In the nervous system, NMDA receptors (NMDARs) participate in neurotransmission and modulate the viability of neurons. In contrast, little is known about the role of NMDARs in pancreatic islets and the insulin-secreting beta cells whose functional impairment contributes to diabetes mellitus. Here we found that inhibition of NMDARs in mouse and human islets enhanced their glucose-stimulated insulin secretion (GSIS) and survival of islet cells. Further, NMDAR inhibition prolonged the amount of time that glucose-stimulated beta cells spent in a depolarized state with high cytosolic Ca(2+) concentrations. We also noticed that, in vivo, the NMDAR antagonist dextromethorphan (DXM) enhanced glucose tolerance in mice, and that in vitro dextrorphan, the main metabolite of DXM, amplified the stimulatory effect of exendin-4 on GSIS. In a mouse model of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), long-term treatment with DXM improved islet insulin content, islet cell mass and blood glucose control. Further, in a small clinical trial we found that individuals with T2DM treated with DXM showed enhanced serum insulin concentrations and glucose tolerance. Our data highlight the possibility that antagonists of NMDARs may provide a useful adjunct treatment for diabetes.

Insulin absorption and action are blunted and considerably more variable with LHT injection, leading to profound deterioration in postprandial glucose control.

In summary, large volume and thigh injections are rated more painful, but the clinical impact of these findings is likely marginal considering the low absolute pain levels and high patient acceptance rates. Injection speed does not influence pain sensation.

As demonstrated previously versus lispro, GLU, the only analogue formulated without zinc, also has an earlier onset of action than ASP.

In this clinical trial, we investigated the blood glucose (BG)‐lowering effects of 30, 60 and 90 mg dextromethorphan (DXM) as well as 100 mg sitagliptin alone versus combinations of DXM and sitagliptin during an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in 20 men with T2DM. The combination of 60 mg DXM plus 100 mg sitagliptin was observed to have the strongest effect in the OGTT. It lowered maximum BG concentrations and increased the baseline‐adjusted area under the curve for serum insulin concentrations in the first 30 min of the OGTT (mean ± standard deviation 240 ± 47 mg/dl and 8.1 ± 6.1 mU/l/h, respectively) to a significantly larger extent than did 100 mg sitagliptin alone (254 ± 50 mg/dl and 5.8 ± 2.5 mU/l/h, respectively; p < 0.05) and placebo (272 ± 49 mg/dl and 3.9 ± 3.0 mU/l/h, respectively; p < 0.001). All study drugs were well tolerated, alone and in combination, without serious adverse events or hypoglycaemia. Long‐term clinical trials are now warranted to investigate the potential of the combination of 30 or 60 mg DXM and dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitors in the treatment of individuals with T2DM, in particular as preclinical studies have identified the β‐cell protective properties of DXM.

After metformin failure, sequential treatment escalation with empagliflozin and linagliptin is an attractive treatment option because of the additive effects on postprandial glucose control, probably mediated by complementary effects on α- and β-cell function.

In patients with T2DM, repeated, timely spaced SAF measurements have an intra-subject variability of below 11%. Using these data, sample sizes were calculated for interventional studies aiming at reducing SAF. Benfotiamine treatment for 6 weeks did not significantly influence SAF; for this, a longer-term therapy is probably needed.

Aim. We hypothesized that 4 days of normal daily activity after 21 days of experimental bed rest (BR) will not reverse BR induced impaired glucose tolerance. Design. Glucose tolerance of seven male, healthy, untrained test subjects (age: 27.6 (3.3) years (mean (SD)); body mass: 78.6 (6.4) kg; height: 1.81 (0.04) m; VO2 max: 39.5 (5.4) ml/kg body mass/min) was studied. They stayed twice in the metabolic ward (crossover design), 21 days in bed and 7 days before and after BR each. Oral glucose tolerance tests were applied before, on day 21 of BR, and 5 and 14 days after BR. Results. On day 21 of BR, AUC120 min of glucose concentration was increased by 28.8 (5.2)% and AUC120 min of insulin by 35.9 (10.2)% (glucose: P < 0.001; insulin: P = 0.02). Fourteen days after BR, AUC120 min of serum insulin concentrations returned to pre-bed-rest concentrations (P = 0.352) and AUC120 min of glucose was still higher (P = 0.038). Insulin resistance did not change, but sensitivity index was reduced during BR (P = 0.005). Conclusion. Four days of light physical workload does not compensate inactivity induced impaired glucose tolerance. An individually tailored and intensified training regime is mandatory in patients being in bed rest to get back to normal glucose metabolism in a reasonable time frame.