Clinical Care/Education/Nutrition/Psychosocial Research

Markers of β-Cell Failure Predict Poor Glycemic Response to GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes

  1. Angus G. Jones1⇑,
  2. Timothy J. McDonald1,
  3. Beverley M. Shields1,
  4. Anita V. Hill1,
  5. Christopher J. Hyde2,
  6. Bridget A. Knight1 and
  7. Andrew T. Hattersley1,*
  8. for the PRIBA Study Group
  1. 1National Institute for Health Research Exeter Clinical Research Facility, University of Exeter Medical School and Royal Devon and Exeter National Health Service Foundation Trust, Exeter, U.K.
  2. 2Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, U.K.
  1. Corresponding author: Angus G. Jones, angus.jones{at}exeter.ac.uk.
Diabetes Care 2016 Feb; 39(2): 250-257. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc15-0258

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To assess whether clinical characteristics and simple biomarkers of β-cell failure are associated with individual variation in glycemic response to GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We prospectively studied 620 participants with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c ≥58 mmol/mol (7.5%) commencing GLP-1RA therapy as part of their usual diabetes care and assessed response to therapy over 6 months. We assessed the association between baseline clinical measurements associated with β-cell failure and glycemic response (primary outcome HbA1c change 0–6 months) with change in weight (0–6 months) as a secondary outcome using linear regression and ANOVA with adjustment for baseline HbA1c and cotreatment change.

RESULTS Reduced glycemic response to GLP-1RAs was associated with longer duration of diabetes, insulin cotreatment, lower fasting C-peptide, lower postmeal urine C-peptide–to–creatinine ratio, and positive GAD or IA2 islet autoantibodies (P ≤ 0.01 for all). Participants with positive autoantibodies or severe insulin deficiency (fasting C-peptide ≤0.25 nmol/L) had markedly reduced glycemic response to GLP-1RA therapy (autoantibodies, mean HbA1c change −5.2 vs. −15.2 mmol/mol [−0.5 vs. −1.4%], P = 0.005; C-peptide <0.25 nmol/L, mean change −2.1 vs. −15.3 mmol/mol [−0.2 vs. −1.4%], P = 0.002). These markers were predominantly present in insulin-treated participants and were not associated with weight change.

CONCLUSIONS Clinical markers of low β-cell function are associated with reduced glycemic response to GLP-1RA therapy. C-peptide and islet autoantibodies represent potential biomarkers for the stratification of GLP-1RA therapy in insulin-treated diabetes.

Introduction

The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are effective glucose-lowering therapies commonly prescribed for patients with type 2 diabetes, typically as second- or third-line agents in combination with metformin and/or other oral therapy or in combination with insulin (1–3). These treatments are associated with weight loss and have a low risk of hypoglycemia in comparison with older therapies (4). However, in the absence of a clear difference in effectiveness and long-term outcome, the choice of second- and third-line therapy in type 2 diabetes remains a subject of considerable debate (2,5).

The glycemic response to GLP-1RAs is highly variable, with some individuals achieving very marked response but others achieving no improvement in HbA1c (3,6,7). While some of this variability will relate to lifestyle change, medication adherence, and measurement imprecision, it is likely that there will also be biological mechanisms contributing to this treatment response variation. Type 2 diabetes is a highly heterogeneous disease likely with different pathologies (8), and biomarker predictors of response to glucose-lowering therapies have been identified (9). Identifying clinical features or biomarkers predictive of response may help target treatment to those most likely to benefit; this would be particularly beneficial for the incretin therapies given their relatively high cost and frequency of short-term side effects (10).

A major mechanism of action of GLP-1RAs is potentiation of β-cell insulin secretion (4). We hypothesized that patients with more marked β-cell failure will be unable to substantially increase insulin secretion in response to GLP-1RAs and therefore will have reduced glycemic response.

We aimed to determine whether clinical characteristics and simple biomarkers associated with β-cell failure are associated with glycemic response to GLP-1RAs in patients with a clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes.

Research Design and Methods

Study hypothesis and outcomes were pre-specified and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01503112).

Study Setting and Participants

We prospectively studied 620 participants with a clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, HbA1c ≥58 mmol/mol (7.5%), and estimated glomerular filtration rate >30 mL/min/1.73 m2 commencing GLP-1RA therapy as part of their usual diabetes care and assessed response to therapy over 6 months. Participants were identified from National Health Service primary and secondary care and recruited at 17 participating sites in England between April 2011 and October 2013. Ethics approval was granted by the South West National Research Ethics committee, and all participants gave written informed consent.

