Rapid glycemic improvements following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are frequently attributed to the enhanced GLP-1 response, but causality remains unclear. To determine the role of GLP-1 in improved glucose tolerance after surgery, we compared glucose and hormonal responses to a liquid meal test in 20 obese participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus who underwent RYGB or nonsurgical intensive lifestyle modification (ILM) (n = 10 per group) before and after equivalent short-term weight reduction. The GLP-1 receptor antagonist exendin(9–39)-amide (Ex-9) was administered, in random order and in double-blinded fashion, with saline during two separate visits after equivalent weight loss. Despite the markedly exaggerated GLP-1 response after RYGB, changes in postprandial glucose and insulin responses did not significantly differ between groups, and glucagon secretion was paradoxically augmented after RYGB. Hepatic insulin sensitivity also increased significantly after RYGB. With Ex-9, glucose tolerance deteriorated similarly from the saline condition in both groups, but postprandial insulin release was markedly attenuated after RYGB compared with ILM. GLP-1 exerts important insulinotropic effects after RYGB and ILM, but the enhanced incretin response plays a limited role in improved glycemia shortly after surgery. Instead, enhanced hepatic metabolism, independent of GLP-1 receptor activation, may be more important for early postsurgical glycemic improvements.

Bariatric surgery has increased significantly as a treatment option for obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Dysglycemia improves within days of the gastrointestinal diversionary procedure Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), before significant weight loss occurs (13). Whether this phenomenon is predominantly attributable to caloric restriction or whether altered hormonal, neural, or nutrient signals play a pivotal role remains unclear. The dramatic increase in the potent insulin secretagogue GLP-1 after RYGB has been associated with improved glucose tolerance in multiple studies (46). GLP-1 further attenuates postprandial hyperglycemia by inhibiting glucagon secretion, suppressing endogenous glucose production (EGP), delaying gastric emptying, and promoting satiety (7,8). The enhanced postsurgical GLP-1 response is frequently hypothesized to be an important determinant of improved glucoregulation after RYGB, but causality has not been clearly established in humans.

The physiological activity of GLP-1 has been extensively investigated through blockade of its receptor (GLP-1R) by exendin(9–39)-amide (Ex-9) (911). Ex-9 completely abolishes the insulinotropic effects of GLP-1 but does not affect other hormones that stimulate insulin secretion (e.g., glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide [GIP]) (12). Ex-9 was recently used to investigate the contribution of the enhanced GLP-1 response to RYGB-associated hyperinsulinism (13) and to glucose metabolism following RYGB (1416). While these studies confirm that GLP-1 augments postprandial insulin release after RYGB, they were limited by the inclusion of individuals without T2DM (14), the lack of an appropriate control group (15), or were performed after the confounding effects of significant weight loss (16).

This study used Ex-9 to determine whether the glycemic improvements observed shortly after RYGB are primarily mediated by the enhanced postsurgical GLP-1 response compared with a control group that achieved equivalent short-term weight reduction through nonsurgical intensive lifestyle modification (ILM), which is not associated with changes in the incretin response (1719).

Setting and Population

This prospective, mechanistic trial was conducted at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, PA, between June 2011 and April 2013. Participants were not randomly assigned to RYGB or ILM because we previously found that fewer than 16% of potential bariatric surgery patients were willing to be randomized to an intervention (20). RYGB participants were recruited from the Penn Metabolic Surgery Clinic. Controls, who were not seeking weight reduction surgery and were matched for age, BMI, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), were recruited from local medical practices and through advertising. Twenty obese men and women with T2DM, aged ≥18 years and with a BMI of 35 to 60 kg/m2, were recruited for the study. Exclusion criteria included a duration of T2DM >10 years, HbA1c >10.0%, daily insulin requirements >1.0 units/kg/day, use of medications known to affect weight (i.e., chronic oral or inhaled glucocorticoids, certain antipsychotic medications, or medications intended to promote weight loss) within 3 months of enrollment, significant medical conditions, and pregnancy or lactation. The study was approved by the institutional review board of the University of Pennsylvania. All participants provided written informed consent.

Treatment Groups

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

All RYGB procedures were performed laparoscopically using a standardized 30-mL pouch and a 100-cm Roux limb, effectively bypassing the entire duodenum and the proximal jejunum. RYGB participants followed a typical diet after bariatric surgery, which provides 500 kcal/day for the first 4 weeks, gradually increasing to 900–1,000 kcal/day by the second 4 weeks.

ILM

Participants attended weekly 60-min group sessions for the first 16 weeks of the program, followed by every-other-week sessions for the remaining 8 weeks (24 weeks of treatment). Sessions were led by a behavioral psychologist and followed a structured program, as previously described (21,22). For the first 12 weeks, participants were prescribed a diet of 1,000–1,100 kcal/day that incorporated meal replacements (Health Management Resources, Boston, MA) to induce 10% loss of initial body weight, followed by weight maintenance procedures, as previously described (21,22).

Mixed-Meal Tolerance Test

Participants underwent mixed-meal tolerance tests (MMTTs) at baseline and on two separate occasions (within 5–10 days of each other) after equivalent weight reduction was achieved. Antihyperglycemic medications were discontinued 10 days before study visits. Rapid-acting insulin was held on the morning of study visits and long-acting insulin for the preceding 12 h. Following an overnight fast, one catheter was inserted in an antecubital vein for infusions and another was placed in a contralateral heated forearm vein for blood sampling. At t = −120 min, a priming dose of 5 mg/kg · fasting plasma glucose (mg/dL)/90 of 6,62H2 glucose (99% enriched; Cambridge Isotopes Laboratories, Andover, MA) was administered over 5 min, followed by a continuous infusion (0.05 mg/kg/min) until meal ingestion to determine the rate of basal EGP. Prestimulus blood samples were taken 15, 10, 5, and 1 min before meal ingestion. At t = 0 min, the tracer infusion was stopped and participants consumed a liquid meal test (Boost, 240 mL, 240 kcal, 55% carbohydrate, 25% protein, and 20% fat) at a standardized rate of 20 mL/min over 12 min. Subsequent blood sampling occurred at 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, 105, 120, 140, 160, and 180 min after ingestion.

Ex-9 Administration

Lyophilized Ex-9 (Protein/Peptide Core Facility at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA), which was greater than 95% pure, was reconstituted in 0.9% saline and 0.25% human albumin and dispensed by the Penn Investigational Drug Service. Ex-9 or matching placebo infusion was administered, in random order, during two separate visits at the point of equivalent weight reduction. Both participants and study staff were blinded to the Ex-9 or placebo assignment. At 60 min before meal ingestion, an intravenous bolus of saline or Ex-9 (7,500 pmol/kg) was administered for 1 min, followed by a continuous infusion (750 pmol/kg/min) until 180 min after ingestion. This Ex-9 infusion rate, which has been used in prior bariatric studies (13,16), blocks the insulinotropic effects of supraphysiologic infusions of GLP-1 almost completely (23).

Biochemical Analysis

All samples were collected on ice in tubes containing EDTA. Protease inhibitor cocktail (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (Millipore, Billerica, MA) was immediately added and the samples were centrifuged at 4°C, separated, and frozen at −80°C. Plasma glucose was determined in duplicate by the glucose oxidase method using an automated glucose analyzer (YSI 2300; Yellow Springs Instruments, Yellow Springs, OH). Plasma immunoreactive insulin, C-peptide, and glucagon were measured in duplicate by double-antibody radioimmunoassays (Millipore) at the Penn Diabetes Research Center (DRC). Active GLP-1 and GLP-2 and total GIP were measured in duplicate by ELISA (Millipore) at the Penn DRC and the Translational Core Laboratory of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, respectively. Enrichment of 6,62H2 glucose was measured using gas chromatography–mass spectrometry at the Metabolic Tracer Resource of the Penn Institute for Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

Calculations

Hormonal and metabolic responses to the meal challenge were determined by calculating the integrated area over baseline (incremental area under the curve [iAUC]) by the trapezoidal rule, with the mean of the four baseline values subtracted using Origin software (version 8.5; OriginLab Corp., Northhampton, MA).

