Offloading systems for the treatment of neuropathic foot ulcers in patients with diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for the development of the Italian guidelines for the treatment of diabetic foot syndrome.

AIM: To compare the effectiveness of commonly used offloading devices for the treatment of neuropathic foot ulcers in patients with diabetes mellitus. This meta-analysis (MA) has been performed for giving an answer to clinical questions on this topic of the Italian guideline on diabetic foot syndrome. METHODS: The present MA includes randomized controlled studies (duration > 12 weeks) comparing, in patients with diabetes mellitus and non-infected neuropathic foot ulcer: any offloading device vs either no offloading device or conventional footwear; removable versus non-removable offloading devices; surgical procedure vs other offloading approaches. The primary endpoint was ulcer healing. RESULTS: A total of 184 studies were identified, and 18 were considered eligible for the analysis. We found that: any plantar off-loading, when compared to the absence of plantar offloading device, is associated with a higher ulcer healing (MH-OR: 3.13 [1.08, 9.11], p = 0.04, I2 = 0%); total contact cast or nonremovable knee-high walker, compared to other offloading devices, had a higher ulcer healing rate (MH-OR: 2.64 [1.43, 4.89], p = 0.002, I2 = 51%); surgical offloading for active ulcers in combination with post-surgery offloading achieves higher ulcer healing rate when compared to offloading devices alone (MH-OR: 6.77 [1.64, 27.93], p = 0.008, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Any plantar offloading, compared to the absence of plantar offloading device, is associated with a higher ulcer healing rate. Total contact cast or nonremovable knee-high walker, compared to other offloading devices, is preferable. Surgical offloading for active ulcers, in combination with post-surgery offloading devices, achieves a higher ulcer healing rate when compared to other offloading devices alone. Further studies with a larger cohort of patients with diabetic neuropathic foot ulcers and extended follow-up periods are necessary.

Effect of a multidisciplinary team approach in patients with diabetic foot ulcers on major adverse limb events (MALEs): systematic review and meta-analysis for the development of the Italian guidelines for the treatment of diabetic foot syndrome.

The treatment of patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) is extremely complex, requiring a comprehensive approach that involves a variety of different healthcare professionals. Several studies have shown that a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach is useful to achieve good clinical outcomes, reducing major and minor amputation and increasing the chance of healing. Despite this, the multidisciplinary approach is not always a recognized treatment strategy. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the effects of an MDT approach on major adverse limb events, healing, time-to-heal, all-cause mortality, and other clinical outcomes in patients with active DFUs. The present meta-analysis was performed for the purpose of developing Italian guidelines for the treatment of diabetic foot with the support of the Italian Society of Diabetology (Società Italiana di Diabetologia, SID) and the Italian Association of Clinical Diabetologists (Associazione Medici Diabetologi, AMD). The study was performed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. All randomized clinical trials and observational studies, with a duration of at least 26 weeks, which compared the MDT approach with any other organizational strategy in the management of patients with DFUs were considered. Animal studies were excluded. A search of Medline and Embase databases was performed up until the May 1st, 2023. Patients managed by an MDT were reported to have better outcomes in terms of healing, minor and major amputation, and survival in comparison with those managed using other approaches. No data were found on quality of life, returning-to-walking, and emergency admission. Authors concluded that the MDT may be effective in improving outcomes in patients with DFUs.

Development of the Italian clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of diabetic foot syndrome: design and methodological aspects.

AIMS: Diabetic foot syndrome (DFS) and its complications are a growing public health concern. The Italian Society of Diabetology (SID) and the Italian Association of Clinical Diabetologists (AMD), in collaboration with other scientific societies, will develop the first Italian guidelines for the treatment of DFS. METHODS: The creation of SID/AMD Guidelines is based on an extended work made by 19 panelists and 12 members of the Evidence Review Team. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology has been used to decide aims, reference population, and target health professionals. Clinical questions have been created using PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) conceptual framework. The definition of questions has been performed using a two-step web-based Delphi methodology, a structured technique aimed at obtaining by repeated rounds of questionnaires a consensus opinion from a panel of experts in areas wherein evidence is scarce or conflicting, and opinion is important. RESULTS: The mean age of panelists (26.3% women) was 53.7 ± 10.6 years. The panel proposed 34 questions. A consensus was immediately reached for all the proposed questions, 32 were approved and 2 were rejected. CONCLUSIONS: The areas covered by clinical questions included diagnosis of ischemia and infection, treatment of ischemic, neuropathic, and infected ulcers, prevention of foot ulceration, organization and education issues, and surgical management. The PICO presented in this paper are designed to provide indications for healthcare professionals in charge of diabetic foot treatment and prevention, primarily based on clinical needs of people with diabetic foot syndrome and considering the existing organization of health care.

Unsaturated fatty acids prevent desensitization of the human growth hormone secretagogue receptor by blocking its internalization.

The composition of the plasma membrane affects the responsiveness of cells to metabolically important hormones such as insulin and vasoactive intestinal peptide. Ghrelin is a metabolically regulated hormone that activates the G protein-coupled receptor GH secretagogue receptor type 1a (GHSR) not only in the pituitary gland but also in peripheral tissues such as the pancreas, stomach, and T cells in the circulation. We have investigated the effects of lipids and altered plasma membrane composition on GHSR activation. Oligounsaturated fatty acids (OFAs) disrupt the structure of membranes and make them more fluid. Prolonged (96 h), but not acute, treatment of the GHSR cells with the 18C OFAs oleic and linoleic acid caused a significant increase in sensitivity of the receptor to ghrelin (EC(50) reduced by a factor of 2.4 and 2.9 at 60 and 120 microM OFAs, respectively). OFAs were found to block the inhibitory effects of ghrelin pretreatment on subsequent ghrelin responsiveness, suggesting that OFAs suppress desensitization of GHSR. Radioligand displacement studies did not show a significant shift in receptor binding after incubation with OFAs. However, it was found that OFA treatment suppressed GHSR internalization, likely explaining OFA-induced refractoriness to ligand-induced desensitization. The involvement of lipid rafts in this process was indicated by the altered responsiveness of GHSR under conditions that alter membrane cholesterol. In conclusion, our findings demonstrate the importance of membrane composition for GHSR activation and desensitization and indicate at least part of the mechanism through which OFAs and cholesterol could affect ghrelin's activity in vivo.

Unacylated ghrelin and obestatin increase islet cell mass and prevent diabetes in streptozotocin-treated newborn rats.

The ghrelin gene products, namely acylated ghrelin (AG), unacylated ghrelin (UAG), and obestatin (Ob), were shown to prevent pancreatic beta-cell death and to improve beta-cell function under treatment with cytokines, which are major cause of beta-cell destruction in diabetes. Moreover, AG had been described previously to prevent streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetes in rats; however, the effect of either UAG or Ob has never been examined in this context. In the present study, we investigated the potential of UAG and Ob to increase islet beta-cell mass and to reduce diabetes at adult age in STZ-treated neonatal rats. One-day-old rats were injected with STZ and subsequently administered with either AG, UAG or Ob for 7 days. On day 70, plasma glucose levels, plasma and pancreatic insulin levels, pancreatic islet area and number, insulin and pancreatic/duodenal homeobox-1 (Pdx1) gene expression, and antiapoptotic BCL2 protein expression were determined. Similarly to AG, both UAG and Ob counteracted STZ-induced high glucose levels and improved plasma and pancreatic insulin levels, which were reduced by the diabetogenic compound. UAG and Ob increased islet area, islet number, and beta-cell mass with respect to STZ treatment alone. Finally, in STZ-treated animals, UAG and Ob up-regulated insulin and Pdx1 mRNA and increased the expression of BCL2 similarly to AG. Taken together, our results suggest that in STZ-treated newborn rats, UAG and Ob improve glucose metabolism and preserve islet cell mass, granting a therapeutic potential in medical conditions associated with impaired beta-cell function.

Bolus administration of obestatin does not change glucose and insulin levels neither in the systemic nor in the portal circulation of the rat.

Obestatin is a second peptide derived from the preproghrelin polypeptide. It was originally thought to have anorexigenic effects, thereby functioning as an antagonist of ghrelin. However, this has been a subject of debate ever since. Since acylated ghrelin strongly induces insulin resistance, it could be hypothesized that obestatin plays a role in glucose homeostasis as well. In the present study we evaluated the effect of obestatin on glucose and insulin metabolism in the systemic and portal circulation. Obestatin 200 nmol/kg was administered systemically as a single intravenous bolus injection to fasted pentobarbital anesthetized adult male Wistar rats. Up to 50 min after administration, blood samples were taken to measure glucose and insulin concentrations, both in the portal and in the systemic circulation. The effect of obestatin was evaluated in fasted and in glucose-stimulated conditions (IVGTT) and compared to control groups treated with saline or IVGTT, respectively. Intravenous administration of obestatin did not have any effect on glucose and insulin concentrations, neither systemic nor portal, when compared to the control groups. Only the glucose peak 1 min after administration of IVGTT was slightly higher in the obestatin treated rats: 605.8+/-106.3% vs. 522.2+/-47.1% in the portal circulation, respectively (NS), and 800.7+/-78.7% vs. 549.6+/-37.0% in the systemic circulation, respectively (P<0.02), but it can be debated whether this has any clinical relevance. In the present study, we demonstrated that intravenously administered obestatin does not influence glucose and insulin concentrations, neither in the portal nor in the systemic circulation.

Intravenous glucose administration in fasting rats has differential effects on acylated and unacylated ghrelin in the portal and systemic circulation: a comparison between portal and peripheral concentrations in anesthetized rats.

Ghrelin is produced by the gastrointestinal tract, and its systemic concentrations are mainly regulated by nutritional factors. Our aim was to investigate: 1) endogenous portal and systemic acylated and unacylated ghrelin levels (AG and UAG, respectively); 2) whether an iv glucose tolerance test (IVGTT) modifies AG and UAG; and 3) whether the liver passage plays a role in regulating systemic AG and UAG. To elucidate this, we evaluated the effects of IVGTT or saline injection on endogenous portal and systemic concentrations of glucose, insulin, AG, and UAG in anesthetized fasting rats. Hepatic extraction of insulin, AG, and UAG and the ratio of AG to UAG were also measured. IVGTT suppressed both portal (P < 0.03) and peripheral (P < 0.05) UAG, whereas it only blunted prehepatic, but not peripheral, AG. During fasting, hepatic clearance of UAG was 11%, and it was decreased to 8% by IVGTT. AG was cleared by the liver by 38% but unaffected by glucose. The AG to UAG ratio was higher in the portal than the systemic circulation, both in the saline (P < 0.004) and IVGTT (P < 0.0005) rats. In conclusion, this study shows that: 1) the ratio of AG to UAG is very low in the portal vein and decreases further in the systemic circulation; 2) IVGTT in anesthetized fasting rats inhibits UAG, whereas it only blunts prehepatic, but not systemic, AG; and 3) hepatic clearance of AG is much higher than that of UAG. Thus, our results suggest that peripheral AG metabolic regulation and action are mainly confined within the gastrointestinal tract.

Unacylated ghrelin is not a functional antagonist but a full agonist of the type 1a growth hormone secretagogue receptor (GHS-R).

Recent findings demonstrate that the effects of ghrelin can be abrogated by co-administered unacylated ghrelin (UAG). Since the general consensus is that UAG does not interact with the type 1a growth hormone secretagogue receptor (GHS-R), a possible mechanism of action for this antagonistic effect is via another receptor. However, functional antagonism of the GHS-R by UAG has not been explored extensively. In this study we used human GHS-R and aequorin expressing CHO-K1 cells to measure [Ca(2+)](i) following treatment with UAG. UAG at up to 10(-5)M did not antagonize ghrelin induced [Ca(2+)](i). However, UAG was found to be a full agonist of the GHS-R with an EC(50) of between 1.6 and 2 microM using this in vitro system. Correspondingly, UAG displaced radio-labeled ghrelin from the GHS-R with an IC(50) of 13 microM. In addition, GHS-R antagonists were found to block UAG induced [Ca(2+)](i) with approximately similar potency to their effect on ghrelin activation of the GHS-R, suggesting a similar mode of action. These findings demonstrate in a defined system that UAG does not antagonize activation of the GHS-R by ghrelin. But our findings also emphasize the importance of assessing the concentration of UAG used in both in vitro and in vivo experimental systems that are aimed at examining GHS-R independent effects. Where local concentrations of UAG may reach the high nanomolar to micromolar range, assignment of GHS-R independent effects should be made with caution.

