Why the study?
Does clofibrate compared to caloric restriction improve VLDL-TG kinetics in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia?
Does clofibrate compared to caloric restriction improve VLDL-TG kinetics in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Caloric restriction is more effective than clofibrate at correcting the primary defect of VLDL-TG overproduction in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia.
This study of 12 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia compares the mechanisms of triglyceride (TG) lowering by caloric restriction and by clofibrate. Turnover rates of very low density lipoprotein triglycerides (VLDL-TG) were determined by using 3H-glycerol as a precursor. Radioactivity-time curves of VLDL-TG were analyzed with a multicompartmental model. Hypertriglyceridemia in these patients was due mainly to overproduction of VLDL-TG. Clofibrate therapy for 1 month had a variable effect on VLDL-TG levels. A group of relatively poor responders to the drug had a mild increase in the fractional catabolic rate (FCR) of VLDL-TG, but no change in production rates. The remaining patients were relatively good responders; they had increased FCR and modest reductions in synthetic rates of VLDL-TG. However, clofibrate largely failed to correct the primary defect in this group of patients, namely, the overproduction of VLDL-TG. Almost all patients responded to 1 month of caloric restriction (1000 cal/day) with marked reductions in VLDL-TG levels. The major response to reduced caloric intake was a decrease in production of VLDL-TG, although FCR was also increased to some extent. Despite these differences in mechanisms for VLDL-TG lowering, both regimens tended to raise levels of LDL and HDL.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kesäniemi et al. (1985) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: