Trial reportDiabetologia2016
The insulinotropic effect of pulsatile compared with continuous intravenous delivery of GLP-1.
Trial report in Diabetologia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aims/hypothesisIn healthy individuals, both insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) are secreted in a pulsatile fashion. Insulin has greater glucose-lowering properties when administered in pulses compared with a constant i.v. infusion. The primary aim of this randomised double-dummy cross-over study was to compare the insulinotropic response to pulsatile and continuous i.v. infusions of equivalent doses of GLP-1.
methodsTwelve healthy participants aged 18-35 years were randomised to three different treatments on separate days: a continuous infusion day (GLP-1 at 0.6 pmol kg(-1) min(-1) [1 ml/min] and a 1 ml placebo bolus every 6 min); a pulsatile infusion day (placebo at 1 ml/min and a 3.6 pmol/kg GLP-1 bolus every 6 min); and a placebo day (placebo at 1 ml/min and a 1 ml placebo bolus every 6 min). Between 45 and 120 min, a hyperglycaemic clamp was used to maintain blood glucose at 9 mmol/l. Venous blood glucose and plasma insulin concentrations were measured every 5 min from 0 to 45 min and every 1 min from 45 to 120 min; plasma glucagon was measured every 15 min. The order of treatment was randomised by the Pharmacy Department and both study investigators and participants were blinded to the treatment arm. The dextrose requirement and glucagon data were analysed using repeated measures ANOVA and insulin data were analysed with a linear mixed effects maximum likelihood model.
resultsContinuous and pulsatile infusions of GLP-1 increased the dextrose requirement by ~threefold (p < 0.001) and increased insulin secretion by ~ninefold (p < 0.001). There was no difference in the effect of both treatments. Although hyperglycaemia reduced plasma glucagon concentrations, there was no difference between the treatment days. CONCLUSIONS/
interpretationIn healthy individuals, pulsatile and continuous administration of i.v. GLP-1 appears to have comparable insulinotropic effects.
trial registrationACTRN12612001040853
fundingThis study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.