| Literature DB >> 30459715 |
Marta Seghieri1,2, Alexander S Christensen1, Andreas Andersen1, Anna Solini3, Filip K Knop1,4,5, Tina Vilsbøll1,4.
Abstract
Along the obesity pandemic, the prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), often regarded as the hepatic manifestation of the metabolic syndrome, increases worldwide representing now the prevalent liver disease in western countries. No pharmacotherapy is approved for the treatment of NAFLD and, currently, the cornerstone treatment is lifestyle modifications focusing on bodyweight loss, notoriously difficult to obtain and even more difficult to maintain. Thus, novel therapeutic approaches are highly demanded. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity. They exert their body weight-lowering effect by reducing satiety and food intake. GLP-1RAs have also been shown to reduce liver inflammation and fibrosis. Furthermore, glucagon receptor agonism is being investigated for the treatment of NAFLD due to its appetite and food intake-reducing effects, as well as its ability to increase lipid oxidation and thermogenesis. Recent studies suggest that glucagon receptor signaling is disrupted in NAFLD, indicating that supra-physiological glucagon receptor agonism might represent a new NAFLD treatment target. The present review provides (1) an overview in the pathophysiology of NAFLD, including the potential involvement of GLP-1 and glucagon, (2) an introduction to the currently available GLP-1RAs and (3) outlines the potential of emerging GLP-1RAs and GLP-1/glucagon receptor co-agonists in the treatment of NAFLD.Entities:
Keywords: glucagon; glucagon-like peptide-1; glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist; non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; non-alcoholic steatohepatitis
Year: 2018 PMID: 30459715 PMCID: PMC6232120 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2018.00649
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 5.555
Figure 1The NAFLD spectrum and relative probabilities to progress across the stages of liver damage. Aside to a classical development in the natural history of the disease, alternative routes (dotted lines) directly leading to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from simple steatosis or NASH are possible. Hepatic steatosis and NASH are both reversible conditions (dashed arrows).
Figure 2The pathophysiology of NAFLD includes dietary fat contribution, hepatic and adipose tissue insulin resistance, proinflammatory cytokines, lipotoxicity and oxidative stress. A reduced hepatic glucagon resistance (dashed lines), together with an impaired incretin effect, may be additional mechanisms.
Figure 3Potential targets of GLP-1 receptor agonists in the treatment of NAFLD include: (A) a decrease in caloric intake through central regulation of satiety, (B) a reduction of hepatic and adipose tissue insulin resistance due to decrease in body weight, (a direct effect may not be excluded, dashed lines) (C) a modified intestinal lipoprotein metabolism, (D) a resolution of dysfunctional adipose tissue and (E) an enhancement of insulin release.
Clinical trials with GLP-1RAs in NAFLD.
| T2D (8) | Case series | Biopsy-proven | Exe (10 μgx2/d) | 28 | Liver biopsy | ( | ||
| T2D overweight/obese (974) | Single arm-trial | Liver enzymes | Exe (10 μgx2/d) | 104 | Liver enzymes | + 39% of subjects with elevated baseline ALT had normalization of ALT | ( | |
| T2D obese (125) | Open-label | FLI | Exe (10 μx2/d alone or add-on | Met and/or SU | 26 | FLI | + improvement of FLI in Exe group vs. oral antidiabetic agents | ( |
| T2D overweight/obese (60) | RCT | Liver enzymes; | Exe (10 μgx2/d) | Intensive treatment with insulin glargine | 12 | Liver enzymes; Ultrasound | + reduction of liver enzymes and degree of fatty liver at ultrasound with Exe vs. Glargine | ( |
| T2D overweight (117) | RCT | Liver enzymes | Exe (10 μgx2/d) | Met | 12 | Liver enzymes | + reduction of liver enzymes | ( |
| T2D overweight/obese (27) | Single arm-trial | Biopsy-proven | Lira (0.9 mg/d) | – | 24 96 ( | CT scanLiver biopsy ( | ( | |
| T2D overweight/obese (68) | Single arm-trial | 1H-MR | Lira (1.2 mg/d) | – | 26 | 1H-MR spectroscopy | + 31% liver fat content | ( |
| Overweight/obese (17 T2D out of 52) | RCT | Biopsy-proven | Lira (1.8 mg/d) | Placebo | 48 | Liver biopsy | ++ 39% histological resolution of NASH with Lira vs. 9% with Placebo | ( |
| T2D (154) | RCT (LEAD-2 substudy) | CT scan | Lira (1.8-1.2-0.6 mg/d) add on- Met | Glimepiride (4 mg) or Placebo add on- Met | 26 | CT scan | + 10% liver to spleen attenuation ratio with Lira 1.8 mg/day vs. no effect with other treatments | ( |
| T2D (87) | RCT | Ultrasound | Lira (1.8 mg/d) | Met or Gliclazide | 24 | Ultrasound | + improvement in hepatic/renal ratio index in Lira vs. Gliclazide | ( |
| T2D overweight/obese (35) | RCT | 1H-MR spectroscopy; | Lira (0.6 to 1.8 mg/d) | Insulin glargine titrated to achieve FPG < 7mM | 12 | 1H-MR spectroscopy and MR imaging | ±no difference in liver fat reduction between Lira and Glargine | ( |
| T2D overweight/obese (52) | RCT | 1H-MR spectroscopy | Lira (1.8 mg/d) | Sitagliptin (100 mg)Placebo | 12 | 1H-MR spectroscopy | ± no effect in liver fat content with Lira, as well as Sitagliptin or Placebo | ( |
| NonT2D obese | RCT | MR imaging | Lira (3 mg/d) | Intensive lifestyle intervention | 26 | MR imaging | ± no difference in liver fat reduction between Lira and lifestyle intervention | ( |
| 288 patients with T2D (288) | RCT | Biopsy-proven | Sema (0.1-0.2-0.4 mg/d) | Placebo | 72 | Liver biopsy | Ongoing (NCT02970942) | |
| T2D (66) | RCT | MR imaging | Sema (0.4 mg/d) | Placebo | 72 | MR imaging | Ongoing (NCT03357380) |
d, day; FLI, fatty liver index; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; Lira, liraglutide; MR, Magnetic resonance; Met, metformin; NAFLD, Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; NASH, Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis; Sema, semaglutide; SU, sulphonylurea; T2D, type 2 diabetes; (+), trend improvement in predefined outcome; +, significant improvement in predefined outcome; ++, significant improvement in predefined outcome judged by gold-standard method; ±, no significant effect in predefined outcome.