Int J Obes

Int J Obes. 2002;26(11):1407\1433. from the study due to adverse effects (7/9: severe nausea; 5/9: vomiting; 3/9: reflux; 3/9: decreased appetite). As a result, 19 participants randomized to liraglutide and 20 to placebo completed the trial. Demographics are demonstrated in Table?1. There were no variations in the demographics, except that the number of participants who received long\acting insulin was higher in the liraglutide group ( em P /em ?=?0.04); however, the doses were related. TABLE 1 Baseline characteristics thead valign=”top” th align=”remaining” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ /th th align=”remaining” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Liraglutide (n?=?19) /th th align=”remaining” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Placebo (n?=?20) /th th align=”left” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ em P /em \value /th /thead DemographicsSex (male)17/89%14/70%0.13Age (years)51 (10)50 (8)0.66Body mass index (kg/m2)30 (5)29 (4)0.62Diabetes period (years)32 (11)32 (7)0.97Haemoglobin A1c (mmol/mol)69 (12)64 (10)0.14Regular smoking (yes)4/21%4/20%0.94Heart rate (beats/min)75 (68\87)73 (69\78)0.44Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)144 (16)138 (12)0.21Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)78 (9)79 (9)0.70MedicationFast\acting insulin (yes)17/89%13/65%0.07Dose (IE)32 (26;50)33 (24;47)1.00Long\acting insulin (yes)17/89%12/60% em 0.04 /em Dose (IE)24 (22;30)33 (20;40)0.48Insulin pump (yes)2/11%7/35%0.07Statins (yes)8/42%9/47%0.74Diuretics (yes)2/11%3/15%0.68Analgesics (yes)5/26%4/20%0.64Beta\blockers (yes)4/21%2/10%0.34Antihypertensives (yes)Angiotensin\converting enzyme inhibitors10/53%9/45%0.63Angiotensin II\receptor agonist8/42%6/30%0.43Calcium antagonists7/37%4/20%0.24 Open in a separate window NoteData are presented as mean (standard deviation), median (Q2\Q3) or number/percentage. Data have previously reported by Brock et al 2019. 15 Italic shows significant value. 3.2. Excess weight loss Liraglutide treatment resulted in a mean weight-loss of 3.38?kg (95% CI???5.29; ?1.48, em P /em ? ?0.001) compared to placebo. 15 The complete excess weight loss for the liraglutide and placebo group were 3.95?kg (95%CI ?5.31; ?2.59) and 0.55?kg (95%CI ?2.17;1.07), respectively. Median (Q1\Q4) excess weight pre\ and post\treatment are demonstrated in Table?2. TABLE 2 Compositional and biochemical changes thead valign=”top” th align=”remaining” rowspan=”2″ valign=”top” colspan=”1″ /th th align=”remaining” colspan=”3″ style=”border-bottom:solid 1px #000000″ valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ Liraglutide n (19) /th th align=”remaining” colspan=”4″ style=”border-bottom:solid 1px #000000″ valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ Placebo n(20) /th th align=”remaining” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ Cesium chloride colspan=”1″ Pre /th th align=”remaining” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Post /th th align=”remaining” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ /th th align=”remaining” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Pre /th th align=”remaining” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Post /th th align=”remaining” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ /th th align=”remaining” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ em P /em \value /th /thead Excess weight (kg)91 (83;99)85 (77;96)?3.9 (?5.3;?2.6)86 (78;103)86 (79;99)?0.6 (?2.2;1.0)0.001Body mass index (kg/m2)29 (25;32)27.1 (25.1;29.2)?2.0 (?16.0;0.1)28 (26;31.5)27.8 (26;31.4)0.3 (?6.3;13.9)0.004CompositionCell size total (m2)2495 (1568;3133)3846 (1917;4331)900 (321;1479)2451 (1735;3237)2993 (2184;3813)441 (?185;1067)0.415Cell size Q1 (m2)680 (580;1761)1746 (963;1974)682 (331;1034)848 (576;1427)1186 (888;1776)81 (?383;545)0.038Cell size Q4 (m2)5862 (2275)6183 (2780)629 (?380;1638)5561 (1811)5725 (1544)?409 (?1663;846)0.555Pericellular fibrosis (%)6.0 (4.1\7.8)5.4 (4.1\7.1)?0.1 (?1.5;1.4)5.2 (3.6\7.8)5.5 (2.8\7.5)?0.2 (?2.2;1.9)0.944BiochemistryCD163 (mg/L)2.0 (1.6;2.8)1.9 (1.6;2.6)?0.1 (?0.2;0.0)1.9 (1.5;2.5)1.9 (1.6;2.4)?0.0 (?0.1;0.1)0.173Adiponectin (ng/mL)127 (89;235)157 (88;220)2.0 (?14.6;18.7)131 (92;357)149 (101;214)0.2 (?17.8;18.2)0.987Leptin (ng/mL)5.0 (2.7;10.5)4.2 (2.3;10.8)?0.4 (?1.9;1.2)6.2 (3.4;12.6)5.8 (2.8;13.5)?1.8 (?5.6;2.0)0.593Free fatty acids (mmol/L)0.5 (0.3)0.4 (0.2)?0.1 (?0.3;0.0)0.4 (0.2)0.4 (0.3)0.0 (?0.2;0.2)0.387Triglycerides (mmol/L)0.8 (0.7;1.2)0.9 (0.6;1.1)?0.1 (?0.2;0.1)0.9 (0.7;1.1)0.9 (0.7;1.3)0.1 (?0.1;0.2)0.427Total cholesterol (mmol/L)4.4 (0.8)4.2 (0.9)?0.2 (?0.5;0.1)4.6 (0.6)4.7 (0.6)0.1 (?0.1;0.3)0.412HDL cholesterol (mmol/L)1.5 (0.5)1.5 (0.5)0.0 (?0.1;0.1)1.6 (0.4)1.6 (0.5)0.0 (?0.1; 0.1)0.836LDL cholesterol (mmol/L)2.4 (0.6)2.3 (0.6)?0.2 (?0.5;0.2)2.5 (0.5)2.6 (0.5)0.1 (?0.1;0.3)0.803 Open in a separate window NoteData are presented as mean (standard deviation) or median (Q2\Q3). Delta ideals () are indicated as delta mean and 95% CI intervals. Data on excess weight possess previously reported by Brock et al 2019. 15 HDL, high\denseness lipoproteins; LDL, low\denseness lipoprotein; Post, after 26?weeks of treatment; Pre, at baseline (before treatment); Q1, 1st quartile; Q4, 4th quartile. 3.3. Subcutaneous adipose cell Cesium chloride size and pericellular fibrosis Liraglutide did not induce a difference in the median cell size in comparison with placebo (900?m2 vs 441?m2; em P /em ?=?0.42) (Table?2). Adipocyte size in the top (Q4) and lower (Q1) quartiles was assessed separately. Liraglutide did not induce a difference in cell size of the top quartile Q4 (629?m2 vs \409?m2; em P /em ?=?0.56), but it slightly increased cell size in the lower quartile Q1 (682?m2 vs 81?m2; em P /em ?=?0.04) in comparison with placebo. Representative images of abdominal subcutaneous adipose cells biopsies before and after treatment are depicted in Number?1. Liraglutide did not induce any variations in the relative pericellular fibrosis (\0.1% vs \0.2%; em P /em ?=?0.94). 3.4. Biochemical and hormonal effects Liraglutide did not induce any variations in the large quantity of CD163\positive cells (\4.7??32.8 vs \10??32.5, em P /em ?=?0.19) in comparison with placebo. Representative images of sections from before and after liraglutide treatment are offered in Number?2A and B, respectively. Open in a separate window Number 2 Assessment of systemic swelling in adipose cells: depicts immunohistochemical stained CD163\positive cells in subcutaneous adipose cells before (A) and after (B) treatment with liraglutide. Level pub (?) represents.Administration of GLP\1 in an ob/ob mouse model of diabetes reduced the inflammatory level and oxidative stress in adipocytes and macrophages, which collectively improved insulin level of sensitivity. 14 Furthermore, studies in obese mice have shown that GLP\1 inhibits M1 and M2 macrophage infiltration and swelling. 