Assessment

At baseline, prior to commencing treatment, we assessed HbA1c and clinical markers of β-cell failure (fasting C-peptide [11], post–largest home meal urine C-peptide–to–creatinine ratio [UCPCR] (12), GAD and IA2 autoantibodies [13], diabetes duration, and insulin cotreatment [14]). At 3 months (10–14 weeks) and 6 months (22–26 weeks) after commencing GLP-1RA therapy, we assessed HbA1c and adherence (self-reported over the 2 weeks prior to HbA1c measurement). Concurrent treatment was recorded at all visits.

The primary outcome measure was change in HbA1c in the first 6 months of GLP-1RA therapy. Change in weight (baseline to 6 months) was assessed as a secondary outcome.

To minimize confounding by adherence or treatment change, we excluded a follow-up visit from analysis where participants had stopped therapy ≥7 days prior to HbA1c assessment, had <75% self-reported adherence, had commenced any additional glucose-lowering therapies, or had stopped one or more concurrent oral hypoglycemic agent (OHA). Treatment response was based on the most recent eligible HbA1c, with the 3-month result used if the 6-month result did not meet the above criteria. Analysis of weight change was restricted to those who met the above criteria at 6 months (n = 443, weight at 3 months was not assessed).

Statistical Analysis

Continuous Analysis

We assessed the relationship between baseline clinical markers of β-cell function and treatment response (HbA1c change post–GLP-1RA therapy) using least squares linear regression with adjustment for baseline HbA1c and cotreatment change (discontinuation of OHA and % change in insulin dose). Results were not adjusted for OHA dose change owing to lack of association with response (P = 0.3).

For determination of whether biomarkers added to knowledge of insulin treatment status, this analysis was repeated in subgroups defined by presence or absence of insulin cotreatment, with the inclusion of HOMA estimates of β-cell function (HOMA2%B) in non–insulin-treated participants. For determination of independence of autoantibody status and fasting C-peptide, this model was repeated with both C-peptide and autoantibody status as covariates. We assessed the relationship between clinical markers of β-cell function and weight loss post–GLP-1RA therapy using the same model with weight change (6 months – baseline) as the outcome variable.

Categorical Analysis

We assessed differences in adjusted mean change in HbA1c, weight, and insulin dose across subgroups defined by autoantibody and C-peptide status using univariate ANOVA with baseline HbA1c and treatment change as covariates. Fasting C-peptide subgroups were defined using previously reported thresholds for insulin requirement/type 1 diabetes (≤0.25 nmol/L) and absence of “clinically significant” endogenous insulin secretion (≤0.08 nmol/L) (15).

Additional Analysis

Differences in HbA1c change at 3 and 6 months’ follow-up were assessed with the related-samples t test, with analysis restricted to those on treatment at both visits with >75% adherence and no change in glucose-lowering cotreatments.

Statistical analysis was performed using Stata Statistical Software: Release 13 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

Laboratory Analysis

HbA1c and fasting glucose were measured in recruitment centers’ local laboratories (all are accredited National Health Service blood science laboratories). HbA1c measurement was standardized to the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine reference method procedure, and all repeated measurements within the same individual were analyzed within the same laboratory. C-peptide (blood and urine), urine creatinine (for UCPCR), and GAD/IA2 autoantibodies were measured in the Blood Sciences Department at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, U.K. C-peptide was measured using the E170 immuno-analyzer from Roche Diagnostics (Manheim, Germany). GAD and IA2 were measured using commercial ELISA assays (RSR Limited, Cardiff, U.K.) and a Dynex DSX automated ELISA system (Launch Diagnostics, Longfield, U.K.) and were considered positive if ≥97.5th centile of 500 adult control subjects (GAD >11 World Health Organization units/mL, IA2 >15 World Health Organization units/mL) as previously reported (16).

HOMA2%B and HOMA estimates of insulin sensitivity (HOMA2%S) were calculated in non–insulin-treated participants from fasting glucose and C-peptide using the HOMA2 calculator available from http://www.dtu.ox.ac.uk/homacalculator/ and are reported in Supplementary Data.

Results

Participant Characteristics and Response to Therapy

Participant characteristics are shown in Table 1, and participant flow is detailed in Fig. 1. Mean (SD) reduction in HbA1c and weight was 14.9 (17.2) mmol/mol (1.4 [1.6]%) and 4.5 (5.6) kg. A total of 546 participants met criteria for inclusion in analysis (analysis on treatment HbA1c at 6 months n = 443 and at 3 months n = 103). HbA1c change at 3 and 6 months posttreatment was not different (mean change −15.7 vs. −15.1 mmol/mol, respectively, P = 0.2). Of participants, 64% were treated with liraglutide, 27% exenatide twice daily, and 9% exenatide once weekly.

View this table:
Table 1

Participant baseline characteristics

Figure 1
Figure 1

Study profile.

Markers of Low Insulin Secretion Are Associated With Reduced Glycemic Response to GLP-1RAs

Markers of reduced insulin secretion were consistently associated with reduced glycemic response to GLP-1RA therapy (Table 2). Less response was seen in those with lower C-peptide, lower UCPCR, positive GAD or IA2 islet autoantibodies, longer duration of diabetes, and insulin cotreatment (P ≤ 0.01 for all). A 1 nmol/L decrease in fasting C-peptide was associated with 3.2 mmol/mol (0.3%) less HbA1c reduction post–GLP-1RA therapy (Supplementary Fig. 1); the presence of insulin cotreatment or islet autoantibodies was associated with an 8.5 and 10.0 mmol/mol (0.8 and 0.9%) reduction in glycemic response, respectively.

View this table:
Table 2

The relationship between baseline markers of β-cell function and HbA1c changes after GLP-1RA therapy

Baseline measurements associated with glycemic response were not associated with change in weight (P > 0.2 for all).

Participants With Severe Insulin Deficiency Had Markedly Reduced Glycemic Response to GLP-1RA Therapy

Participants with C-peptide <0.25 nmol/L (a previously reported threshold for insulin requirement and type 1 diabetes [15]) had markedly reduced glycemic response (Fig. 2A) (mean adjusted HbA1c change −2.1 [95% CI −10.2, 6.0] vs. −15.3 [−16.5, −14.0] mmol/mol [−0.2 vs. −1.4%], P = 0.002). Prevalence of C-peptide ≤0.25 nmol/L was low, with this characteristic predominantly found in insulin-treated participants (6.1% and 0.3% of insulin and non-insulin-treated participants, respectively).

Figure 2
Figure 2

HbA1c change post–GLP-1RA therapy in those with and without severe insulin deficiency (C-peptide ≤0.25 nmol/L; n = 13 of 516) (A) and positive GAD and/or IA2 antibodies (n = 19 of 501) (B). Bar represents mean change, and error bars represent SE.

A lower C-peptide threshold of ≤0.08 nmol/L (absence of “clinically significant” endogenous insulin [15]) identified fewer participants (3.4% of those insulin treated) with more marked lack of response to therapy (adjusted mean change 3.7 mmol/mol [95% CI −6.6, 14.0] vs. −15.2 mmol/mol [−16.4, −14.0] [0.3 vs. −1.4%], P = 0.0004).

Presence of Raised GAD and/or IA2 Islet Autoantibodies Is Independently Associated With Reduced Response to GLP-1RA Therapy

Glycemic response to GLP-1RA was also markedly lower in those who were GAD or IA2 antibody positive (adjusted mean HbA1c change −4.6 mmol/mol [95% CI −10.3, 1.1] vs. −15.5 mmol/mol [−16.8, −14.2] [−0.4 vs. −1.4%], P = 0.0003) (Fig. 2B). The relationship between autoantibody status and response was not fully explained by differences in fasting insulin secretion: after adjustment for fasting C-peptide, autoantibodies were associated with an 8.1 mmol/mol (0.7%) reduction in glycemic response to GLP-1RA (P = 0.02). Eight percent of insulin-treated participants and 0.9% of non–insulin-treated participants were GAD or IA2 positive.

When analysis was restricted to autoantibody-negative participants, diabetes duration, insulin cotreatment, and fasting C-peptide remained associated with glycemic response (Supplementary Table 1).

