Dataset Information

Metabolic Effects of Late Dinner in Healthy Volunteers-A Randomized Crossover Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Context

Consuming calories later in the day is associated with obesity and metabolic syndrome. We hypothesized that eating a late dinner alters substrate metabolism during sleep in a manner that promotes obesity.

Objective

The objective of this work is to examine the impact of late dinner on nocturnal metabolism in healthy volunteers.

Design and setting

This is a randomized crossover trial of late dinner (LD, 22:00) vs routine dinner (RD, 18:00), with a fixed sleep period (23:00-07:00) in a laboratory setting.

Participants

Participants comprised 20 healthy volunteers (10 male, 10 female), age 26.0 ± 0.6 years, body mass index 23.2 ± 0.7 kg/m2, accustomed to a bedtime between 22:00 and 01:00.

Interventions

An isocaloric macronutrient diet was administered on both visits. Dinner (35% daily kcal, 50% carbohydrate, 35% fat) with an oral lipid tracer ([2H31] palmitate, 15 mg/kg) was given at 18:00 with RD and 22:00 with LD.

Main outcome measures

Measurements included nocturnal and next-morning hourly plasma glucose, insulin, triglycerides, free fatty acids (FFAs), cortisol, dietary fatty acid oxidation, and overnight polysomnography.

Results

LD caused a 4-hour shift in the postprandial period, overlapping with the sleep phase. Independent of this shift, the postprandial period following LD was characterized by higher glucose, a triglyceride peak delay, and lower FFA and dietary fatty acid oxidation. LD did not affect sleep architecture, but increased plasma cortisol. These metabolic changes were most pronounced in habitual earlier sleepers determined by actigraphy monitoring.

Conclusion

LD induces nocturnal glucose intolerance, and reduces fatty acid oxidation and mobilization, particularly in earlier sleepers. These effects might promote obesity if they recur chronically.

SUBMITTER: Gu C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7337187 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAripiprazole and olanzapine are atypical antipsychotics. Both drugs can induce metabolic changes; however, the metabolic side effects produced by aripiprazole are more benign. The aim of the study was to evaluate if aripiprazole and olanzapine alter prolactin levels, lipid and glucose metabolism and hepatic, haematological, thyroid and renal function.MethodsTwenty-four healthy volunteers received a daily oral dose of 10 mg aripiprazole and 5 mg olanzapine tablets for 5 days in a crossover randomised clinical trial and were genotyped for 51 polymorphisms in 18 genes by qPCR. Drug plasma concentrations were measured by LC-MS. The biochemical and haematological analyses were performed by enzymatic methods.ResultsOlanzapine induced hyperprolactinaemia but aripiprazole did not. Dopamine D3 receptor (DRD3) Ser/Gly and ATP binding cassette subfamily B member 1 (ABCB1) rs10280101, rs12720067 and rs11983225 polymorphisms and cytochrome P450 3A (CYP3A) phenotype had an impact on plasma prolactin levels. C-peptide concentrations were higher after aripiprazole administration and were influenced by catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) rs4680 and rs13306278 polymorphisms. Olanzapine and the UDP glucuronosyltransferase family 1 member A1 (UGT1A1) rs887829 polymorphism were associated with elevated glucose levels. CYP3A poor metabolizers had increased insulin levels. Volunteers' weight decreased significantly during aripiprazole treatment and a tendency for weight gain was observed during olanzapine treatment. Triglyceride concentrations decreased as a result of olanzapine and aripiprazole treatment, and varied on the basis of CYP3A phenotypes and the apolipoprotein C-III (APOC3) rs4520 genotype. Cholesterol levels were also decreased and depended on 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor 2A (HTR2A) rs6314 polymorphism. All hepatic enzymes, platelet and albumin levels, and prothrombin time were altered during both treatments. Additionally, olanzapine reduced the leucocyte count, aripiprazole increased free T4 and both decreased uric acid concentrations.ConclusionsShort-term treatment with aripiprazole and olanzapine had a significant influence on the metabolic parameters. However, it seems that aripiprazole provokes less severe metabolic changes.Trial registrationClinical trial registration number (EUDRA-CT): 2018-000744-26.

Project description:Background and rationaleAtypical antipsychotics exhibit metabolic side effects including diabetes mellitus and obesity. The adverse events are preceded by acute worsening of oral glucose tolerance (oGTT) along with reduced plasma free fatty acids (FFA) and leptin in animal models. It is unclear whether the same acute effects occur in humans.Methodology/principal findingsA double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial was conducted to examine the potential metabolic effects of olanzapine in healthy volunteers. Participants included male (8) and female (7) subjects [18-30 years old, BMI 18.5-25]. Subjects received placebo or olanzapine (10 mg/day) for three days prior to oGTT testing. Primary endpoints included measurement of plasma leptin, oral glucose tolerance, and plasma free fatty acids (FFA). Secondary metabolic endpoints included: triglycerides, total cholesterol, high- and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, heart rate, blood pressure, body weight and BMI. Olanzapine increased glucose Area Under the Curve (AUC) by 42% (2808±474 vs. 3984±444 mg/dl·min; P = 0.0105) during an oGTT. Fasting plasma leptin and triglycerides were elevated 24% (Leptin: 6.8±1.3 vs. 8.4±1.7 ng/ml; P = 0.0203) and 22% (Triglycerides: 88.9±10.1 vs. 108.2±11.6 mg/dl; P = 0.0170), whereas FFA and HDL declined by 32% (FFA: 0.38±0.06 vs. 0.26±0.04 mM; P = 0.0166) and 11% (54.2±4.7 vs. 48.9±4.3 mg/dl; P = 0.0184), respectively after olanzapine. Other measures were unchanged.Conclusions/significanceOlanzapine exerts some but not all of the early endocrine/metabolic changes observed in rodent models of the metabolic side effects, and this suggest that antipsychotic effects are not limited to perturbations in glucose metabolism alone. Future prospective clinical studies should focus on identifying which reliable metabolic alterations might be useful as potential screening tools in assessing patient susceptibility to weight gain and diabetes caused by atypical antipsychotics.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00741026.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Budesonide has a long history as intranasal drug, with many marketed products. Efforts should be made to demonstrate the therapeutic equivalence and safety comparability between them. Given that systemic availability significantly varies from formulations, the clinical comparability of diverse products comes to be of clinical interest and a regulatory requirement. The aim of the present study was to compare the systemic availability, pharmacodynamic effect, and safety of two intranasal budesonide formulations for the treatment of rhinitis. METHODS: Eighteen healthy volunteers participated in this randomised, controlled, crossover, clinical trial. On two separated days, subjects received a single dose of 512 mug budesonide (4 puffs per nostril) from each of the assayed devices (Budesonida nasal 64(R), Aldo-Union, Spain and Rhinocort 64(R), AstraZeneca, Spain). Budesonide availability was determined by the measurement of budesonide plasma concentration. The pharmacodynamic effect on the hypothalamic-adrenal axis was evaluated as both plasma and urine cortisol levels. Adverse events were tabulated and described. Budesonide availability between formulations was compared by the calculation of 90%CI intervals of the ratios of the main pharmacokinetic parameters describing budesonide bioavailability. Plasma cortisol concentration-time curves were compared by means of a GLM for Repeated Measures. Urine cortisol excretion between formulations was compared through the Wilcoxon's test. RESULTS: All the enrolled volunteers successfully completed the study. Pharmacokinetic parameters were comparable in terms of AUC(t) (2.6 +/- 1.5 vs 2.2 +/- 0.7), AUC(i) (2.9 +/- 1.5 vs 2.4 +/- 0.7), t(max) (0.4 +/- 0.1 vs 0.4 +/- 0.2), C(max)/AUC(i) (0.3 +/- 0.1 vs 0.3 +/- 0.0), and MRT (5.0 +/- 1.4 vs 4.5 +/- 0.6), but not in the case of C(max) (0.9 +/- 0.3 vs 0.7 +/- 0.2) and t(1/2) (3.7 +/- 1.8 vs 2.9 +/- 0.4). The pharmacodynamic effects, measured as the effect over plasma and urine cortisol, were also comparables between both formulations. No severe adverse events were reported and tolerance was comparable between formulations. CONCLUSION: The systemic availability of intranasal budesonide was comparable for both formulations in terms of most pharmacokinetic parameters. The pharmacodynamic effect on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis was also similar. Side effects were scarce and equivalent between the two products. This methodology to compare different budesonide-containing devices is reliable and easy to perform, and should be recommended for similar products intented to be marketed or already on the market. TRIAL REGISTRATION: No Eudra CT: 2005-003727-39.