Lixisenatide versus exenatide on metabolic control, insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity in patients with impaired glucose tolerance

Autores: Pérez Rubio Karina G, Martínez Abundis Esperanza, González Ortiz Manuel

Resumen

Aim:To evaluate the effect of lixisenatide versus exenatide on metabolic control, insulin secretion, and insulin sensitivity in patients with impaired glucose tolerance. Materials and methods: A randomized, open-label clinical trial in parallel groups was carried out in 24 adults with impaired glucose tolerance. Subjects received lixisenatide (10 ìg once daily for two weeks and then 20 ìg once daily) or exenatide (5 ìg twice daily for four weeks and then 10 ìg twice daily) for 12 weeks. At the beginning and at the end of the study, metabolic control, insulin secretion, and insulin sensitivity were evaluated. Results: Both groups demonstrated a decrease in weight, body mass index, waist circumference, blood pressure, glucose and insulin at 120 min, increasing insulin sensitivity. Lixisenatide also decreased fasting glucose (5.7 + 0.8 vs. 5.0 + 0.5 mmol/l; p = 0.008), area under the curve of glucose (1,252 + 150 vs. 1,032 + 157 mmol/l; p = 0.008) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (1.1 + 0.1 vs. 1.0 + 0.1 mmol/l; p = 0.025), and increased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (2.5 + 0.8 vs. 3.0 + 0.9 mmol/l;p = 0.016), whereas exenatide decreased triglycerides (2.4 + 1.0 vs. 2.1 + 1.0 mmol/l; p = 0.050). Conclusion: Lixisenatide and exenatide decreased the same metabolic measurements. Lixisenatide also decreased fasting glucose, area under the curve of glucose, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and increased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and exenatide decreased triglycerides. Both groups increased insulin sensitivity.

Palabras clave: Exenatide impaired glucose tolerance insulin secretion insulin sensitivity lixisenatide metabolic control.

2017-07-25   |   181 visitas   |   Evalua este artículo 0 valoraciones

Vol. 4 Núm.1. Enero-Marzo 2017 Pags. 17-23 Rev Mex Endocrinol Metabol Nut 2017; 4(1)