1.
Analyses of gut microbiota and plasma bile acids enable stratification of patients for antidiabetic treatment.
Gu, Y, Wang, X, Li, J, Zhang, Y, Zhong, H, Liu, R, Zhang, D, Feng, Q, Xie, X, Hong, J, et al
Nature communications. 2017;(1):1785
Abstract
Antidiabetic medication may modulate the gut microbiota and thereby alter plasma and faecal bile acid (BA) composition, which may improve metabolic health. Here we show that treatment with Acarbose, but not Glipizide, increases the ratio between primary BAs and secondary BAs and plasma levels of unconjugated BAs in treatment-naive type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients, which may beneficially affect metabolism. Acarbose increases the relative abundances of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium in the gut microbiota and depletes Bacteroides, thereby changing the relative abundance of microbial genes involved in BA metabolism. Treatment outcomes of Acarbose are dependent on gut microbiota compositions prior to treatment. Compared to patients with a gut microbiota dominated by Prevotella, those with a high abundance of Bacteroides exhibit more changes in plasma BAs and greater improvement in metabolic parameters after Acarbose treatment. Our work highlights the potential for stratification of T2D patients based on their gut microbiota prior to treatment.
2.
Humalog Mix25 offers better mealtime glycemic control in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.
Malone, JK, Yang, H, Woodworth, JR, Huang, J, Campaigne, BN, Halle, JP, Yale, JF, Grossman, LD
Diabetes & metabolism. 2000;(6):481-7
Abstract
To compare the postprandial glucodynamics of Humalog Mix25, (Humalog Mix75/25 in the US; Mix25), to human insulin 30/70 (Humulin 70/30 in the US; 30/70) in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Ninety-three patients with type 1 diabetes and 84 patients with type 2 diabetes were evaluated in two separate but identical protocols using a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, crossover design. Patients consumed test meals 5 minutes after equal doses of Mix25 or 30/70. Plasma glucose was measured at baseline and 15 minute intervals for 4 hours after the meal. Two-hour postprandial glucose (2pp), 2-hour glucose excursion (2pp(ex) ), glucose versus time area under the curve 0 to 4 hours (AUC(0-4) ) and glucose excursion area under the curve 0 to 2 and 0 to 4 hours (AUCex(0-2), AUCex(0-4) ) were calculated. For the combined patient population, Mix25 resulted in significantly lower 2pp (12.45 +/- 3.59 vs. 13.47 +/- 3.62 mmol/L; p <0.001), AUC(0-4) (44.45 +/- 12.20 vs. 47.25 +/- 11.97 mmol x h/L; p <0.001), and glucose excursion parameters: 2pp(ex) (3.20 +/- 2.72 vs. 4.40 +/- 2.81 mmol/L; p <0.001), AUCex(0-2) (5.45 +/- 3.15 vs 6.60 +/- 3.13 mmol x h/L; p <0.001), and AUCex(0-4) (7.57 +/- 8.37 vs. 11.02 +/- 8.47 mmol x h/L; p <0.001) compared to 30/70. Further analysis of the treatment by type of diabetes indicated that Mix25 provided nearly identical glucose excursion responses in type 1 and type 2 diabetes up to 2 hours after the test meal, in contrast to 30/70. Pre-meal injection of Mix25 resulted in lower postprandial blood glucose levels compared to 30/70. The postprandial blood glucose response following Mix25 was similar in patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes.