Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2019 Feb 23;11(2):472.
doi: 10.3390/nu11020472.

Intraintestinal Delivery of Tastants Using a Naso-Duodenal-Ileal Catheter Does Not Influence Food Intake or Satiety

Tim Klaassen  1   2 , Annick M E Alleleyn  3 , Mark van Avesaat  4 , Freddy J Troost  5   6 , Daniel Keszthelyi  7 , Adrian A M Masclee  8
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Intraintestinal Delivery of Tastants Using a Naso-Duodenal-Ileal Catheter Does Not Influence Food Intake or Satiety

Tim Klaassen et al. Nutrients. .

Abstract

Intraduodenal activity of taste receptors reduces food intake. Taste receptors are expressed throughout the entire gastrointestinal tract. Currently, there are no data available on the effects of distal taste receptor activation. In this study, we investigate the effect of intraduodenal and/or intraileal activation of taste receptors on food intake and satiety. In a single-blind randomized crossover trial, fourteen participants were intubated with a naso-duodenal-ileal catheter and received four infusion regimens: duodenal placebo and ileal placebo (DPIP), duodenal tastants and ileal placebo (DTIP), duodenal placebo and ileal tastants (DPIT), duodenal tastants and ileal tastants (DTIT). Fifteen minutes after cessation of infusion, subjects received an ad libitum meal to measure food intake. Visual analog scale scores for satiety feelings were collected at regular intervals. No differences in food intake were observed between the various interventions (DPIP: 786.6 ± 79.2 Kcal, DTIP: 803.3 ± 69.0 Kcal, DPIT: 814.7 ± 77.3 Kcal, DTIT: 834.8 ± 59.2 Kcal, p = 0.59). No differences in satiety feelings were observed. Intestinal infusion of tastants using a naso-duodenal-ileal catheter did not influence food intake or satiety feelings. Possibly, the burden of the four-day naso-duodenal-ileal intubation masked a small effect that tastants might have on food intake and satiety.

Keywords: food intake; intraduodenal infusion; intraileal infusion; overweight; satiety; tastants; weight management.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript or in the decision to publish the results. No specific grant was received for open access publication. T.K. received a salary from Will Pharma BV as part of the ‘Subsidie MKB Innovatiestimulering Topsectoren’ (MIT) for the period related to the execution of the present study. D.K. and A.A.M.M. have received an unrestricted grant from Will Pharma B.V. for execution of a study unrelated to the present study. A.M.E.A., M.v.A., F.J.T. reported no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The amount eaten in Kcal (mean + SEM) 15 min after cessation of the infusion of placebo both intraduodenal and intraileal (DPIP), tastants intraduodenal and placebo intraileal (DTIP), placebo intraduodenal and tastants intraileal (DPIT), and tastants both intraduodenal and intraileal (DTIT). Based on a linear mixed model, no difference in food intake was observed between the conditions (p = 0.59).
Figure 2
Figure 2
An individual representation per subject of amount eaten in Kcal 15 min after cessation of the infusion of placebo both intraduodenal and intraileal (DPIP), tastants intraduodenal and placebo intraileal (DTIP), placebo intraduodenal and tastants intraileal (DPIT), and tastants both intraduodenal and intraileal (DTIT). Treatment order was randomized for each subject. Each line with a unique symbol represents an individual subject. Based on a linear mixed model, no difference in food intake was observed between the conditions (p = 0.59).
Figure 3
Figure 3
VAS scores for desire to eat (A), hunger (B), satiety (C), and fullness (D) (mean + SEM) before, during, and after the infusion of placebo both intraduodenal and intraileal (DPIP), tastants intraduodenal and placebo intraileal (DTIP), placebo intraduodenal and tastants intraileal (DPIT), and tastants both intraduodenal and intraileal (DTIT). VAS scores were measured at t = −30, 30, 90, 150, 165, 180, 195, 210, and 240 min. No VAS scores were taken at t = 225 min. At t = 0 min, subjects received a standardized breakfast, infusion of mixtures was performed from t = 150 until t = 210 min, and ad libitum test meal was presented at t = 225. Based on a linear mixed model of mean scores and area under the curve (AUC150–210), no differences in desire to eat, hunger, satiety, and fullness were observed between the various conditions.
Figure 4
Figure 4
VAS scores for stomach pain (A), bloating (B), and nausea (C) (mean + SEM) before, during, and after the infusion of placebo both intraduodenal and intraileal (DPIP), tastants intraduodenal and placebo intraileal (DTIP), placebo intraduodenal and tastants intraileal (DPIT), and tastants both intraduodenal and intraileal (DTIT). t = −30, 30, 90, 150, 165, 180, 195, 210, and 240 min. No VAS scores were taken at t = 225 min. At t = 0 min, subjects received a standardized breakfast, infusion of mixtures was performed from t = 150 until t = 210 min, and ad libitum test meal was presented at t = 225 min. Based on a linear mixed model of mean scores and area under the curve (AUC150–210), no differences in stomach pain, bloating, and nausea were observed between the various conditions.
Figure 4
Figure 4
VAS scores for stomach pain (A), bloating (B), and nausea (C) (mean + SEM) before, during, and after the infusion of placebo both intraduodenal and intraileal (DPIP), tastants intraduodenal and placebo intraileal (DTIP), placebo intraduodenal and tastants intraileal (DPIT), and tastants both intraduodenal and intraileal (DTIT). t = −30, 30, 90, 150, 165, 180, 195, 210, and 240 min. No VAS scores were taken at t = 225 min. At t = 0 min, subjects received a standardized breakfast, infusion of mixtures was performed from t = 150 until t = 210 min, and ad libitum test meal was presented at t = 225 min. Based on a linear mixed model of mean scores and area under the curve (AUC150–210), no differences in stomach pain, bloating, and nausea were observed between the various conditions.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. WHO Obesity and Overweight 2018. [(accessed on 3 August 2018)]; Available online: http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight.
    1. Lieverse R.J., Jansen J.B., Masclee A.A., Lamers C.B. Satiety effects of a physiological dose of cholecystokinin in humans. Gut. 1995;36:176–179. doi: 10.1136/gut.36.2.176. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lieverse R.J., Jansen J.B., van de Zwan A., Samson L., Masclee A.A., Lamers C.B. Effects of a physiological dose of cholecystokinin on food intake and postprandial satiation in man. Regul. Pept. 1993;43:83–89. doi: 10.1016/0167-0115(93)90410-A. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Verdich C., Flint A., Gutzwiller J.P., Naslund E., Beglinger C., Hellstrom P.M., Long S.J., Morgan L.M., Holst J.J., Astrup A. A meta-analysis of the effect of glucagon-like peptide-1 (7-36) amide on ad libitum energy intake in humans. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2001;86:4382–4389. doi: 10.1210/jc.86.9.4382. - DOI - PubMed
    1. van Avesaat M., Troost F.J., Ripken D., Hendriks H.F., Masclee A.A. Ileal brake activation: Macronutrient-specific effects on eating behavior? Int. J. Obes. 2015;39:235–243. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2014.112. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Substances