14 , 31 The relative presence of pericellular fibrosis was negatively associated with adipocyte cell size and generally associated with adipose tissue swelling and extra fat mass loss. 32 Moreover, an in vitro study showed the GLP\1 agonist exendin\4 offers advertised the up\rules of adiponectin levels in adipocytes by preventing the production of inflammatory adipokines. 33 However, Rabbit Polyclonal to MAP4K3 we could not document variations in numbers of CD163+ M2 macrophages or the relative pericellular fibrosis in our human being subcutaneous adipose biopsies in response to 26?weeks of liraglutide treatment. panels. In comparison with placebo, liraglutide induced excess weight loss (3.38?kg, 95% CI ?5.29; ?1.48, test for continuous data, a chi\squared test for categorical valuables and a Mann\Whitney test for non\parametric data. Associations between excess weight or cell area and serum markers were calculated using simple linear regressions and offered like a coefficients storyline. 3.?RESULTS 3.1. Demographics Forty\eight participants were randomized, 9 of whom withdrew from the study due to adverse effects (7/9: severe nausea; 5/9: vomiting; 3/9: reflux; 3/9: decreased appetite). As a result, 19 participants randomized to liraglutide and 20 to placebo completed the trial. Demographics are demonstrated in Table?1. There were no variations in the demographics, except that the number of participants who received long\acting insulin was higher in the liraglutide group ( em P /em ?=?0.04); however, the doses were related. TABLE 1 Baseline characteristics thead valign=”top” th align=”remaining” valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ /th th align=”still left” valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Liraglutide (n?=?19) /th th align=”still left” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Placebo (n?=?20) /th th align=”still left” valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ em P /em \worth /th /thead DemographicsSex (man)17/89%14/70%0.13Age (years)51 (10)50 (8)0.66Body mass index (kg/m2)30 (5)29 (4)0.62Diabetes length of time (years)32 (11)32 (7)0.97Haemoglobin A1c (mmol/mol)69 (12)64 (10)0.14Regular smoking cigarettes (yes)4/21%4/20%0.94Heart price (beats/min)75 (68\87)73 (69\78)0.44Systolic blood circulation pressure (mmHg)144 (16)138 (12)0.21Diastolic blood circulation pressure (mmHg)78 (9)79 (9)0.70MedicationFast\performing insulin (yes)17/89%13/65%0.07Dose (IE)32 (26;50)33 (24;47)1.00Long\performing insulin (yes)17/89%12/60% em 0.04 /em Dosage (IE)24 (22;30)33 (20;40)0.48Insulin pump (yes)2/11%7/35%0.07Statins (yes)8/42%9/47%0.74Diuretics (yes)2/11%3/15%0.68Analgesics (yes)5/26%4/20%0.64Beta\blockers (yes)4/21%2/10%0.34Antihypertensives (yes)Angiotensin\converting enzyme inhibitors10/53%9/45%0.63Angiotensin II\receptor agonist8/42%6/30%0.43Calcium antagonists7/37%4/20%0.24 Open up in another window NoteData are presented as mean (standard deviation), median (Q2\Q3) or number/percentage. Data possess previously reported by Brock et al 2019. 15 Italic signifies significant worth. 3.2. Fat reduction Liraglutide treatment led to a mean fat loss of 3.38?kg (95% CI???5.29; ?1.48, em P /em ? ?0.001) in comparison to placebo. 15 The overall weight reduction for the liraglutide and placebo group had been 3.95?kg (95%CWe ?5.31; ?2.59) and 0.55?kg (95%CWe ?2.17;1.07), respectively. Median (Q1\Q4) fat pre\ and post\involvement are proven in Desk?2. TABLE 2 Compositional and biochemical adjustments thead valign=”best” th align=”still left” rowspan=”2″ valign=”best” colspan=”1″ /th th align=”still left” colspan=”3″ design=”border-bottom:solid 1px #000000″ valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ Liraglutide n (19) /th th align=”still left” colspan=”4″ design=”border-bottom:solid 1px #000000″ valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ Placebo n(20) /th th align=”still left” valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Pre /th th align=”still left” valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Post /th th align=”still left” valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ /th th align=”still left” valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Pre /th th align=”still left” valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Post /th th align=”still left” valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ /th th align=”still left” valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ em P /em \worth /th /thead Fat (kg)91 (83;99)85 (77;96)?3.9 (?5.3;?2.6)86 (78;103)86 (79;99)?0.6 (?2.2;1.0)0.001Body mass index (kg/m2)29 (25;32)27.1 (25.1;29.2)?2.0 (?16.0;0.1)28 (26;31.5)27.8 (26;31.4)0.3 (?6.3;13.9)0.004CompositionCell size total (m2)2495 (1568;3133)3846 (1917;4331)900 (321;1479)2451 (1735;3237)2993 (2184;3813)441 (?185;1067)0.415Cell size Q1 (m2)680 (580;1761)1746 (963;1974)682 (331;1034)848 (576;1427)1186 (888;1776)81 (?383;545)0.038Cell size Q4 (m2)5862 (2275)6183 (2780)629 (?380;1638)5561 (1811)5725 (1544)?409 (?1663;846)0.555Pericellular fibrosis (%)6.0 (4.1\7.8)5.4 (4.1\7.1)?0.1 (?1.5;1.4)5.2 (3.6\7.8)5.5 (2.8\7.5)?0.2 (?2.2;1.9)0.944BiochemistryCD163 (mg/L)2.0 (1.6;2.8)1.9 (1.6;2.6)?0.1 (?0.2;0.0)1.9 (1.5;2.5)1.9 (1.6;2.4)?0.0 (?0.1;0.1)0.173Adiponectin (ng/mL)127 (89;235)157 (88;220)2.0 (?14.6;18.7)131 (92;357)149 (101;214)0.2 (?17.8;18.2)0.987Leptin (ng/mL)5.0 (2.7;10.5)4.2 (2.3;10.8)?0.4 (?1.9;1.2)6.2 (3.4;12.6)5.8 (2.8;13.5)?1.8 (?5.6;2.0)0.593Free essential fatty acids (mmol/L)0.5 (0.3)0.4 (0.2)?0.1 (?0.3;0.0)0.4 (0.2)0.4 (0.3)0.0 (?0.2;0.2)0.387Triglycerides (mmol/L)0.8 (0.7;1.2)0.9 (0.6;1.1)?0.1 (?0.2;0.1)0.9 (0.7;1.1)0.9 (0.7;1.3)0.1 (?0.1;0.2)0.427Total cholesterol (mmol/L)4.4 (0.8)4.2 (0.9)?0.2 (?0.5;0.1)4.6 (0.6)4.7 (0.6)0.1 (?0.1;0.3)0.412HDL cholesterol (mmol/L)1.5 (0.5)1.5 (0.5)0.0 (?0.1;0.1)1.6 (0.4)1.6 (0.5)0.0 (?0.1; 0.1)0.836LDL cholesterol (mmol/L)2.4 (0.6)2.3 (0.6)?0.2 (?0.5;0.2)2.5 (0.5)2.6 (0.5)0.1 (?0.1;0.3)0.803 Open up in another window NoteData are presented as mean (regular deviation) or median (Q2\Q3). Delta beliefs () are portrayed as delta mean and 95% CI intervals. Data on fat have got previously reported by Brock et al 2019. 15 HDL, high\thickness lipoproteins; LDL, low\thickness lipoprotein; Post, after 26?weeks of treatment; Pre, at baseline (before treatment); Q1, 1st quartile; Q4, 4th quartile. 3.3. Subcutaneous adipose cell size and pericellular fibrosis Liraglutide didn’t induce a notable difference in the median cell size in comparison to placebo (900?m2 vs 441?m2; em P /em ?=?0.42) (Desk?2). Adipocyte size in top of the (Q4) and lower (Q1) quartiles was evaluated separately. Liraglutide didn’t induce a notable difference in cell size from the higher quartile Q4 (629?m2 vs \409?m2; em P /em ?=?0.56), nonetheless it slightly increased cell size in the low quartile Q1 (682?m2 vs 81?m2; em P /em ?