4.3 Article

Early Effect of Single-dose Sitagliptin Administration on Gastric Emptying: Crossover Study Using the 13C Breath Test

期刊

出版社

KOREAN SOC NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY & MOTILITY
DOI: 10.5056/jnm.2013.19.2.227

关键词

Breath tests; Gastric emptying; Sitagliptin

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24790714, 25860506] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aims The gastrointestinal motility effects of endogenous incretin hormones enhanced by dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-IV) inhibitors have not yet been sufficiently investigated. The aim of this study was to determine whether single pre-prandial sitagliptin, the DPP-IV inhibitor, administration might have an effect on the rate of liquid gastric emptying using the C-13-acetic acid breath test. Methods Ten healthy male volunteers participated in this randomized, two-way crossover study. The subjects fasted for overnight and were randomly assigned to receive 50 mg sitagliptin 2 hours before ingestion of the liquid test meal (200 kcal per 200 mL, containing 100 mg C-13-acetate) or the test meal alone. Under both conditions, breath samples were collected for 150 minutes following the meal. Liquid gastric emptying was estimated by the values of the following parameters: the time required for 50% emptying of the labeled meal (T-1/2), the analog to the scintigraphy lag time for 10% emptying of the labeled meal (T-lag), the gastric emptying coefficient and the regression-estimated constants (beta and kappa), calculated by using the (CO2)-C-13 breath excretion curve using the conventional formulae. The parameters between the 2 test conditions were compared statistically. Results No significant differences in the calculated parameters, including T-1/2, T-lag, gastric emptying coefficient or beta and kappa, were observed between the 2 test conditions. Conclusions The present study revealed that single-dose sitagliptin intake had no significant influence on the rate of liquid gastric emptying in asymptomatic volunteers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据