Measures of insulin secretion and sensitivity were derived from data collected during the MMTT. The insulin secretion index (ISI), a standard measure of β-cell function in response to a liquid meal test, was calculated as the ratio of the insulin to glucose response (insulin iAUC0–120/glucose iAUC0–120) (24). The Matsuda index of insulin sensitivity (MISI), which provides an estimate of whole-body insulin sensitivity that is highly correlated with measures from the euglycemic clamp, was calculated using the equation 10,000/sqrt (basal glucose × basal insulin × mean postprandial glucose × mean postprandial insulin) (25). MISI derived from a standard liquid meal test has been validated against the minimal model of insulin sensitivity (26). The disposition index (DI), a measure of β-cell compensation that relates insulin secretion to the prevailing insulin sensitivity, was calculated as the product of ISI and MISI (27). The DI derived from a standard liquid meal test has been validated against the DI derived from the frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test (28). In addition, the DI derived from a standard liquid meal test has been specifically validated in individuals with T2DM after RYGB (29).

Basal rates of EGP were calculated using Steele’s steady-state equation (30). Hepatic insulin sensitivity (HIS) was calculated using the equation 1,000/([basal EGP] × [basal insulin]) (25). Hepatic insulin clearance was calculated as the molar ratio of fasting serum C-peptide to insulin (CI) (31).

Outcomes

Outcome variables were measured at 1) baseline (before weight loss); 2) after equivalent weight reduction (−10% of initial body weight) with administration of saline or Ex-9 in random order; and 3) 5–10 days later with the infusion that was not previously administered. Primary outcome variables were 1) change in postprandial glucose tolerance (defined as the glucose iAUC) between groups after weight loss and 2) change in postprandial glucose tolerance between groups under conditions of saline and GLP-1R blockade. Secondary outcome variables included the change in glucoregulatory hormonal responses to the MMTT under both conditions and calculated indices of insulin secretion and sensitivity and indices of hepatic glucose metabolism.

Statistics

Baseline characteristics between the two groups were compared using χ2 tests for dichotomous variables and independent t tests (or the nonparametric equivalent) for continuous variables. Changes in glucose tolerance and other hormonal responses were compared in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population with the use of repeated measures linear mixed-effects models. Mixed-effects models use all available data without imputation and are more efficient than traditional methodologies (e.g., t tests) (32). A sensitivity analysis was performed to adjust for baseline differences between groups by entering the following covariates into each of these models: baseline weight, baseline HbA1c, duration of diabetes, and insulin use. An additional sensitivity analysis was performed to include only participants who completed the study. All analyses were performed using SAS software (version 9.3; SAS Institute, Cary, NC), with a significance level of 0.05.

Baseline Characteristics of Study Participants

We recruited 20 participants (10 per group) for the study, of whom 16 completed visits at baseline and after equivalent weight reduction. Two ILM participants failed to achieve the target weight loss after 24 weeks of treatment and did not complete the remaining study visits. One RYGB participant was withdrawn after developing serious postoperative complications and a second was excluded after a pancreatic mass was found at the time of surgery, requiring partial pancreatectomy.

Baseline clinical characteristics of the study population did not differ significantly between groups (Table 1). Participants had a mean (SD) age of 52.9 (9.2) years, weight of 121.2 (21.7) kg, BMI of 42.5 (5.0) kg/m2, HbA1c of 7.5% (0.6%), duration of T2DM of 4.2 (3.1) years, and took an average of 2.1 (0.8) antidiabetes medications.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of participants

ILM (n = 10)RYGB (n = 10)P value
Age (years) 51.8 (11.6) 54.0 (6.6) 0.61 
Sex (%)   0.14* 
 Male 5 (50.0) 1 (10.0)  
 Female 5 (50.0) 9 (90.0)  
Race (%)   0.63* 
 White 8 (80.0) 6 (60.0)  
 Black 2 (20.0) 4 (40.0)  
Weight (kg) 122.0 (20.6) 120.5 (23.9) 0.88 
BMI (kg/m241.8 (3.8) 43.2 (6.0) 0.53 
Waist circumference (cm) 134.6 (13.5) 129.0 (18.0) 0.44 
HbA1c (%) 7.5 (0.7) 7.5 (0.6) 0.95 
Duration of T2DM (years) 3.1 (2.7) 5.2 (3.3) 0.13 
Antidiabetes medications (n)** 2.5 (0.2) 1.9 (0.2) 0.08 
Diabetes medications (%)   0.21* 
 Oral medications only 9 (90.0) 6 (60.0)  
 Insulin only 0 (0.0) 3 (30.0)  
 Oral medication and insulin 1 (10.0) 1 (10.0)  
ILM (n = 10)RYGB (n = 10)P value
Age (years) 51.8 (11.6) 54.0 (6.6) 0.61 
Sex (%)   0.14* 
 Male 5 (50.0) 1 (10.0)  
 Female 5 (50.0) 9 (90.0)  
Race (%)   0.63* 
 White 8 (80.0) 6 (60.0)  
 Black 2 (20.0) 4 (40.0)  
Weight (kg) 122.0 (20.6) 120.5 (23.9) 0.88 
BMI (kg/m241.8 (3.8) 43.2 (6.0) 0.53 
Waist circumference (cm) 134.6 (13.5) 129.0 (18.0) 0.44 
HbA1c (%) 7.5 (0.7) 7.5 (0.6) 0.95 
Duration of T2DM (years) 3.1 (2.7) 5.2 (3.3) 0.13 
Antidiabetes medications (n)** 2.5 (0.2) 1.9 (0.2) 0.08 
Diabetes medications (%)   0.21* 
 Oral medications only 9 (90.0) 6 (60.0)  
 Insulin only 0 (0.0) 3 (30.0)  
 Oral medication and insulin 1 (10.0) 1 (10.0)  

Data are presented as means (SD) unless otherwise indicated. P > 0.05 for all comparisons between groups.

*

Fisher’s exact test used.

**

Four participants in the ILM group took dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor intravenously at the baseline visit and two discontinued the medication before the second study visit. One participant in the RYGB group took a GLP-1 mimetic at the baseline visit, which was discontinued before the second study visit.

Achievement of Target Weight Loss

ILM participants lost a mean of 12.6 (1.2) kg (−10.2% of initial body weight) versus 12.0 (1.2) kg (−9.9%) in the RYGB group (P = 0.95). Target weight loss was achieved more rapidly after RYGB than ILM (58.9 [12.1] vs. 85.5 [24.4] days, respectively; P = 0.02). Both groups lost minimal weight between the second and third study visits, which occurred at a mean of 6.6 (1.8) days apart. All ILM participants continued to require antidiabetes medications after weight loss, whereas the majority of the RYGB group (5 of 8) had discontinued all antidiabetes medications after surgery (P = 0.03).

Postprandial Glucose and Hormonal Responses After Equivalent Weight Loss

Glucose and hormonal curves are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. The change in fasting glucose and hormonal concentrations did not differ significantly between groups after equivalent weight reduction (Table 2). These parameters tended to decrease significantly from baseline in both groups, with the exception of fasting GLP-1 and GLP-2 concentrations (which were essentially unchanged).

Figure 1

Glucose, GLP-1, insulin, and C-peptide responses to meal ingestion. ILM (panels A–D) and RYGB responses (panels D–G) are shown at baseline (black circles), after equivalent reduction of 10% of initial body weight with saline (white circles), and after equivalent weight reduction with GLP-1R blockade (white squares). Data are presented as means (SEMs).