Unacylated ghrelin acts as a potent insulin secretagogue in glucose-stimulated conditions.

Acylated and unacylated ghrelin (AG and UAG) are gut hormones that exert pleiotropic actions, including regulation of insulin secretion and glucose metabolism. In this study, we investigated whether AG and UAG differentially regulate portal and systemic insulin levels after a glucose load. We studied the effects of the administration of AG (30 nmol/kg), UAG (3 and 30 nmol/kg), the ghrelin receptor antagonist [D-Lys(3)]GHRP-6 (1 micromol/kg), or various combinations of these compounds on portal and systemic levels of glucose and insulin after an intravenous glucose tolerance test (IVGTT, d-glucose 1 g/kg) in anesthetized fasted Wistar rats. UAG administration potently and dose-dependently enhanced the rise of insulin concentration induced by IVGTT in the portal and, to a lesser extent, the systemic circulation. This UAG-induced effect was completely blocked by the coadministration of exogenous AG at equimolar concentrations. Similarly to UAG, [D-Lys(3)]GHRP-6, alone or in combination with AG and UAG, strongly enhanced the portal insulin response to IVGTT, whereas exogenous AG alone did not exert any further effect. Our data demonstrate that, in glucose-stimulated conditions, exogenous UAG acts as a potent insulin secretagogue, whereas endogenous AG exerts a maximal tonic inhibition on glucose-induced insulin release.

Unacylated ghrelin is active on the INS-1E rat insulinoma cell line independently of the growth hormone secretagogue receptor type 1a and the corticotropin releasing factor 2 receptor.

Both unacylated ghrelin (UAG) and acylated ghrelin (AG) exert metabolic effects. To investigate the interactions between AG and UAG on ghrelin receptors we evaluated the effects of AG and UAG on INS-1E rat insulinoma cells, using insulin secretion after 30min static incubation as a read-out. A possible involvement of the growth hormone secretagogue receptor type 1a (GHS-R1a) or the corticotropin-releasing factor 2 (CRF2) receptor (CRF2R), as a putative receptor for UAG, was also studied determining their mRNA expression and the functional effects of receptor antagonists on insulin release. Both UAG and AG stimulated insulin release dose-dependently in the nanomolar range. The AG-induced insulin output was antagonized by two GHS-R1a antagonists ([d-Lys(3)]GHRP-6 and BIM28163), which did not block UAG actions. These effects occurred in the presence of low levels of GHS-R1a mRNA. Neither CRF2R expression nor effects of the CRF2R antagonist (astressin(2)B) on insulin output were observed. In conclusion, we provide a sensitive and reproducible assay for specific effects of UAG, which in this study is responsible for insulin release by INS-1E cells. Our data support the existence of a specific receptor for UAG, other than the CRF2R and GHS-R1a. The stimulatory effect on insulin secretion by AG in this cell line is mediated by the GHS-R1a.

Ghrelin stimulates, whereas des-octanoyl ghrelin inhibits, glucose output by primary hepatocytes.

Ghrelin exerts various metabolic activities, including regulation of glucose levels in humans. To verify whether the glucose response to ghrelin reflects a modulation of an insulin-independent hepatic phenomenon, we studied glucose output by primary porcine hepatocytes in suspension culture, after incubation with acylated ghrelin (AG), unacylated ghrelin (UAG), and hexarelin (HEX). AG induced glucose output dose dependently after 20 min of incubation (P < 0.001), whereas HEX, a GH secretagogue receptor type 1a (GHS-R1a) agonist, had no effect. UAG inhibited glucose release also dose dependently and after 20 min (P < 0.001). Moreover, UAG completely reversed AG-induced glucose output (P < 0.01). Using real-time PCR, GHS-R1a gene expression was undetectable in all the hepatocyte preparations studied. The lack of efficacy of HEX, the efficacy of UAG, and the absence of GHS-R1a expression indicate the involvement of a yet uncharacterized ghrelin receptor type. In conclusion, glucose output by primary hepatocytes is time- and dose-dependently stimulated by AG and inhibited by UAG. Moreover, UAG counteracts the stimulatory effect of AG on glucose release. These actions might be mediated by a different receptor than GHS-R1a, and apparently, we must consider AG and UAG as separate hormones that can modify each other's actions on glucose handling, at least in the liver.