=?0.04) in comparison to placebo. Representative pictures of abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissues biopsies before and after treatment are depicted in Body?1. Liraglutide didn’t induce any distinctions in the comparative pericellular fibrosis (\0.1% vs \0.2%; em P /em ?=?0.94). 3.4. Biochemical and hormonal results Liraglutide didn’t induce any distinctions in.Adipocyte size in top of the (Q4) and lower (Q1) quartiles was assessed separately. or multiplex panels immunoassays. In comparison to placebo, liraglutide induced fat reduction (3.38?kg, 95% CI ?5.29; ?1.48, check for continuous data, a chi\squared check for categorical belongings and a Mann\Whitney check for non\parametric data. Organizations between fat or cell region and serum markers had been calculated using basic linear regressions and provided being a coefficients story. 3.?Outcomes 3.1. Demographics 40\eight participants had been randomized, 9 of whom withdrew from the analysis due to undesireable effects (7/9: serious nausea; 5/9: throwing up; 3/9: reflux; 3/9: reduced appetite). Therefore, 19 individuals randomized to liraglutide and 20 to placebo finished the trial. Demographics are proven in Desk?1. There have been no distinctions in the demographics, except that the amount of individuals who received lengthy\performing insulin was higher in the liraglutide group ( em P /em ?=?0.04); nevertheless, the doses had been equivalent. TABLE 1 Baseline features thead valign=”best” th align=”still left” valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ /th th align=”still left” valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Liraglutide (n?=?19) /th th align=”still left” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Placebo (n?=?20) /th th align=”still left” valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ em P /em \worth /th /thead DemographicsSex (man)17/89%14/70%0.13Age (years)51 (10)50 (8)0.66Body mass index (kg/m2)30 (5)29 (4)0.62Diabetes length of time (years)32 (11)32 (7)0.97Haemoglobin A1c (mmol/mol)69 (12)64 (10)0.14Regular smoking cigarettes (yes)4/21%4/20%0.94Heart price (beats/min)75 (68\87)73 (69\78)0.44Systolic blood circulation pressure (mmHg)144 (16)138 (12)0.21Diastolic blood circulation pressure (mmHg)78 (9)79 (9)0.70MedicationFast\performing insulin (yes)17/89%13/65%0.07Dose (IE)32 (26;50)33 (24;47)1.00Long\performing insulin (yes)17/89%12/60% em 0.04 /em Dosage (IE)24 (22;30)33 (20;40)0.48Insulin pump (yes)2/11%7/35%0.07Statins (yes)8/42%9/47%0.74Diuretics (yes)2/11%3/15%0.68Analgesics (yes)5/26%4/20%0.64Beta\blockers (yes)4/21%2/10%0.34Antihypertensives (yes)Angiotensin\converting enzyme inhibitors10/53%9/45%0.63Angiotensin II\receptor agonist8/42%6/30%0.43Calcium antagonists7/37%4/20%0.24 Open up in another window NoteData are presented as mean (standard deviation), median (Q2\Q3) or number/percentage. Data possess previously reported by Brock et al 2019. 15 Italic signifies significant worth. 3.2. Fat reduction Liraglutide treatment led to a mean fat loss of 3.38?kg (95% CI???5.29; ?1.48, em P /em ? ?0.001) in comparison to placebo. 