Biomarkers of β-Cell Failure Remained Associated With Glycemic Response in Patients Receiving Insulin Treatment

Insulin treatment was strongly associated with other markers of β-cell failure, with longer diabetes duration, lower C-peptide–based measures, and higher proportion of positive autoantibodies seen in insulin-treated patients (P < 0.001 for all) (Supplementary Table 2). In those treated with insulin, C-peptide–based measures and autoantibodies remained predictive of glycemic response (Supplementary Table 3): a 1 nmol/L decrease in fasting C-peptide was associated with a 4.3 mmol/mol (0.4%) reduction in glycemic response (P = 0.01), and positive autoantibodies were associated with an 8.1 mmol/mol (0.7%) reduction in response (P = 0.03). However, these characteristics were not associated with response in non–insulin-treated participants (P for all >0.18) (Supplementary Table 4).

Insulin-Treated Patients With Low C-Peptide or Positive Autoantibodies Have Reduced Response to GLP-1RA Therapy

Eleven percent of insulin-treated participants had either positive autoantibodies or low C-peptide (≤0.25 nmol/L). These participants had mean change in HbA1c after GLP-1RA therapy of −2.3 mmol/mol (95% CI −8.4, 3.7) (−0.2%) compared with −10.9 mmol/mol (−12.9, −8.8) (−1.0%) in other insulin-treated participants (Fig. 3). Antibody-positive/low C-peptide participants also had less reduction in insulin dose (17% vs. 40%, P = 0.006); however, weight loss was similar (weight change at 6 months −4.2 vs. −5.0 kg, P = 0.05) (Fig. 3). The clinical characteristics of insulin-treated participants with and without low C-peptide and/or positive autoantibodies were similar: mean BMI 36.6 vs. 39.7 kg/m2 (P = 0.07), age at diagnosis 42.2 vs. 44.3 years (P = 0.4), diabetes duration 14.5 vs. 12.8 years (P = 0.3), and time to insulin 5.8 vs. 5.9 years (P = 0.9).

Figure 3
Figure 3

Treatment response to GLP-1RA therapy in insulin-treated participants by autoantibody and C-peptide status. Analysis adjusted for baseline HbA1c and cotreatment change. Bar represents mean change, and error bars represent SE. Antibody positive and/or low C-peptide, n = 22; remaining participants, n = 176. A: HbA1c reduction. B: Insulin dose reduction. C: Weight reduction.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that markers of β-cell failure are associated with reduced glycemic response to GLP-1 receptor analogs. Insulin-treated patients and those who have positive islet autoantibodies and/or low C-peptide have markedly reduced glycemic response to this treatment. Participants with these markers of β-cell failure had reduced glycemic response without additional weight loss, suggesting that they will derive less overall benefit from GLP-1RA treatment.

Our finding that markers of β-cell failure are associated with reduced response to GLP-1RA therapy is consistent with findings of previous studies. Research in smaller cohorts has suggested that those with lower blood C-peptide have less insulin secretion in response to GLP-1RA (17) and are less able to replace insulin with a GLP-1RA (18,19) and that low home postmeal urine C-peptide–to–creatinine ratio is associated with reduced glycemic response to liraglutide (20). Previous research demonstrating reduced response to GLP-1RA in those receiving insulin cotreatment or with longer diabetes duration is also consistent with our findings (3,21). In contrast, one study has demonstrated increased HbA1c reduction in insulin-treated patients with longer duration of diabetes, a finding principally driven by increased response to placebo in the short-duration comparator group (22).

To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the relationship between islet autoantibodies and response to GLP-1RA therapy. The independence of autoantibody and C-peptide testing in our study may suggest that the mechanism, as well as the severity, of underlying β-cell failure is important to treatment response. Further studies with more robust assessment of stimulated insulin secretion would be needed to test this hypothesis.

The lack of glycemic response seen in this cohort where β-cell failure is marked is consistent with potentiation of β-cell insulin secretion being the major mechanism of glucose lowering by GLP-1RAs. These agents have additional non–β-cell-dependent glucose-lowering effects on gastric emptying and suppression of glucagon; however, the relative contributions of these actions to glucose lowering remain unclear (23,24). While acute administration of GLP-1 markedly reduces meal-induced glucagon secretion, gastric emptying, and postprandial glucose even in C-peptide–negative type 1 diabetes (25), chronic treatment with GLP-1RAs appears to have only a small effect on plasma glucagon (26–30) and may have little effect on gastric emptying (31,32). This finding is consistent with poor glycemic effect of ongoing administration of GLP-1RAs in type 1 diabetes randomized controlled trials, where there appears to be a small reduction in insulin dose without improvement in glycemia (33,34).

