Usage Information
Abstract
Preclinical studies suggest beneficial effects of GLP-1 agonists in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). This first-in-disease study evaluated acute hemodynamic effects of GLP-1 agonist, exenatide administered i.v. in patients with idiopathic PAH and CTEPH as well as in a PAH rodent model. Seventeen patients (9 idiopathic PAH) received an exenatide infusion during right heart catheterization, which included multisite sampling for circulating metabolites. Acute effects of exenatide were also assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in monocrotaline (MCT) PAH and control rats. In the clinical study, exenatide was well tolerated, reduced mean pulmonary artery pressure (45 ± 15 mmHg versus 40 ± 18 mmHg), and improved cardiac index (2.1 ± 0.6 L/min versus 2.4 ± 0.9 L/min/m2) and pulmonary vascular resistance (7.8 ± 8.0 WU versus 5.9 ± 5.0 WU) across all patients. Right ventricular (RV) contractility and afterload improved in a subset of patients undergoing pressure-volume measurements. In an exploratory metabolomics analysis, 47 metabolite levels changed after exenatide infusion, predominantly in free fatty acid pathways. Six metabolites with prognostic relevance in PAH within myocardial glycolytic and lipid oxidation pathways were also altered after exenatide. In MCT rats, exenatide improved RV stroke-volume, RV ejection fraction, and RV-arterial coupling. These findings support the further evaluation of exenatide within chronic studies as a potentially novel pulmonary vasodilator therapy.
Authors
Chinthaka B. Samaranayake, Marili Niglas, Nicoleta Baxan, Alexander Kempny, Ali Ashek, Michael Gatzoulis, Laura C. Price, Konstantinos Dimopoulos, Martin R. Wilkins, Stephen Wort, Christopher J. Rhodes, Lan Zhao, Colm McCabe
Usage data is cumulative from May 2026 through May 2026.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 122 | 0 |
| 26 | 0 | |
| Figure | 64 | 0 |
| Table | 20 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 17 | 0 |
| Citation downloads | 15 | 0 |
| Totals | 264 | 0 |
| Total Views | 264 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