15 The overall weight reduction for the liraglutide and placebo group had been 3.95?kg (95%CWe ?5.31; ?2.59) and 0.55?kg (95%CWe ?2.17;1.07), respectively. Median (Q1\Q4) fat pre\ and post\involvement are proven in Desk?2. Cesium chloride TABLE 2 Compositional and biochemical adjustments thead valign=”best” th align=”still left” rowspan=”2″ valign=”best” colspan=”1″ /th th align=”still left” colspan=”3″ design=”border-bottom:solid 1px #000000″ valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ Liraglutide n (19) /th th align=”still left” colspan=”4″ design=”border-bottom:solid 1px #000000″ valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ Placebo n(20) /th th align=”still left” valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Pre /th th align=”still left” valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Post /th th align=”still left” valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ /th th align=”still left” valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Pre /th th align=”still left” valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Post /th th align=”still left” valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ /th th align=”still left” valign=”best” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ em P /em \worth /th /thead Fat (kg)91 (83;99)85 (77;96)?3.9 (?5.3;?2.6)86 (78;103)86 (79;99)?0.6 (?2.2;1.0)0.001Body Cesium chloride mass index (kg/m2)29 (25;32)27.1 (25.1;29.2)?2.0 (?16.0;0.1)28 (26;31.5)27.8 (26;31.4)0.3 (?6.3;13.9)0.004CompositionCell size total (m2)2495 (1568;3133)3846 (1917;4331)900 (321;1479)2451 (1735;3237)2993 (2184;3813)441 (?185;1067)0.415Cell size Q1 (m2)680 (580;1761)1746 (963;1974)682 (331;1034)848 (576;1427)1186 (888;1776)81 (?383;545)0.038Cell size Q4 (m2)5862 (2275)6183 (2780)629 (?380;1638)5561 (1811)5725 (1544)?409 (?1663;846)0.555Pericellular fibrosis (%)6.0 (4.1\7.8)5.4 (4.1\7.1)?0.1 (?1.5;1.4)5.2 (3.6\7.8)5.5 (2.8\7.5)?0.2 (?2.2;1.9)0.944BiochemistryCD163 (mg/L)2.0 (1.6;2.8)1.9 (1.6;2.6)?0.1 (?0.2;0.0)1.9 (1.5;2.5)1.9 (1.6;2.4)?0.0 (?0.1;0.1)0.173Adiponectin (ng/mL)127 (89;235)157 (88;220)2.0 (?14.6;18.7)131 (92;357)149 (101;214)0.2 (?17.8;18.2)0.987Leptin (ng/mL)5.0 (2.7;10.5)4.2 (2.3;10.8)?0.4 (?1.9;1.2)6.2 (3.4;12.6)5.8 (2.8;13.5)?1.8 (?5.6;2.0)0.593Free essential fatty acids (mmol/L)0.5 (0.3)0.4 (0.2)?0.1 (?0.3;0.0)0.4 (0.2)0.4 (0.3)0.0 (?0.2;0.2)0.387Triglycerides (mmol/L)0.8 (0.7;1.2)0.9 (0.6;1.1)?0.1 (?0.2;0.1)0.9 (0.7;1.1)0.9 (0.7;1.3)0.1 (?0.1;0.2)0.427Total cholesterol (mmol/L)4.4 (0.8)4.2 (0.9)?0.2 (?0.5;0.1)4.6 (0.6)4.7 (0.6)0.1 (?0.1;0.3)0.412HDL cholesterol (mmol/L)1.5 (0.5)1.5 (0.5)0.0 (?0.1;0.1)1.6 (0.4)1.6 (0.5)0.0 (?0.1; 0.1)0.836LDL cholesterol (mmol/L)2.4 (0.6)2.3 (0.6)?0.2 (?0.5;0.2)2.5 (0.5)2.6 (0.5)0.1 (?0.1;0.3)0.803 Open up in another window NoteData are presented as mean (regular deviation) or median (Q2\Q3). Delta beliefs () are portrayed as delta mean and 95% CI intervals. Data on fat have got previously reported by Brock et al 2019. 15 HDL, high\thickness lipoproteins; LDL, low\thickness lipoprotein; Post, after 26?weeks of treatment; Pre, at baseline (before treatment); Q1, 1st quartile; Q4, 4th quartile. 3.3. Subcutaneous adipose cell size and pericellular fibrosis Liraglutide didn’t induce a notable difference in the median cell size in comparison to placebo (900?m2 vs 441?m2; em P /em ?=?0.42) (Desk?2). Adipocyte size in top of the (Q4) and lower (Q1) quartiles was evaluated separately. Liraglutide didn’t induce a notable difference in cell size from the higher quartile Q4 (629?m2 vs \409?m2; em P /em ?=?0.56), nonetheless it slightly increased cell size in the low quartile Q1 (682?m2 vs 81?m2; em P /em ?=?0.04) in comparison with placebo. Representative images of abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue biopsies before and after treatment are depicted in Figure?1. Liraglutide did.