Figure 1

Glucose, GLP-1, insulin, and C-peptide responses to meal ingestion. ILM (panels A–D) and RYGB responses (panels D–G) are shown at baseline (black circles), after equivalent reduction of 10% of initial body weight with saline (white circles), and after equivalent weight reduction with GLP-1R blockade (white squares). Data are presented as means (SEMs).

Figure 2

GLP-2, GIP, and glucagon responses to meal ingestion. ILM (panels A–C) and RYGB responses (panels D–F) are shown at baseline (black circles), after equivalent reduction of 10% of initial body weight with saline (white circles), and after equivalent weight reduction with GLP-1R blockade (white squares). Data are presented as means ± SEMs.

Figure 2

GLP-2, GIP, and glucagon responses to meal ingestion. ILM (panels A–C) and RYGB responses (panels D–F) are shown at baseline (black circles), after equivalent reduction of 10% of initial body weight with saline (white circles), and after equivalent weight reduction with GLP-1R blockade (white squares). Data are presented as means ± SEMs.

Table 2

Anthropometric and metabolic data pre- and post-10% weight loss

ILM (n = 10)RYGB (n = 10)P value
BaselineAfter 10% weight loss∆ with 10% weight lossBaselineAfter 10% weight loss∆ with10% weight loss
Anthropometric and metabolic measures        
 Weight (kg) 122.0 (6.5) 109.4 (6.3) −12.6 (1.2)++ 120.5 (7.6) 108.5 (6.3) −12.0 (1.2)++ 0.76 
 BMI (kg/m241.8 (1.2) 37.3 (1.4) −4.5 (0.4)++ 43.2 (1.9) 39.1 (1.4) −4.1 (0.4)++ 0.54 
 Waist circumference (cm) 134.6 (4.3) 126.6 (4.9) −8.0 (0.8)++ 129.0 (5.7) 121.1 (4.9) −7.9 (1.2)++ 0.94 
 HbA1c (%) 7.5 (0.2) 6.4 (0.1) −1.1 (0.2)++ 7.5 (0.2) 6.4 (0.1) −1.1 (0.2)++ 0.88 
Fasting measures        
 Glucose (mg/dL) 152.2 (7.8) 129.9 (8.5) −22.2 (9.2)* 155.0 (6.4) 113.4 (8.5) −41.6 (9.2)++ 0.15 
 GLP-1 (pmol/L) 3.6 (1.0) 3.6 (0.8) 0.0 (0.4) 2.7 (0.4) 2.6 (0.8) −0.1 (0.4) 0.79 
 GLP-2 (pmol/L) 2.9 (0.5) 2.0 (0.5) −0.9 (0.5) 2.9 (0.6) 2.5 (0.5) −0.4 (0.5) 0.45 
 GIP (pg/mL) 51.7 (5.2) 28.1 (4.6) −23.6 (10.2)* 57.6 (12.0) 35.8 (4.6) −21.8 (10.2)* 0.90 
 Insulin (μU/mL) 28.3 (3.3) 21.7 (1.9) −6.5 (4.1) 28.1 (5.0) 13.1 (1.9) −15.0 (4.1)+ 0.16 
 C-peptide (ng/mL) 2.2 (0.3 2.3 (0.2) 0.1 (0.3) 2.2 (0.3) 1.8 (0.2) −0.4 (0.3) 0.25 
 Glucagon (pg/mL) 63.7 (7.2) 46.9 (4.4) −16.8 (47)+ 61.5 (6.3) 42.5 (4.4) −19.0 (4.7)++ 0.75 
Glucose and hormonal responses  to MMTT (iAUC)        
 Glucose (mg · dL−1 · min−18,403.4 (979.9) 5,320.5 (711.1) −3,082.9 (896.2)+ 6,484.9 (991.4) 5,558.1 (711.1) −926.8 (896.2) 0.11 
  0–120 min 5,827.0 (585.7) 4,206.5 (613.6) −1,620.5 (601.2)* 4,989.4 (585.7) 5,062.6 (613.6) 73.3 (601.2) 0.06 
  120–180 min 2,576.4 (501.9) 1,121.2 (285.5) −1,455.2 (446.4)+ 1,535.5 (501.9) 495.1 (285.5) −1,040.5 (446.4)* 0.52 
 GLP-1 (pmol · L−1 · min−1321.6 (84.7) 236.0 (276.0) −85.6 (284.3) 362.2 (93.1) 3,393.8 (276.0) 3,031.6 (284.3)++ <0.001 
 GLP-2 (pmol · L−1 · min−139.7 (19.9) 59.1 (70.0) 19.3 (64.2) 43.9 (35.1) 558.0 (70.0) 514.0 (64.2)++ <0.001 
 GIP (pg · mL−1 · min−124,155.1 (2,373.6) 30,462.0 (5,866.7) 6,307.4 (5,255.0) 22,178.6 (3,966.1) 27,506.0 (5,932.7) 5,327.3 (5,257.2) 0.90 
 Insulin (μU · mL−1 · min−14,796.6 (1,297.4) 5,317.4 (960.5) 520.8 (851.1) 4,177.2 (983.0) 4,940.5 (960.5) 763.2 (851.1) 0.84 
 C-peptide (ng · mL−1 · min−1242.4 (49.0) 258.9 (42.9) 16.5 (47.9) 245.9 (49.0) 309.7 (42.9) 63.8 (47.9)+ 0.49 
 Glucagon (pg · mL−1 · min−11,960.5 (307.2) 1,254.9 (270.2) −705.6 (615.3) 1,051.8 (637.2) 4,101.8 (270.2)++ 3,050.0 (615.3)++ <0.001 
ILM (n = 10)RYGB (n = 10)P value
BaselineAfter 10% weight loss∆ with 10% weight lossBaselineAfter 10% weight loss∆ with10% weight loss
Anthropometric and metabolic measures        
 Weight (kg) 122.0 (6.5) 109.4 (6.3) −12.6 (1.2)++ 120.5 (7.6) 108.5 (6.3) −12.0 (1.2)++ 0.76 
 BMI (kg/m241.8 (1.2) 37.3 (1.4) −4.5 (0.4)++ 43.2 (1.9) 39.1 (1.4) −4.1 (0.4)++ 0.54 
 Waist circumference (cm) 134.6 (4.3) 126.6 (4.9) −8.0 (0.8)++ 129.0 (5.7) 121.1 (4.9) −7.9 (1.2)++ 0.94 
 HbA1c (%) 7.5 (0.2) 6.4 (0.1) −1.1 (0.2)++ 7.5 (0.2) 6.4 (0.1) −1.1 (0.2)++ 0.88 
Fasting measures        
 Glucose (mg/dL) 152.2 (7.8) 129.9 (8.5) −22.2 (9.2)* 155.0 (6.4) 113.4 (8.5) −41.6 (9.2)++ 0.15 
 GLP-1 (pmol/L) 3.6 (1.0) 3.6 (0.8) 0.0 (0.4) 2.7 (0.4) 2.6 (0.8) −0.1 (0.4) 0.79 
 GLP-2 (pmol/L) 2.9 (0.5) 2.0 (0.5) −0.9 (0.5) 2.9 (0.6) 2.5 (0.5) −0.4 (0.5) 0.45 
 GIP (pg/mL) 51.7 (5.2) 28.1 (4.6) −23.6 (10.2)* 57.6 (12.0) 35.8 (4.6) −21.8 (10.2)* 0.90 
 Insulin (μU/mL) 28.3 (3.3) 21.7 (1.9) −6.5 (4.1) 28.1 (5.0) 13.1 (1.9) −15.0 (4.1)+ 0.16 
 C-peptide (ng/mL) 2.2 (0.3 2.3 (0.2) 0.1 (0.3) 2.2 (0.3) 1.8 (0.2) −0.4 (0.3) 0.25 
 Glucagon (pg/mL) 63.7 (7.2) 46.9 (4.4) −16.8 (47)+ 61.5 (6.3) 42.5 (4.4) −19.0 (4.7)++ 0.75 
Glucose and hormonal responses  to MMTT (iAUC)        
 Glucose (mg · dL−1 · min−18,403.4 (979.9) 5,320.5 (711.1) −3,082.9 (896.2)+ 6,484.9 (991.4) 5,558.1 (711.1) −926.8 (896.2) 0.11 
  0–120 min 5,827.0 (585.7) 4,206.5 (613.6) −1,620.5 (601.2)* 4,989.4 (585.7) 5,062.6 (613.6) 73.3 (601.2) 0.06 
  120–180 min 2,576.4 (501.9) 1,121.2 (285.5) −1,455.2 (446.4)+ 1,535.5 (501.9) 495.1 (285.5) −1,040.5 (446.4)* 0.52 
 GLP-1 (pmol · L−1 · min−1321.6 (84.7) 236.0 (276.0) −85.6 (284.3) 362.2 (93.1) 3,393.8 (276.0) 3,031.6 (284.3)++ <0.001 
 GLP-2 (pmol · L−1 · min−139.7 (19.9) 59.1 (70.0) 19.3 (64.2) 43.9 (35.1) 558.0 (70.0) 514.0 (64.2)++ <0.001 
 GIP (pg · mL−1 · min−124,155.1 (2,373.6) 30,462.0 (5,866.7) 6,307.4 (5,255.0) 22,178.6 (3,966.1) 27,506.0 (5,932.7) 5,327.3 (5,257.2) 0.90 
 Insulin (μU · mL−1 · min−14,796.6 (1,297.4) 5,317.4 (960.5) 520.8 (851.1) 4,177.2 (983.0) 4,940.5 (960.5) 763.2 (851.1) 0.84 
 C-peptide (ng · mL−1 · min−1242.4 (49.0) 258.9 (42.9) 16.5 (47.9) 245.9 (49.0) 309.7 (42.9) 63.8 (47.9)+ 0.49 
 Glucagon (pg · mL−1 · min−11,960.5 (307.2) 1,254.9 (270.2) −705.6 (615.3) 1,051.8 (637.2) 4,101.8 (270.2)++ 3,050.0 (615.3)++ <0.001 

