Keogh; Elana Henning; Abdella M Habib; Anthea Blackwood; Frank Reimann; Jens J Holst; Fiona M Gribble Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2008-12-03 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Josina M Rijkelijkhuizen; Kelly McQuarrie; Cynthia J Girman; Peter P Stein; Andrea Mari; Jens J Holst; Giel Nijpels; Jacqueline M Dekker Journal: Metabolism Date: 2009-10-28 Impact factor: 8.694
Authors: T D Müller; B Finan; S R Bloom; D D'Alessio; D J Drucker; P R Flatt; A Fritsche; F Gribble; H J Grill; J F Habener; J J Holst; W Langhans; J J Meier; M A Nauck; D Perez-Tilve; A Pocai; F Reimann; D A Sandoval; T W Schwartz; R J Seeley; K Stemmer; M Tang-Christensen; S C Woods; R D DiMarchi; M H Tschöp Journal: Mol Metab Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 7.422
Authors: Tina Jorsal; Nicolai A Rhee; Jens Pedersen; Camilla D Wahlgren; Brynjulf Mortensen; Sara L Jepsen; Jacob Jelsing; Louise S Dalbøge; Peter Vilmann; Hazem Hassan; Jakob W Hendel; Steen S Poulsen; Jens J Holst; Tina Vilsbøll; Filip K Knop Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2017-09-28 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Robert E Steinert; Christine Feinle-Bisset; Lori Asarian; Michael Horowitz; Christoph Beglinger; Nori Geary Journal: Physiol Rev Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 37.312
Authors: Signe Foghsgaard; Louise Vedtofte; Camilla Andreasen; Emilie S Andersen; Emilie Bahne; Jonatan I Bagger; Jens A Svare; Jens J Holst; Tine D Clausen; Elisabeth R Mathiesen; Peter Damm; Filip K Knop; Tina Vilsbøll Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: J Góralska; U Raźny; A Polus; J Stancel-Możwiłło; M Chojnacka; A Gruca; A Zdzienicka; A Dembińska-Kieć; B Kieć-Wilk; B Solnica; M Malczewska-Malec Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2017-12-13 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Hartmut Ruetten; Mathias Gebauer; Ralph H Raymond; Roberto A Calle; Claudio Cobelli; Atalanta Ghosh; R Paul Robertson; Sudha S Shankar; Myrlene A Staten; Darko Stefanovski; Adrian Vella; Kathryn Wright; David A Fryburg Journal: Metab Syndr Relat Disord Date: 2018-08-17 Impact factor: 1.894
Authors: Elizabeth Adams; Pauline Genter; Emma Keefe; Kevin Sandow; Virginia Gray; Jerome I Rotter; Yii-Der Ida Chen; Eli Ipp Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 5.602