Effects of metformin on BRIN-BD11 beta-cell insulin secretory desensitization induced by prolonged exposure to sulphonylureas

Aims: Prolonged exposure of pancreatic beta-cells in vitro to the sulphonylureas tolbutamide and glibenclamide induces subsequent desensitization of insulinotropic pathways. Clinically, the insulin-sensitizing biguanide drug metformin is often administered alongside sulphonylurea as antidiabetic therapy. The present study examines the functional effects of metformin (200 µM) on tolbutamide- and glibenclamide-induced desensitisation. Methods: Acute and prolonged (18 h) effects of exposure to tolbutamide and glibenclamide alone, or in the presence of metformin, were examined in insulin-secreting BRIN-BD11 cells. Results: In acute 20 min incubations at 1.1 mM glucose, metformin increased (1.2-1.7-fold; p <0.001) the insulin-releasing actions of tolbutamide and glibenclamide. At 16.7 mM glucose, metformin significantly enhanced glibenclamide-induced insulin release at all concentrations (50-400 µM) examined, but tolbutamide-stimulated insulin secretion was only augmented at higher concentrations (300-400 µM). Exposure for 18 h to 100 µM tolbutamide or glibenclamide significantly impaired insulin release in response to glucose and a broad range of insulin secretagogues. Concomitant culture with metformin (200 µM) prevented or partially reversed many of the adverse effects on K channel dependent and independent insulinotropic pathways. Beneficial effects of metformin were also observed in cells exposed to glibenclamide for 18 h with significant improvements in the insulin secretory responsiveness to alanine, GLP-1 and sulphonylureas. The decrease of viable cell numbers observed with glibenclamide was reversed by co-culture with metformin, but cellular insulin content was depressed. Conclusions: The results suggest that metformin can prevent the aspects of sulphonylurea-induced beta-cell desensitization. © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Insulin release from cultured B-cells

Established RlNm5F and lN111 R1 and newly available HlT-T15 and UMR 407/3 B-cell lines have been successfully maintained in vitro. With the exclusion of UMR 407/3 cells, all lines were continuously propagable. Doubling times and plating efficiencies for HlT-T15, RlNm5F, lN111 R1 and UMR 407/3 cells were 20 hours and 85%, 31 hours and 76%, 24 hours and 80% and 38 hours and 94% respectively. All the cell lines were anchorage dependent, but only UMR 407/3 cells grew to confluence. Only HlT-T15 and UMR 407/3 cells produced a true insulin response to glucose but glucose markedly increased the rate of D-[U14C]glucose oxidation by all the cell lines. Glucose induced insulin release from HlT-T15 cells was biphasic with an exaggerated first phase. Insulin release from HlT-T15, RlNm5F and IN111 R1 cells was stimulated by amino acids and sulphonylureas. Glucagon stimulated insulin release from HlT-T15 and RlNm5F cells while somatostatin and pancreatic polypeptide inhibited release. These observations suggest that net insulin release from the whole islet may be the result of significant paracrine interaction. HlT-T15 and RlNm5F cell insulin release was stimulated by forskolin and inhibited by imidazole. Ca2+ channel blockade and calmodulin inhibition suppressed insulin release from HlT-T15, RlNm5F and IN111 R1 cells. In addition phorbol esters stimulated insulin release from RlNm5F cells. These data implicate cAMP, Ca2+ and protein kinase-C in the regulation of insulin release from cultured B-cells. Acetylcholine increased insulin release from HlT-T15 and RlNm5F cells. Inhibition of the response by atropine confirmed the involvement of muscarinic receptors. HlT-T15 cell insulin release was also inhibited by adrenaline. These observations suggest a possible role for the autonomic nervous system in the modulation of insulin release. Preliminary studies with a human insulinoma maintained in monolayer culture have demonstrated a limited life span of some seven weeks, a continuous low level of insulin release but no insulin response to glucose challenge.

Diabetes therapies in renal impairment

Depending on age, duration of diabetes and glycaemic control, 20-40% of patients with type 2 diabetes will incur a moderate or severe deterioration of renal function. This will impact the choice of blood glucose-lowering therapy and require more frequent monitoring of both renal function and glycaemic control. Moderate renal impairment (glomerular filtration rate 30-<60 ml/min) requires consideration of dose reduction or treatment cessation for metformin, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, some sulphonylureas and some dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. At lower rates of glomerular filtration down to about 15 ml/min it may be appropriate to use a meglitinide, pioglitazone or certain sulphonylureas with careful consideration of dose and co-morbidities. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors can be used at reduced dose in patients with very low rates of glomerular filtration, and linagliptin can be used without dose reduction, and has been used in patients on dialysis. Insulin can be used at any stage of renal impairment, but the regimen and the dose must be suitably adjusted and accompanied by adequate monitoring. © The Author(s), 2012.

Value of glycaemic control in diabetes

Full text: Several Lancet publications have questioned the value of glycaemic control in diabetic patients. For example, in their Comment (Sept 29, p 1103),1 John Cleland and Stephen Atkin state that “Improved glycaemic control is not a surrogate for effective care of patients who have diabetes”, and Victor Montori and colleagues (p 1104)2 claim that “HbA1c loses its validity as a surrogate marker when patients have a constellation of metabolic abnormalities”. We are concerned that the reaction against “glucocentricity” in the field of diabetes has gone too far. Even the UK's National Prescribing Centre website, carrying the National Health Service logo, includes comments that undermine the value of glycaemic control. For example, referring to the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), this site states that “Compared with ‘conventional control’ there was no benefit from tight control of blood glucose with sulphonylureas or insulin with regard to total mortality, diabetes-related death, macrovascular outcomes or microvascular outcomes, including all the most serious ones such as blindness or kidney failure”.3 It is well established that better glycaemic control reduces long-term microvascular complications in type 1 and type 2 diabetes.4 In type 2 diabetes, the UKPDS reported that a composite microvascular endpoint (retinopathy requiring photocoagulation, vitreous haemorrhage, and fatal or non-fatal renal failure) was reduced by 25% in patients randomised to intensive glucose control (p=0·0099).4 To imply that these are not patient-relevant outcomes is to distort the evidence. Many studies have also found that improved glycaemic control reduces macrovascular complications.5 Do not be misled: glycaemic control remains a crucial component in the care of people with diabetes. The authors have received research support and undertaken ad hoc consultancies and speaker engagements for several pharmaceutical companies.