Data are presented as means (SEs). The data for the two intervention groups are model-based estimates for the ITT population. P values refer to the delta between groups.

++

P < 0.001 compared with baseline;

*

P < 0.05 compared with baseline;

+

P < 0.01 compared with baseline.

Peak glucose concentrations were also similar in both groups after weight loss, but the shape and the temporal patterning of the glucose tolerance curve markedly differed (Fig. 1). Peak glucose values were achieved earlier in the RYGB group and returned to baseline values more rapidly.

Surprisingly, the change in postprandial glucose tolerance over the 180-min period after meal ingestion did not significantly differ between groups with equivalent weight loss (P = 0.11). Although the glucose response to meal ingestion decreased significantly from baseline with ILM (P = 0.003), it was only modestly reduced following RYGB.

To account for the rapid absorption of glucose following RYGB, the glucose response to meal ingestion also was evaluated from time 0 to 120 min and from time 120 to 180 min. The glucose iAUC was essentially unchanged from baseline in the RYGB group over the first 120 min, reflecting the rapid and exaggerated peak in postprandial glucose. In contrast, the glucose iAUC decreased significantly in the ILM group over the first 120 min (P = 0.026). Despite the change in the temporal patterning of the glucose response following RYGB, the glucose iAUC decreased similarly in both groups over time 120 to 180 min.

As expected, the GLP-1 response increased significantly after RYGB but was essentially unchanged with ILM (P < 0.001 for the comparison between groups). The GLP-2 response also was significantly enhanced after RYGB (P < 0.001 for the comparison between groups). In contrast, the GIP response did not significantly differ between groups.

The insulin response to meal ingestion increased similarly in both groups following equivalent weight reduction (P = 0.84 for the comparison between groups). Postprandial insulin release increased by 18.3% following RYGB compared with 10.9% after ILM. Similarly, the C-peptide response increased in both groups (P = 0.49 for the comparison between groups). However, the postprandial C-peptide response seemed to increase from baseline to a greater extent within the RYGB group (25.9%; P = 0.002) versus the ILM group (6.8%; P = 0.17). Thus, the temporal patterning of the glucose and hormonal responses improved to a greater extent after RYGB, although this was not reflected in the iAUCs. Paradoxical to the robust GLP-1 response, postprandial glucagon release was increased nearly fourfold following surgery but decreased after ILM (P < 0.001 for the comparison between groups).

Postprandial Glucose and Hormonal Responses With GLP-1R Blockade

The change in fasting glucose and hormonal concentrations did not differ significantly between groups with administration of Ex-9 (Table 3). However, fasting glucose concentrations increased significantly in both groups.

