Premium
Low‐dose Pramlintide Reduced Food Intake and Meal Duration in Healthy, Normal‐Weight Subjects
Author(s) -
Chapman Ian,
Parker Barbara,
Doran Selena,
FeinleBisset Christine,
Wishart Judith,
Lush Cameron W.,
Chen Kim,
LaCerte Carl,
Burns Colleen,
McKay Robyn,
Weyer Christian,
Horowitz Michael
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
obesity
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.438
H-Index - 199
eISSN - 1930-739X
pISSN - 1930-7381
DOI - 10.1038/oby.2007.626
Subject(s) - amylin , medicine , meal , placebo , peptide yy , visual analogue scale , endocrinology , ghrelin , crossover study , calorie , insulin , anesthesia , hormone , alternative medicine , receptor , islet , pathology , neuropeptide y receptor , neuropeptide
Objective: We previously reported that a single preprandial injection (120 μg) of pramlintide, an analog of the β‐cell hormone amylin, reduced ad libitum food intake in obese subjects. To further characterize the meal‐related effects of amylin signaling in humans, we studied a lower pramlintide dose (30 μg) in normal‐weight subjects. Research Methods and Procedures: In a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, cross‐over study, 15 healthy men (age, 24 ± 7 years; BMI, 22.2 ± 1.8 kg/m 2 ) underwent a standardized buffet meal test on two occasions. After an overnight fast, subjects received a single subcutaneous injection of pramlintide (30 μg) or placebo, followed immediately by a standardized pre‐load meal. After 1 hour, subjects were offered an ad libitum buffet meal, and total caloric intake and meal duration were measured. Results: Compared with placebo, pramlintide reduced total caloric intake (1411 ± 94 vs. 1190 ± 117 kcal; Δ, −221 ± 101 kcal; −14 ± 9%; p = 0.05) and meal duration (36 ± 2 vs. 31 ± 3 minutes; Δ, −5.1 ± 1.4 minutes; p < 0.005). Visual analog scale profiles of hunger trended lower and fullness higher during the first hour after pramlintide administration. In response to the buffet, hunger and fullness changed to a similar degree after pramlintide and placebo, despite subjects on pramlintide consuming 14% fewer kilocalories. Visual analog scale nausea ratings remained near baseline, without differences between treatments. Plasma peptide YY, cholecystokinin, and ghrelin concentrations did not differ with treatment, whereas glucagon‐like peptide‐1 concentrations after meals were lower in response to pramlintide than to placebo. Discussion: These observations add support to the concept that amylin agonism may have a role in human appetite control.