Inhibition of tumor angiogenesis through blockade of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling pathway is a novel treatment modality in oncology. Preclinical findings suggest that long-term clinical outcomes may improve with blockade of additional proangiogenic receptor tyrosine kinases: platelet-derived growth factor receptors (PDGFR) and fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFR). BIBF 1120 is an indolinone derivative potently blocking VEGF receptor (VEGFR), PDGFR and FGFR kinase activity in enzymatic assays (IC₅₀, 20–100 nmol/L). BIBF 1120 inhibits mitogen-activated protein kinase and Akt signaling pathways in three cell types contributing to angiogenesis, endothelial cells, pericytes, and smooth muscle cells, resulting in inhibition of cell proliferation (EC₅₀, 10–80 nmol/L) and apoptosis. In all tumor models tested thus far, including human tumor xenografts growing in nude mice and a syngeneic rat tumor model, BIBF 1120 is highly active at well-tolerated doses (25–100 mg/kg daily p.o.), as measured by magnetic resonance imaging of tumor perfusion after 3 days, reducing vessel density and vessel integrity after 5 days, and inducing profound growth inhibition. A distinct pharmacodynamic feature of BIBF 1120 in cell culture is sustained pathway inhibition (up to 32 hours after 1-hour treatment), suggesting slow receptor off-kinetics. Although BIBF 1120 is rapidly metabolized in vivo by methylester cleavage, resulting in a short mean residence time, once daily oral dosing is fully efficacious in xenograft models. These distinctive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties may help explain clinical observations with BIBF 1120, currently entering phase III clinical development. [Cancer Res 2008;68(12):4774–82]

To examine the mechanism by which metformin lowers endogenous glucose production in type 2 diabetic patients, we studied seven type 2 diabetic subjects, with fasting hyperglycemia (15.5 +/- 1.3 mmol/l), before and after 3 months of metformin treatment. Seven healthy subjects, matched for sex, age, and BMI, served as control subjects. Rates of net hepatic glycogenolysis, estimated by 13C nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, were combined with estimates of contributions to glucose production of gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis, measured by labeling of blood glucose by 2H from ingested 2H2O. Glucose production was measured using [6,6-2H2]glucose. The rate of glucose production was twice as high in the diabetic subjects as in control subjects (0.70 +/- 0.05 vs. 0.36 +/- 0.03 mmol x m(-2) min(-1), P < 0.0001). Metformin reduced that rate by 24% (to 0.53 +/- 0.03 mmol x m(-2) x min(-1), P = 0.0009) and fasting plasma glucose concentration by 30% (to 10.8 +/- 0.9 mmol/l, P = 0.0002). The rate of gluconeogenesis was three times higher in the diabetic subjects than in the control subjects (0.59 +/- 0.03 vs. 0.18 +/- 0.03 mmol x m(-2) min(-1) and metformin reduced that rate by 36% (to 0.38 +/- 0.03 mmol x m(-2) x min(-1), P = 0.01). By the 2H2O method, there was a twofold increase in rates of gluconeogenesis in diabetic subjects (0.42 +/- 0.04 mmol m(-2) x min(-1), which decreased by 33% after metformin treatment (0.28 +/- 0.03 mmol x m(-2) x min(-1), P = 0.0002). There was no glycogen cycling in the control subjects, but in the diabetic subjects, glycogen cycling contributed to 25% of glucose production and explains the differences between the two methods used. In conclusion, patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes have increased rates of endogenous glucose production, which can be attributed to increased rates of gluconeogenesis. Metformin lowered the rate of glucose production in these patients through a reduction in gluconeogenesis.

Insulin resistance, a major factor in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes mellitus, is due mostly to decreased stimulation of glycogen synthesis in muscle by insulin. The primary rate-controlling step responsible for the decrease in muscle glycogen synthesis is not known, although hexokinase activity and glucose transport have been implicated. We used a novel nuclear magnetic resonance approach with carbon-13 and phosphorus-31 to measure intramuscular glucose, glucose-6-phosphate, and glycogen concentrations under hyperglycemic conditions (plasma glucose concentration, approximately 180 mg per deciliter [10 mmol per liter]) and hyperinsulinemic conditions in six patients with type 2 diabetes and seven normal subjects. In vivo microdialysis of muscle tissue was used to determine the gradient between plasma and interstitial-fluid glucose concentrations, and open-flow microperfusion was used to determine the concentrations of insulin in interstitial fluid. The time course and concentration of insulin in interstitial fluid were similar in the patients with diabetes and the normal subjects. The rates of whole-body glucose metabolism and muscle glycogen synthesis and the glucose-6-phosphate concentrations in muscle were approximately 80 percent lower in the patients with diabetes than in the normal subjects under conditions of matched plasma insulin concentrations. The mean (±SD) intracellular glucose concentration was 2.0±8.2 mg per deciliter (0.11±0.46 mmol per liter) in the normal subjects. In the patients with diabetes, the intracellular glucose concentration was 4.3±4.9 mg per deciliter (0.24±0.27 mmol per liter), a value that was 1/25 of what it would be if hexokinase were the rate-controlling enzyme in glucose metabolism. Impaired insulin-stimulated glucose transport is responsible for the reduced rate of insulin-stimulated muscle glycogen synthesis in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The translation of MRS to clinical practice has been impeded by the lack of technical standardization. There are multiple methods of acquisition, post‐processing, and analysis whose details greatly impact the interpretation of the results. These details are often not fully reported, making it difficult to assess MRS studies on a standardized basis. This hampers the reviewing of manuscripts, limits the reproducibility of study results, and complicates meta‐analysis of the literature. In this paper a consensus group of MRS experts provides minimum guidelines for the reporting of MRS methods and results, including the standardized description of MRS hardware, data acquisition, analysis, and quality assessment. This consensus statement describes each of these requirements in detail and includes a checklist to assist authors and journal reviewers and to provide a practical way for journal editors to ensure that MRS studies are reported in full.