Table 3

Metabolic data with saline and Ex-9 infusion at the point of 10% weight loss

ILM (n = 10)RYGB (n = 10)
SalineEx-9∆ with Ex-9SalineEx-9∆ with Ex-9P value
Fasting measures        
 Glucose (mg/dL) 129.9 (8.5) 139.3 (8.2) 9.4 (3.5)* 113.4 (8.5) 128.4 (8.3) 15.0 (3.7)++ 0.28 
 GLP-1 (pmol/L) 3.6 (0.8) 3.7 (1.0) 0.1 (0.4) 2.6 (0.8) 2.7 (1.0) 0.2 (0.4) 0.81 
 GLP-2 (pmol/L) 2.0 (0.5) 2.4 (0.5) 0.4 (0.2) 2.5 (0.5) 2.9 (0.5) 0.4 (0.2) 0.98 
 GIP (pg/mL) 28.1 (4.6) 35.6 (7.1) 7.5 (5.7) 35.8 (4.6) 40.8 (7.4) 4.9 (6.1) 0.76 
 Insulin (μU/mL) 21.7 (1.9) 19.5 (2.0) −2.2 (1.9) 13.1 (1.9) 10.7 (2.0) −2.4 (2.0) 0.95 
 C-peptide (ng/mL) 2.2 (0.4) 1.9 (0.1) −0.4 (0.1)* 1.8 (0.2) 1.5 (0.1) −0.3 (0.1) 0.34 
 Glucagon (pg/mL) 46.9 (4.4) 55.4 (4.4) 8.5 (2.1)++ 42.5 (4.4) 48.2 (4.5) 5.7 (2.2)* 0.37 
Glucose and hormonal response  to MMTT (iAUC)        
 Glucose (mg · dL−1 · min−15,320.5 (711.1) 7,683.4 (948.1)+ 2,362.9 (681.6)+ 5,558.1 (711.1) 7,863.3 (973.8) 2,305.2 (716.9)+ 0.95 
  0–120 min 4,206.5 (613.6) 5,453.2 (570.1) 1,246.7 (492.8)* 5,062.6 (613.6) 6,472.3 (589.7) 1,409.7 (515.4)* 0.82 
  120–180 min 1,121.2 (285.5) 2,230.6 (443.7) 1,109.4 (291.7)+ 495.1 (285.5) 1,374.3 (452.2) 879.3 (304.5)+ 0.59 
 GLP-1 (pmol · L−1 · min−1236.0 (276.0) 525.9 (209.4) 289.9 (454.3) 3,393.8 (276.0) 3,844.3 (214.3) 450.6 (456.6) 0.81 
 GLP-2 (pmol · L−1 · min−159.1 (70.0) 79.8 (75.7) 20.8 (114.0) 558.0 (70.0) 802.1 (85.1) 244.1 (120.5) 0.20 
 GIP (pg · mL−1 · min−130,462.0 (5,866.7) 28,903.0 (2,913.6) −1,559.5 (3,782.8) 27,506.0 (5,932.7) 20,149 (3,010.5) −7,356.8 (3,849.1) 0.30 
 Insulin (μU · L−1 · min−15,317.4 (960.5) 4,787.2 (540.8) −530.3 (801.6) 4,940.5 (960.5) 2,720.3 (566.7) −2,220.2 (819.2)* 0.16 
 C-peptide (ng · mL−1 · min−1258.9 (42.9) 245.8 (24.6) −13.2 (31.8) 309.7 (42.9) 194.8 (24.6) −114.8 (31.8)+ 0.04 
 Glucagon (pg · mL−1 · min−11,254.8 (270.2) 854.6 (468.4) −400.2 (558.3) 4,101.8 (270.2) 4,699.5 (496.0) 597.7 (581.7) 0.23 
ILM (n = 10)RYGB (n = 10)
SalineEx-9∆ with Ex-9SalineEx-9∆ with Ex-9P value
Fasting measures        
 Glucose (mg/dL) 129.9 (8.5) 139.3 (8.2) 9.4 (3.5)* 113.4 (8.5) 128.4 (8.3) 15.0 (3.7)++ 0.28 
 GLP-1 (pmol/L) 3.6 (0.8) 3.7 (1.0) 0.1 (0.4) 2.6 (0.8) 2.7 (1.0) 0.2 (0.4) 0.81 
 GLP-2 (pmol/L) 2.0 (0.5) 2.4 (0.5) 0.4 (0.2) 2.5 (0.5) 2.9 (0.5) 0.4 (0.2) 0.98 
 GIP (pg/mL) 28.1 (4.6) 35.6 (7.1) 7.5 (5.7) 35.8 (4.6) 40.8 (7.4) 4.9 (6.1) 0.76 
 Insulin (μU/mL) 21.7 (1.9) 19.5 (2.0) −2.2 (1.9) 13.1 (1.9) 10.7 (2.0) −2.4 (2.0) 0.95 
 C-peptide (ng/mL) 2.2 (0.4) 1.9 (0.1) −0.4 (0.1)* 1.8 (0.2) 1.5 (0.1) −0.3 (0.1) 0.34 
 Glucagon (pg/mL) 46.9 (4.4) 55.4 (4.4) 8.5 (2.1)++ 42.5 (4.4) 48.2 (4.5) 5.7 (2.2)* 0.37 
Glucose and hormonal response  to MMTT (iAUC)        
 Glucose (mg · dL−1 · min−15,320.5 (711.1) 7,683.4 (948.1)+ 2,362.9 (681.6)+ 5,558.1 (711.1) 7,863.3 (973.8) 2,305.2 (716.9)+ 0.95 
  0–120 min 4,206.5 (613.6) 5,453.2 (570.1) 1,246.7 (492.8)* 5,062.6 (613.6) 6,472.3 (589.7) 1,409.7 (515.4)* 0.82 
  120–180 min 1,121.2 (285.5) 2,230.6 (443.7) 1,109.4 (291.7)+ 495.1 (285.5) 1,374.3 (452.2) 879.3 (304.5)+ 0.59 
 GLP-1 (pmol · L−1 · min−1236.0 (276.0) 525.9 (209.4) 289.9 (454.3) 3,393.8 (276.0) 3,844.3 (214.3) 450.6 (456.6) 0.81 
 GLP-2 (pmol · L−1 · min−159.1 (70.0) 79.8 (75.7) 20.8 (114.0) 558.0 (70.0) 802.1 (85.1) 244.1 (120.5) 0.20 
 GIP (pg · mL−1 · min−130,462.0 (5,866.7) 28,903.0 (2,913.6) −1,559.5 (3,782.8) 27,506.0 (5,932.7) 20,149 (3,010.5) −7,356.8 (3,849.1) 0.30 
 Insulin (μU · L−1 · min−15,317.4 (960.5) 4,787.2 (540.8) −530.3 (801.6) 4,940.5 (960.5) 2,720.3 (566.7) −2,220.2 (819.2)* 0.16 
 C-peptide (ng · mL−1 · min−1258.9 (42.9) 245.8 (24.6) −13.2 (31.8) 309.7 (42.9) 194.8 (24.6) −114.8 (31.8)+ 0.04 
 Glucagon (pg · mL−1 · min−11,254.8 (270.2) 854.6 (468.4) −400.2 (558.3) 4,101.8 (270.2) 4,699.5 (496.0) 597.7 (581.7) 0.23 

Data are presented as means (SEs). The data for the two intervention groups are model-based estimates for the ITT population of 20 participants. P values refer to the delta between groups.

*

P < 0.05 compared with baseline;

+

P < 0.01 compared with baseline;

++

P < 0.001 compared with baseline.

Changes in the glucose and hormonal responses to meal ingestion after GLP-1R blockade also did not differ significantly between groups. Postprandial glucose tolerance deteriorated significantly relative to the saline condition in both groups, with a 44.4% increase in the glucose response after ILM (P = 0.003) and a 41.5% increase following RYGB (P = 0.005). Postprandial insulin release was markedly attenuated following RYGB (−44.4%; P = 0.01), whereas it decreased marginally after ILM. Similarly, the C-peptide response decreased significantly with GLP-1R blockade following RYGB but was only modestly reduced after ILM (P = 0.04 for the comparison between groups). The postprandial GLP-1 and GLP-2 responses further increased in both groups with administration of Ex-9, whereas the glucagon response was modestly increased only in the RYGB group.

Changes in Indices of Insulin Secretion and Sensitivity

β-Cell function, as indicated by ISI, improved similarly in both groups after equivalent weight reduction (Fig. 3). Whole-body insulin sensitivity, as estimated by MISI, also improved in both groups with weight loss (P = 0.13 for comparison between groups). However, MISI increased modestly from baseline after ILM (P = 0.07) but was significantly increased after RYGB (P = 0.0006). DI also increased in both groups after equivalent weight reduction (P = 0.13 for the comparison between groups). DI increased modestly following ILM but significantly increased by threefold after RYGB (P = 0.002).

Figure 3

Calculated responses of insulin secretion and sensitivity in ILM and RYGB. Black bars indicate values at baseline (before weight loss); white bars indicate values after weight loss (−10% of initial body weight) with saline; gray hatched bars indicate values after weight loss (−10% of initial body weight) with Ex-9. Bar graphs of the area under the curve (AUC) for the ISI are shown in panel A, the MISI in panel B, and the DI in panel C. The data for the two intervention groups are model-based estimates for the ITT population. Data are presented as means ± SEMs. *P < 0.05; +P < 0.01; ++P < 0.001.

Figure 3

Calculated responses of insulin secretion and sensitivity in ILM and RYGB. Black bars indicate values at baseline (before weight loss); white bars indicate values after weight loss (−10% of initial body weight) with saline; gray hatched bars indicate values after weight loss (−10% of initial body weight) with Ex-9. Bar graphs of the area under the curve (AUC) for the ISI are shown in panel A, the MISI in panel B, and the DI in panel C. The data for the two intervention groups are model-based estimates for the ITT population. Data are presented as means ± SEMs. *P < 0.05; +P < 0.01; ++P < 0.001.

With GLP-1R blockade, ISI decreased in both treatment groups (P = 0.59 for the comparison between groups). ISI decreased significantly from baseline in the RYGB group (P = 0.002) but was only modestly decreased in the ILM group. The change in MISI differed significantly between groups with administration of Ex-9 (P = 0.04). MISI was essentially unchanged in the ILM group with GLP-1R blockade but increased significantly after RYGB (P = 0.004). DI also decreased in both groups with GLP-1R blockade (P = 0.11 for the comparison between groups). DI decreased modestly in the ILM group but was significantly decreased following RYGB (P = 0.002).