Strengths and Weaknesses

A strength of this study is that we have prospectively examined a large number of participants in a real-world setting with detailed assessment at both baseline and follow-up. Our finding that many different markers of reduced β-cell function are consistently associated with reduced GLP-1RA response suggests that this is a robust finding.

Limitations of this study include that our major assessment of β-cell function is fasting blood or post–home meal urine C-peptide. These are affected by concurrent glucose, insulin sensitivity, and C-peptide clearance and therefore represent relatively crude indicators of underlying β-cell function (15). Physiological assessment of β-cell function would ideally involve measures after a standardized stimulus alongside correction for insulin sensitivity (35); however, these measures would not be feasible for clinical practice. β-Cell function and insulin sensitivity are inversely related (36,37). A role for β-cell failure (rather than insulin sensitivity) in reduced GLP-1RA glycemic response is supported by the direction of association (better insulin sensitivity being an unlikely cause of reduced treatment response) and finding associations for factors predominantly associated with β-cell failure (autoantibodies [13], absolute insulin deficiency, insulin cotreatment, and diabetes duration [14]). In addition, characteristics associated with insulin resistance (BMI, triglycerides, HDL, sex hormone–binding globulin, and HOMA2%S [38,39]) were not associated with glycemic response in this cohort (P > 0.6 for all) (Supplementary Table 5).

An additional potential limitation of fasting C-peptide measurement in a cohort including insulin-treated patients is the potential suppression of fasting C-peptide if concurrent insulin results in low fasting glucose (40). However, study participants had high fasting glucose at the time of C-peptide assessment, and the difference between those treated with and without insulin was small (mean fasting glucose 11.2 and 12.4 mmol/L, respectively).

Clinical Implications

The main clinical implications of this study are for use of GLP-1RA therapy in insulin-treated patients. Our study confirms that overall less glycemic response should be expected in those who are insulin treated. Where insulin-treated patients are known to be antibody positive or have low C-peptide, our results suggest that these patients are unlikely to receive glycemic benefit from GLP-1RA therapy. This would be consistent with existing guidelines, which do not recommend GLP-1RA therapy for type 1 diabetes. When the antibody and C-peptide status is not known, the cost of testing needs to be balanced against an empirical trial of therapy; further larger studies to confirm the effect size and prevalence of these features would be needed to determine whether testing for this reason would be cost-effective.

Our results show that a significant proportion of insulin-treated patients receiving these treatments in the U.K. have islet autoantibodies and/or low C-peptide, despite having a clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. These patients could not be identified by their clinical features. This may relate to the obese (and relatively young) nature of our cohort, as U.K. guidelines restrict these treatments to the obese (1). Differentiating type 1 and type 2 diabetes is particularly difficult in younger obese individuals. Both the clinical presentation and course of autoimmune diabetes can be very different from classical type 1 diabetes in the obese (41).

Our study does not support the measurement of antibodies and C-peptide in non–insulin-treated patients, as prevalence of low C-peptide and positive autoantibodies was very low in this group and an association with response was not seen.

Unanswered Questions and Future Research

Our findings of reduced response in those with positive autoantibodies and severe insulin deficiency need replication, as they are driven by a marked difference in response in a relatively small number of participants. This would ideally be in the setting of a randomized trial targeting insulin-treated patients who are more likely to have these characteristics. Further research is also needed to assess whether insulin-treated patients with high antibody titers and/or absolute insulin deficiency have reduced response to all noninsulin glucose-lowering cotherapies. This is an important question given the increasing difficulties distinguishing type 1 and 2 diabetes as obesity becomes more prevalent and the lack of glycemic effect of noninsulin treatments in type 1 diabetes randomized controlled trials to date (33,34,42–44), which may relate to loss of endogenous insulin secretion even where a treatment’s mechanism of action appears unrelated (45).

Summary

In summary, markers of reduced insulin secretion are associated with less glycemic response to GLP-1RA therapy. C-peptide and autoantibodies represent potential biomarkers for the stratification of glucose-lowering treatment in insulin-treated diabetes.

Article Information

Acknowledgments. The authors thank staff of the National Institute for Health Research Exeter Clinical Research Facility and National Institute for Health Research Diabetes Research Network for assistance with conducting the study. The authors thank Mandy Perry and technicians of the Blood Sciences Department, Royal Devon, and Exeter Hospital for assistance with laboratory analysis. The authors thank the members of the Predicting Response to Incretin Based Agents (PRIBA) study group (Supplementary Data) and all study participants.

Funding. The PRIBA study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (U.K.) (DRF-2010-03-72) and supported by the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network. A.G.J. was funded by a National Institute for Health Research Doctoral Research Fellowship and is a National Institute for Health Research Clinical Lecturer. T.J.M. is a National Institute for Health Research CSO Clinical Scientist Fellow. B.M.S., A.V.H., B.A.K., and A.T.H. are core staff members of the National Institute for Health Research Exeter Clinical Research Facility. A.T.H. is a National Institute for Health Research Senior Investigator and a Wellcome Trust Senior Investigator.

The views given in this article do not necessarily represent those of the National Institute for Health Research, the National Health Service, or the Department of Health.

Duality of Interest. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author Contributions. A.G.J., T.J.M., A.V.H., B.A.K., and A.T.H. researched data. A.G.J. and B.M.S. analyzed data. A.G.J. wrote the manuscript. T.J.M., B.M.S., A.V.H., C.J.H., B.A.K., and A.T.H. provided helpful discussion and reviewed and edited the manuscript. A.G.J. is the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Footnotes

  • Received February 4, 2015.
  • Accepted July 4, 2015.

References

  1. ↵
    NICE guidelines [CG87]. Type 2 Diabetes: The Management of Type 2 Diabetes. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, U.K., 2009
  2. ↵
    1. Inzucchi SE,
    2. Bergenstal RM,
    3. Buse JB, et al
    . Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, 2015: a patient-centered approach: update to a position statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2015;38:140–149pmid:25538310
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Thong KY,
    2. Jose B,
    3. Sukumar N, et al.; ABCD Nationwide Exenatide Audit Contributors
    . Safety, efficacy and tolerability of exenatide in combination with insulin in the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists nationwide exenatide audit. Diabetes Obes Metab 2011;13:703–710pmid:21410858
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Drucker DJ,
    2. Nauck MA
    . The incretin system: glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes. Lancet 2006;368:1696–1705pmid:17098089
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    1. Hirsch IB,
    2. Molitch ME
    . Clinical decisions. Glycemic management in a patient with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1370–1372pmid:24088099
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Diamant M,
    2. Van Gaal L,
    3. Stranks S, et al
    . Once weekly exenatide compared with insulin glargine titrated to target in patients with type 2 diabetes (DURATION-3): an open-label randomised trial. Lancet 2010;375:2234–2243pmid:20609969
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    1. Bergenstal RM,
    2. Wysham C,
    3. Macconell L, et al.; DURATION-2 Study Group
    . Efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly versus sitagliptin or pioglitazone as an adjunct to metformin for treatment of type 2 diabetes (DURATION-2): a randomised trial. Lancet 2010;376:431–439pmid:20580422
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. American Diabetes Association
    . Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2010;33(Suppl. 1):S62–S69pmid:20042775
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. ’t Hart LM,
    2. Fritsche A,
    3. Nijpels G, et al
    . The CTRB1/2 locus affects diabetes susceptibility and treatment via the incretin pathway. Diabetes 2013;62:3275–3281pmid:23674605
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Nauck MA
    . A critical analysis of the clinical use of incretin-based therapies: The benefits by far outweigh the potential risks. Diabetes Care 2013;36:2126–2132pmid:23645884
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Besser RE,
    2. Jones AG,
    3. McDonald TJ,
    4. Shields BM,
    5. Knight BA,
    6. Hattersley AT
    . The impact of insulin administration during the mixed meal tolerance test. Diabet Med 2012;29:1279–1284pmid:22435709
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Jones AG,
    2. Besser RE,
    3. McDonald TJ, et al
    . Urine C-peptide creatinine ratio is an alternative to stimulated serum C-peptide measurement in late-onset, insulin-treated diabetes. Diabet Med 2011;28:1034–1038pmid:21843301
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Borg H,
    2. Gottsäter A,
    3. Fernlund P,
    4. Sundkvist G
    . A 12-year prospective study of the relationship between islet antibodies and beta-cell function at and after the diagnosis in patients with adult-onset diabetes. Diabetes 2002;51:1754–1762pmid:12031962
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Fonseca VA
    . Defining and characterizing the progression of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009;32(Suppl. 2):S151–S156pmid:19875543
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Jones AG,
    2. Hattersley AT
    . The clinical utility of C-peptide measurement in the care of patients with diabetes. Diabet Med 2013;30:803–817pmid:23413806
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. McDonald TJ,
    2. Colclough K,
    3. Brown R, et al
    . Islet autoantibodies can discriminate maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) from Type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med 2011;28:1028–1033pmid:21395678
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Takabe M,
    2. Matsuda T,
    3. Hirota Y, et al
    . C-peptide response to glucagon challenge is correlated with improvement of early insulin secretion by liraglutide treatment. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2012;98:e32–e35pmid:23068961
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Davis SN,
    2. Johns D,
    3. Maggs D,
    4. Xu H,
    5. Northrup JH,
    6. Brodows RG
    . Exploring the substitution of exenatide for insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin in combination with oral antidiabetes agents. Diabetes Care 2007;30:2767–2772pmid:17595353
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Iwao T,
    2. Sakai K,
    3. Sata M
    . Postprandial serum C-peptide is a useful parameter in the prediction of successful switching to liraglutide monotherapy from complex insulin therapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Complications 2013;27:87–91pmid:22863615
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Thong KY,
    2. McDonald TJ,
    3. Hattersley AT, et al
    . The association between postprandial urinary C-peptide creatinine ratio and the treatment response to liraglutide: a multi-centre observational study. Diabet Med 2014;31:403–411pmid:24246138
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    Penformis A GP, Martinez S, Madani S, Charpentier G, Eschwege E, Gautier J-F. Diabetes duration and background diabetes therapies in predicting liraglutide treatment response: data from post-marketing EVIDENCE study. Diabetologia 2013;56(Suppl. 1):S356
  22. ↵
    1. Rosenstock J,
    2. Shenouda SK,
    3. Bergenstal RM, et al
    . Baseline factors associated with glycemic control and weight loss when exenatide twice daily is added to optimized insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2012;35:955–958pmid:22432107
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Christensen M,
    2. Bagger JI,
    3. Vilsbøll T,
    4. Knop FK
    . The alpha-cell as target for type 2 diabetes therapy. Rev Diabet Stud 2011;8:369–381pmid:22262074
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. D’Alessio DA
    . Taking aim at islet hormones with GLP-1: is insulin or glucagon the better target? Diabetes 2010;59:1572–1574pmid:20587800
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Kielgast U,
    2. Holst JJ,
    3. Madsbad S
    . Antidiabetic actions of endogenous and exogenous GLP-1 in type 1 diabetic patients with and without residual β-cell function. Diabetes 2011;60:1599–1607pmid:21441444
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Rother KI,
    2. Spain LM,
    3. Wesley RA, et al
    . Effects of exenatide alone and in combination with daclizumab on beta-cell function in long-standing type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009;32:2251–2257pmid:19808924
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Gastaldelli A,
    2. Balas B,
    3. Ratner R, et al
    . A direct comparison of long- and short-acting GLP-1 receptor agonists (taspoglutide once weekly and exenatide twice daily) on postprandial metabolism after 24 weeks of treatment. Diabetes Obes Metab 2014;16:170–178pmid:23911196
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Berg JK,
    2. Shenouda SK,
    3. Heilmann CR,
    4. Gray AL,
    5. Holcombe JH
    . Effects of exenatide twice daily versus sitagliptin on 24-h glucose, glucoregulatory and hormonal measures: a randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Diabetes Obes Metab 2011;13:982–989pmid:21615670
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Rosenstock J,
    2. Reusch J,
    3. Bush M,
    4. Yang F,
    5. Stewart M; Albiglutide Study Group
    . Potential of albiglutide, a long-acting GLP-1 receptor agonist, in type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial exploring weekly, biweekly, and monthly dosing. Diabetes Care 2009;32:1880–1886pmid:19592625
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Zinman B,
    2. Gerich J,
    3. Buse JB, et al.; LEAD-4 Study Investigators
    . Efficacy and safety of the human glucagon-like peptide-1 analog liraglutide in combination with metformin and thiazolidinedione in patients with type 2 diabetes (LEAD-4 Met+TZD). Diabetes Care 2009;32:1224–1230pmid:19289857
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Nauck MA,
    2. Kemmeries G,
    3. Holst JJ,
    4. Meier JJ
    . Rapid tachyphylaxis of the glucagon-like peptide 1-induced deceleration of gastric emptying in humans. Diabetes 2011;60:1561–1565pmid:21430088
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Kapitza C,
    2. Zdravkovic M,
    3. Hindsberger C,
    4. Flint A
    . The effect of the once-daily human glucagon-like peptide 1 analog liraglutide on the pharmacokinetics of acetaminophen. Adv Ther 2011;28:650–660pmid:21792552
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Kielgast U,
    2. Krarup T,
    3. Holst JJ,
    4. Madsbad S
    . Four weeks of treatment with liraglutide reduces insulin dose without loss of glycemic control in type 1 diabetic patients with and without residual beta-cell function. Diabetes Care 2011;34:1463–1468pmid:21593296
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Sarkar G,
    2. Alattar M,
    3. Brown RJ,
    4. Quon MJ,
    5. Harlan DM,
    6. Rother KI
    . Exenatide treatment for 6 months improves insulin sensitivity in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2014;37:666–670pmid:24194508
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Kahn SE,
    2. Carr DB,
    3. Faulenbach MV,
    4. Utzschneider KM
    . An examination of beta-cell function measures and their potential use for estimating beta-cell mass. Diabetes Obes Metab 2008;10(Suppl 4):63–76pmid:18834434
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. ↵
    1. Kahn SE
    . The relative contributions of insulin resistance and beta-cell dysfunction to the pathophysiology of Type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2003;46:3–19pmid:12637977
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. ↵
    1. Kahn SE,
    2. Prigeon RL,
    3. McCulloch DK, et al
    . Quantification of the relationship between insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function in human subjects. Evidence for a hyperbolic function. Diabetes 1993;42:1663–1672pmid:8405710
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    Yki-Järvinen H. Insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes. In Textbook of Diabetes. 4th ed. Holt RG CC, Flyvbjerg A, Goldstein BJ, Eds. Hoboken, NJ, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010
  39. ↵
    1. Wallace TM,
    2. Levy JC,
    3. Matthews DR
    . Use and abuse of HOMA modeling. Diabetes Care 2004;27:1487–1495pmid:15161807
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Albareda M,
    2. Rigla M,
    3. Rodríguez-Espinosa J, et al
    . Influence of exogenous insulin on C-peptide levels in subjects with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2005;68:202–206pmid:15936461
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Gale EA
    . Latent autoimmune diabetes in adults: a guide for the perplexed. Diabetologia 2005;48:2195–2199pmid:16193287
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Vella S,
    2. Buetow L,
    3. Royle P,
    4. Livingstone S,
    5. Colhoun HM,
    6. Petrie JR
    . The use of metformin in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review of efficacy. Diabetologia 2010;53:809–820pmid:20057994
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. Garg SK, Moser EG, Bode BW, et al. Effect of sitagliptin on post-prandial glucagon and GLP-1 levels in patients with type 1 diabetes: investigator-initiated, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Endocr Pract 2013;19:19–28
  44. ↵
    1. Ellis SL,
    2. Moser EG,
    3. Snell-Bergeon JK,
    4. Rodionova AS,
    5. Hazenfield RM,
    6. Garg SK
    . Effect of sitagliptin on glucose control in adult patients with Type 1 diabetes: a pilot, double-blind, randomized, crossover trial. Diabet Med 2011;28:1176–1181pmid:21923696
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Riddle MC
    . Combined therapy with insulin plus oral agents: is there any advantage? An argument in favor. Diabetes Care 2008;31(Suppl. 2):S125–S130pmid:18227472
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
View Abstract
Back to top
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Add to Selected Citations

Markers of β-Cell Failure Predict Poor Glycemic Response to GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes
Angus G. Jones, Timothy J. McDonald, Beverley M. Shields, Anita V. Hill, Christopher J. Hyde, Bridget A. Knight, Andrew T. Hattersley
Diabetes Care Feb 2016, 39 (2) 250-257; DOI: 10.2337/dc15-0258
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section