Changes in Indices of Hepatic Glucose Metabolism

Greater suppression of basal EGP was observed after RYGB relative to ILM (P = 0.043), as shown in Fig. 4. Coincident with the reduction in basal rate of EGP, HIS was significantly improved after RYGB compared with ILM (P = 0.02). Hepatic insulin clearance, as estimated by the CI ratio, increased in both treatment groups with weight reduction (P = 0.52 for the comparison between groups). However, the CI ratio increased only modestly after ILM but increased significantly following RYGB (P = 0.01).

Figure 4

Calculated responses of hepatic glucose metabolism in ILM and RYGB. Black bars indicate values at baseline (before weight loss); white bars indicate values after weight loss (−10% of initial body weight) with saline; gray hatched bars indicate values after weight loss (−10% of initial body weight) with Ex-9. Bar graphs of the area under the curve (AUC) for basal EGP are shown in panel A, HIS in panel B, and hepatic insulin clearance (CI ratio) in panel C. The data for the two intervention groups are model-based estimates for the ITT population. Data are presented as means ± SEMs. *P < 0.05; +P < 0.01; ++P < 0.001.

Figure 4

Calculated responses of hepatic glucose metabolism in ILM and RYGB. Black bars indicate values at baseline (before weight loss); white bars indicate values after weight loss (−10% of initial body weight) with saline; gray hatched bars indicate values after weight loss (−10% of initial body weight) with Ex-9. Bar graphs of the area under the curve (AUC) for basal EGP are shown in panel A, HIS in panel B, and hepatic insulin clearance (CI ratio) in panel C. The data for the two intervention groups are model-based estimates for the ITT population. Data are presented as means ± SEMs. *P < 0.05; +P < 0.01; ++P < 0.001.

With GLP-1R blockade, basal EGP and HIS were essentially unchanged in both groups. Hepatic insulin clearance significantly decreased in both groups with GLP-1R blockade, although again, the difference between groups was not significant (P = 0.86).

Adjusted Analyses and Sensitivity Analyses

Findings did not differ after adjusting for baseline weight, HbA1c, duration of T2DM, and insulin use or after an analysis of completers was performed.

The rapid and large increase in GLP-1 occurring shortly after RYGB has led to speculation that this incretin hormone may be an important mediator of early improvements in glycemia. Here we show that, despite the exaggerated postsurgical GLP-1 response, postprandial glucose tolerance improved similarly after RYGB relative to a control group that achieved equivalent short-term weight loss through ILM. Furthermore, blockade of the GLP-1R resulted in similar deterioration of postprandial glucose tolerance in both groups, providing evidence against a greater contribution of GLP-1 action to improved glucose tolerance following surgery as compared with ILM.

Two recent studies suggest that factors independent of the enhanced incretin response, including caloric restriction and weight loss, may play a predominant role in short-term improvements in glycemia after RYGB. Despite the exaggerated postsurgical GLP-1 response, similar reductions in postprandial glucose tolerance were reported in individuals who underwent RYGB compared with those who consumed an isocaloric diet (200–300 kcal/day) that simulated postoperative intake (33) or those who achieved equivalent weight reduction by gastric banding (34). While these studies suggest that GLP-1 may play a smaller role in improved glycemia after RYGB than has been hypothesized, the direct effects of GLP-1 on glucose tolerance were not investigated.

Recent studies that have used GLP-1R blockade confirm that the enhanced postsurgical GLP-1 response is an important determinant of postprandial insulin release and improved β-cell function after RYGB (1316). In these studies, as well as in the current study, administration of Ex-9 significantly attenuated the β-cell response to nutrients following RYGB. Postprandial glucose tolerance was not severely worsened with Ex-9 in individuals who underwent RYGB, and a similar degree of deterioration was observed in the control groups (which included lean or weight-matched participants). This supports our finding that the effects of GLP-1 on glycemia are not heightened after RYGB.

As previously reported, indices of insulin secretion and sensitivity in response to a liquid meal test improved within weeks of RYGB (15). However, these indices also improved in the ILM group, underscoring the important contribution of caloric restriction and weight loss. Whole-body insulin sensitivity, which reflects both hepatic and peripheral insulin sensitivity (25), improved significantly from baseline within the RYGB group but not within the ILM group. This phenomenon was largely driven by improvements in HIS, as described below.

Several recent studies corroborate our findings of the important contribution of enhanced hepatic glucose metabolism to early glycemic improvements following RYGB (3537). Similar to the current study, rapid improvements in HIS and reductions in EGP have been reported as early as within 1 month after RYGB (35,36). However, these studies lacked a control group treated solely with caloric restriction, making it difficult to assess the relative contribution of caloric deficit to changes in hepatic parameters. A major strength of our study is the use of a control group with matched weight reduction. In the current study, hepatic insulin sensitivity improved to a greater extent after equivalent weight reduction achieved by RYGB than ILM. This effect was driven by a marked decrease in the rate of basal EGP, a primary determinant of fasting glucose concentrations (38), after RYGB; the reduction in fasting plasma insulin concentrations was not significantly different between groups.

Several recent studies also have demonstrated rapid and significant improvements in hepatic insulin clearance following RYGB (35,37). In the current study, hepatic insulin clearance was enhanced following RYGB, but this increase was not significantly different from that observed in the ILM group after equivalent weight reduction. Because caloric restriction plays a significant role in improved hepatic glucose metabolism, it is certainly plausible that the overall caloric intake was lower in the RYGB group (36). However, other factors that are differentially affected by RYGB (e.g., GLP-2 [39], bile acids [40]) may also account for the greater improvements observed after surgery. In addition, hepatic fat content may decrease more quickly after RYGB than ILM, which may also affect hepatic glucose metabolism.

The paradoxical increase in postprandial glucagon release after RYGB may partially account for the attenuated improvement in postprandial glucose tolerance observed after RYGB relative to ILM. This increase was unexplained by the glucagonotropic gut hormone GIP (41) but may be mediated, in part, by the enhanced GLP-2 response, which is known to stimulate glucagon release (42). Increased neural or nutrient stimulation of islets (13,43) or stimulation of the secretion of gut-derived glucagon (44) may also contribute to the enhanced postsurgical glucagon response. Administration of Ex-9 further worsened hyperglucagonemia following RYGB, suggesting that GLP-1 may restrain an even more exaggerated glucagon response following surgery. Tolerance to GLP-1 as a result of tachyphylaxis or downregulation of the GLP-1R may also have developed after RYGB, which may have further attenuated improvements in glycemia (45).

Our study also had several limitations. The trial was not randomized, and slight or unmeasured clinical differences between groups at baseline may have confounded results. While the small number of participants may also have limited our ability to detect differences between groups, slight differences (particularly with respect to the duration of T2DM and the number of antidiabetes medications) potentially provide the greatest physiologic impact. Given the marked difference in the temporal patterning of the glucose response between groups as a consequence of the altered gastrointestinal anatomy following RYGB, the utility of glucose iAUC as a measure of glucose tolerance may be limited. However, we found no difference in glucose tolerance between groups when the glucose iAUC was measured over the first 120 min or during the final 60 min of the postprandial period. We also did not measure caloric intake and body composition (specifically hepatic fat content), which are important determinants of hepatic glucose metabolism. However, ILM participants recorded daily caloric intake in food diaries to corroborate their targeted intake (1,000 kcal/day). The RYGB participants did not quantify their caloric intake, but prior studies report an average intake of 800–1,000 kcal/day 2–3 months after surgery (46), which was approximately the time at which participants returned for their after RYGB assessments. We also did not measure EGP during the meal challenge, limiting our ability to draw conclusions about the dynamic relationship between the enhanced GLP-1 and glucagon responses and their effects on EGP.

In conclusion, we demonstrated that although GLP-1 plays an important role in glucose-mediated insulin secretion after RYGB, the robust postsurgical GLP-1 response does not seem to play a pivotal role in short-term improvements in glycemia after surgery in individuals with T2DM. Postprandial glucose tolerance decreased similarly between participants who achieved equivalent weight reduction by RYGB or nonsurgical ILM. Blockade of the GLP-1R caused comparable deterioration in the glycemic response in both groups, suggesting that GLP-1 action contributes equally to glucoregulation after RYGB or ILM. Despite the paradoxical hyperglucagonemia that was observed after RYGB, HIS was markedly enhanced in the surgical group relative to the ILM condition, an effect independent of GLP-1R activation, suggesting that hepatic mechanisms may play an important role in early improvements in glycemia after surgery. However, sustained increases in GLP-1 after surgery may have an important effect on long-term glucoregulation and β-cell function, and further study is warranted.

Clinical trial reg. no. NCT01153438, clinicaltrials.gov.

M.L.V. is currently affiliated with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lawrenceville, NJ.

K.L.T. is currently affiliated with the Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, & Metabolic Diseases, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.

K.M. is currently affiliated with the Department of Surgery, Abington Memorial Hospital, Abington, PA.

Acknowledgments. The authors are indebted to the individuals who participated in the study; to Catherine Tien for study coordination; to the nursing staff of the University of Pennsylvania Clinical and Translational Research Center for providing patient care and technical assistance; to Ashok Khatri of the Peptide/Protein Core Laboratory of the Massachusetts General Hospital for synthesizing the Ex-9; to Dr. Dariush Elahi of the University of Pennsylvania for assistance in formulating and determining the dose of Ex-9; to Dr. Kenneth Rockwell and the staff of the University of Pennsylvania Investigational Drug Service for preparation of the Ex-9 and placebo infusions; to Dr. Heather Collins of the University of Pennsylvania Diabetes Research Center and Drs. David Stokes and Sean Ren of the Translational Core Laboratory at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia for peptide hormone analysis; and to Dr. John Millar of the Metabolic Tracer Resource of the University of Pennsylvania Institute for Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism for analysis of 6,6 2H2 glucose. The authors thank Drs. Emma Meagher, Diva DeLeon, and Charlene Compher, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Dr. Lars Hansen of Bristol-Myers Squibb for their critical review of the manuscript.

Funding. M.L.V. has received a Penn Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics Grant (KL2RR024132), a Penn Diabetes Research Center Pilot and Feasibility Grant (P30DK19525), and the Penn Clinical and Translational Research Center Junior Investigator Pilot Grant and Clinical Research Award (UL1RR024134).

Duality of Interest. M.L.V. is currently employed by Bristol-Myers Squibb. T.A.W. served on the scientific advisory boards of Orexigen and Novo Nordisk. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author Contributions. M.L.V., T.A.W., K.L.T., and M.R.R. designed the study. M.L.V. collected and analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. Z.F.K., R.C., and S.R. collected the data. R.H.M. provided statistical consultation. R.H.M., J.L.C., and A.I. performed the statistical analyses. K.M., G.K., and N.N.W. referred participants. T.A.W., K.L.T., Z.F.K., R.C., S.R., R.H.M., K.M., G.K., N.N.W., and M.R.R. performed a critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content. M.L.V. is the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

1.
Pories
WJ
,
Swanson
MS
,
MacDonald
KG
, et al
.
Who would have thought it? An operation proves to be the most effective therapy for adult-onset diabetes mellitus
.
Ann Surg
1995
;
222
:
339
350; discussion 350–352
[PubMed]
2.
Schauer
PR
,
Burguera
B
,
Ikramuddin
S
, et al
.
Effect of laparoscopic Roux-en Y gastric bypass on type 2 diabetes mellitus
.
Ann Surg
2003
;
238
:
467
484; discussion 84–85
[PubMed]
3.
Wickremesekera
K
,
Miller
G
,
Naotunne
TD
,
Knowles
G
,
Stubbs
RS
.
Loss of insulin resistance after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery: a time course study
.
Obes Surg
2005
;
15
:
474
481
[PubMed]
4.
Falkén
Y
,
Hellström
PM
,
Holst
JJ
,
Näslund
E
.
Changes in glucose homeostasis after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery for obesity at day three, two months, and one year after surgery: role of gut peptides
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2011
;
96
:
2227
2235
[PubMed]
5.
Näslund
E
,
Kral
JG
.
Impact of gastric bypass surgery on gut hormones and glucose homeostasis in type 2 diabetes
.
Diabetes
2006
;
55
(
Suppl. 2
):
S92
S97
6.
Cummings
DE
,
Overduin
J
,
Foster-Schubert
KE
.
Gastric bypass for obesity: mechanisms of weight loss and diabetes resolution
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2004
;
89
:
2608
2615
[PubMed]
7.
Holst
JJ
.
The physiology of glucagon-like peptide 1
.
Physiol Rev
2007
;
87
:
1409
1439
[PubMed]
8.
D’Alessio
D
,
Vahl
T
,
Prigeon
R
.
Effects of glucagon-like peptide 1 on the hepatic glucose metabolism
.
Horm Metab Res
2004
;
36
:
837
841
[PubMed]
9.
Raufman
JP
,
Singh
L
,
Eng
J
.
Exendin-3, a novel peptide from Heloderma horridum venom, interacts with vasoactive intestinal peptide receptors and a newly described receptor on dispersed acini from guinea pig pancreas. Description of exendin-3(9-39) amide, a specific exendin receptor antagonist
.
J Biol Chem
1991
;
266
:
2897
2902
[PubMed]
10.
Eng
J
,
Kleinman
WA
,
Singh
L
,
Singh
G
,
Raufman
JP
.
Isolation and characterization of exendin-4, an exendin-3 analogue, from Heloderma suspectum venom. Further evidence for an exendin receptor on dispersed acini from guinea pig pancreas
.
J Biol Chem
1992
;
267
:
7402
7405
[PubMed]
11.
Raufman
JP
,
Singh
L
,
Singh
G
,
Eng
J
.
Truncated glucagon-like peptide-1 interacts with exendin receptors on dispersed acini from guinea pig pancreas. Identification of a mammalian analogue of the reptilian peptide exendin-4
.
J Biol Chem
1992
;
267
:
21432
21437
[PubMed]
12.
D’Alessio
DA
,
Vogel
R
,
Prigeon
R
, et al
.
Elimination of the action of glucagon-like peptide 1 causes an impairment of glucose tolerance after nutrient ingestion by healthy baboons
.
J Clin Invest
1996
;
97
:
133
138
[PubMed]
13.
Salehi
M
,
Prigeon
RL
,
D’Alessio
DA
.
Gastric bypass surgery enhances glucagon-like peptide 1-stimulated postprandial insulin secretion in humans
.
Diabetes
2011
;
60
:
2308
2314
[PubMed]
14.
Shah
M
,
Law
JH
,
Micheletto
F
, et al
.
The contribution of endogenous glucagon-like peptide-1 to glucose metabolism after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
.
Diabetes
2014
;
63
:
483
493
[PubMed]
15.
Jørgensen
NB
,
Dirksen
C
,
Bojsen-Møller
KN
, et al
.
Exaggerated glucagon-like peptide 1 response is important for improved β-cell function and glucose tolerance after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in patients with type 2 diabetes
.
Diabetes
2013
;
62
:
3044
3052
[PubMed]
16.
Jiménez
A
,
Casamitjana
R
,
Viaplana-Masclans
J
,
Lacy
A
,
Vidal
J
.
GLP-1 action and glucose tolerance in subjects with remission of type 2 diabetes after gastric bypass surgery
.
Diabetes Care
2013
;
36
:
2062
2069
[PubMed]
17.
Laferrère
B
,
Teixeira
J
,
McGinty
J
, et al
.
Effect of weight loss by gastric bypass surgery versus hypocaloric diet on glucose and incretin levels in patients with type 2 diabetes
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2008
;
93
:
2479
2485
[PubMed]
18.
de Carvalho
CP
,
Marin
DM
,
de Souza
AL
, et al
.
GLP-1 and adiponectin: effect of weight loss after dietary restriction and gastric bypass in morbidly obese patients with normal and abnormal glucose metabolism
.
Obes Surg
2009
;
19
:
313
320
[PubMed]
19.
Plum
L
,
Ahmed
L
,
Febres
G
, et al
.
Comparison of glucostatic parameters after hypocaloric diet or bariatric surgery and equivalent weight loss
.
Obesity (Silver Spring)
2011
;
19
:
2149
2157
[PubMed]
20.
Sarwer
DB
,
Ritter
S
,
Wadden
TA
,
Spitzer
JC
,
Vetter
ML
,
Moore
RH
.
Attitudes about the safety and efficacy of bariatric surgery among patients with type 2 diabetes and a body mass index of 30–40 kg/m2.
Surg Obes Relat Dis
2013
;
9
:
630
635
[PubMed]
21.
Wadden
TA
,
Berkowitz
RI
,
Womble
LG
, et al
.
Randomized trial of lifestyle modification and pharmacotherapy for obesity
.
N Engl J Med
2005
;
353
:
2111
2120
[PubMed]
22.
Wadden
TA
,
Berkowitz
RI
,
Sarwer
DB
,
Prus-Wisniewski
R
,
Steinberg
C
.
Benefits of lifestyle modification in the pharmacologic treatment of obesity: a randomized trial
.
Arch Intern Med
2001
;
161
:
218
227
[PubMed]
23.
Salehi
M
,
Vahl
TP
,
D’Alessio
DA
.
Regulation of islet hormone release and gastric emptying by endogenous glucagon-like peptide 1 after glucose ingestion
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2008
;
93
:
4909
4916
[PubMed]
24.
Ahrén
B
,
Pratley
RE
,
Soubt
M
,
Dunning
BE
,
Foley
JE
.
Clinical measures of islet function: usefulness to characterize defects in diabetes
.
Curr Diabetes Rev
2008
;
4
:
129
145
[PubMed]
25.
Matsuda
M
,
DeFronzo
RA
.
Insulin sensitivity indices obtained from oral glucose tolerance testing: comparison with the euglycemic insulin clamp
.
Diabetes Care
1999
;
22
:
1462
1470
[PubMed]
26.
Maki
KC
,
McKenney
JM
,
Farmer
MV
,
Reeves
MS
,
Dicklin
MR
.
Indices of insulin sensitivity and secretion from a standard liquid meal test in subjects with type 2 diabetes, impaired or normal fasting glucose
.
Nutr J
2009
;
8
:
22
[PubMed]
27.
Retnakaran
R
,
Shen
S
,
Hanley
AJ
,
Vuksan
V
,
Hamilton
JK
,
Zinman
B
.
Hyperbolic relationship between insulin secretion and sensitivity on oral glucose tolerance test
.
Obesity (Silver Spring)
2008
;
16
:
1901
1907
[PubMed]
28.
Maki
KC
,
Kelley
KM
,
Lawless
AL
, et al
.
Validation of insulin sensitivity and secretion indices derived from the liquid meal tolerance test
.
Diabetes Technol Ther
2011
;
13
:
661
666
[PubMed]
29.
Jiménez
A
,
Casamitjana
R
,
Flores
L
,
Delgado
S
,
Lacy
A
,
Vidal
J
.
GLP-1 and the long-term outcome of type 2 diabetes mellitus after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery in morbidly obese subjects
.
Ann Surg
2013
;
257
:
894
899
[PubMed]
30.
Steele
R
,
Wall
JS
,
De Bodo
RC
,
Altszuler
N
.
Measurement of size and turnover rate of body glucose pool by the isotope dilution method
.
Am J Physiol
1956
;
187
:
15
24
[PubMed]
31.
Polonsky
KS
,
Rubenstein
AH
.
C-peptide as a measure of the secretion and hepatic extraction of insulin. Pitfalls and limitations
.
Diabetes
1984
;
33
:
486
494
[PubMed]
32.
Jaeger
TF
.
Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models
.
J Mem Lang
2008
;
59
:
434
446
[PubMed]
33.
Isbell
JM
,
Tamboli
RA
,
Hansen
EN
, et al
.
The importance of caloric restriction in the early improvements in insulin sensitivity after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery
.
Diabetes Care
2010
;
33
:
1438
1442
[PubMed]
34.
Bradley
D
,
Conte
C
,
Mittendorfer
B
, et al
.
Gastric bypass and banding equally improve insulin sensitivity and β cell function
.
J Clin Invest
2012
;
122
:
4667
4674
[PubMed]
35.
Bojsen-Møller
KN
,
Dirksen
C
,
Jørgensen
NB
, et al
.
Early enhancements of hepatic and later of peripheral insulin sensitivity combined with increased postprandial insulin secretion contribute to improved glycemic control after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
.
Diabetes
2014
;
63
:
1725
1737
[PubMed]
36.
Dunn
JP
,
Abumrad
NN
,
Breitman
I
, et al
.
Hepatic and peripheral insulin sensitivity and diabetes remission at 1 month after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery in patients randomized to omentectomy
.
Diabetes Care
2012
;
35
:
137
142
[PubMed]
37.
Bojsen-Møller
KN
,
Dirksen
C
,
Jørgensen
NB
, et al
.
Increased hepatic insulin clearance after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2013
;
98
:
E1066
E1071
[PubMed]
38.
DeFronzo
RA
,
Ferrannini
E
,
Simonson
DC
.
Fasting hyperglycemia in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: contributions of excessive hepatic glucose production and impaired tissue glucose uptake
.
Metabolism
1989
;
38
:
387
395
[PubMed]
39.
Shi
X
,
Zhou
F
,
Li
X
, et al
.
Central GLP-2 enhances hepatic insulin sensitivity via activating PI3K signaling in POMC neurons
.
Cell Metab
2013
;
18
:
86
98
[PubMed]
40.
Kars
M
,
Yang
L
,
Gregor
MF
, et al
.
Tauroursodeoxycholic acid may improve liver and muscle but not adipose tissue insulin sensitivity in obese men and women
.
Diabetes
2010
;
59
:
1899
1905
[PubMed]
41.
Meier
JJ
,
Gallwitz
B
,
Siepmann
N
, et al
.
Gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) dose-dependently stimulates glucagon secretion in healthy human subjects at euglycaemia
.
Diabetologia
2003
;
46
:
798
801
[PubMed]
42.
Meier
JJ
,
Nauck
MA
,
Pott
A
, et al
.
Glucagon-like peptide 2 stimulates glucagon secretion, enhances lipid absorption, and inhibits gastric acid secretion in humans
.
Gastroenterology
2006
;
130
:
44
54
[PubMed]
43.
Kaneto
A
,
Miki
E
,
Kosaka
K
.
Effects of vagal stimulation on glucagon and insulin secretion
.
Endocrinology
1974
;
95
:
1005
1010
[PubMed]
44.
Habib
AM
,
Richards
P
,
Cairns
LS
, et al
.
Overlap of endocrine hormone expression in the mouse intestine revealed by transcriptional profiling and flow cytometry
.
Endocrinology
2012
;
153
:
3054
3065
[PubMed]
45.
Nauck
MA
,
Kemmeries
G
,
Holst
JJ
,
Meier
JJ
.
Rapid tachyphylaxis of the glucagon-like peptide 1-induced deceleration of gastric emptying in humans
.
Diabetes
2011
;
60
:
1561
1565
[PubMed]
46.
Liu
X
,
Lagoy
A
,
Discenza
I
, et al
.
Metabolic and neuroendocrine responses to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. I: energy balance, metabolic changes, and fat loss
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2012
;
97
:
E1440
E1450
[PubMed]