Ghrelin secretion is inhibited by glucose load and insulin-induced hypoglycaemia but unaffected by glucagon and arginine in humans.

OBJECTIVE: Circulating ghrelin levels are increased by fasting and decreased by feeding, glucose load, insulin and somatostatin. Whether hyperglycaemia and insulin directly inhibit ghrelin secretion still remains matter of debate. The aim of the present study was therefore to investigate further the regulatory effects of glucose and insulin on ghrelin secretion. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: We studied the effects of glucose [oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) 100 g orally], insulin-induced hypoglycaemia [ITT, 0.1 IU/kg insulin intravenously (i.v.)], glucagon (1 mg i.v.), arginine (0.5 mg/kg i.v.) and saline on ghrelin, GH, insulin, glucose and glucagon levels in six normal subjects. MEASUREMENTS: In all the sessions, blood samples were collected every 15 min from 0 up to + 120 min. Ghrelin, GH, insulin, glucagon and glucose levels were assayed at each time point. RESULTS: OGTT increased (P < 0.01) glucose and insulin while decreasing (P < 0.01) GH and ghrelin levels. ITT increased (P < 0.01) GH but decreased (P < 0.01) ghrelin levels. Glucagon increased (P < 0.01) glucose and insulin without modifying GH and ghrelin. Arginine increased (P < 0.01) GH, insulin, glucagon and glucose (P < 0.05) but did not affect ghrelin secretion. CONCLUSIONS: Ghrelin secretion in humans is inhibited by OGTT-induced hyperglycaemia and ITT but not by glucagon and arginine, two substances able to increase insulin and glucose levels. These findings question the assumption that glucose and insulin directly regulate ghrelin secretion. On the other hand, ghrelin secretion is not associated with the GH response to ITT or arginine, indicating that the somatotroph response to these stimuli is unlikely to be mediated by ghrelin.

Acetylcholine regulates ghrelin secretion in humans.

Ghrelin secretion has been reportedly increased by fasting and energy restriction but decreased by food intake, glucose, insulin, and somatostatin. However, its regulation is still far from clarified. The cholinergic system mediates some ghrelin actions, e.g. stimulation of gastric contractility and acid secretion and its orexigenic activity. To clarify whether ghrelin secretion undergoes cholinergic control in humans, we studied the effects of pirenzepine [PZ, 100 mg per os (by mouth)], a muscarinic antagonist, or pyridostigmine (PD, 120 mg per os), an indirect cholinergic agonist, on ghrelin, GH, insulin, and glucose levels in six normal subjects. PD increased (P < 0.05) GH (change in area under curves, mean +/- SEM, 790.9 +/- 229.3 microg(*)min/liter) but did not modify insulin and glucose levels. PZ did not significantly modify GH, insulin, and glucose levels. Circulating ghrelin levels were increased by PD (11290.5 +/- 6688.7 pg(*)min/ml; P < 0.05) and reduced by PZ (-23205.0 +/- 8959.5 pg(*)min/ml; P < 0.01). The PD-induced ghrelin peak did not precede that of GH. In conclusion, circulating ghrelin levels in humans are increased and reduced by cholinergic agonists and antagonists, respectively. Thus, ghrelin secretion is under cholinergic, namely muscarinic, control in humans. The variations in circulating ghrelin levels induced by PD and PZ are unlikely to mediate the cholinergic influence on GH secretion.

Ghrelin and the endocrine pancreas.

Ghrelin is a 28-amino-acid peptide predominantly produced by the stomach, while substantially lower amounts derive from other tissues including the pancreas. It is a natural ligand of the GH secretagogue (GHS) receptor (GHS-R1a) and strongly stimulates GH secretion, but acylation in serine 3 is needed for its activity. Ghrelin also possesses other endocrine and nonendocrine actions reflecting central and peripheral GHS-R distribution including the pancreas. The wide spectrum of ghrelin activities includes orexigenic effect, control of energy expenditure, and peripheral gastroenteropancreatic actions. Circulating ghrelin levels mostly reflect gastric secretion as indicated by evidence that they are reduced by 80% after gastrectomy and even after gastric by-pass surgery. Ghrelin secretion is increased in anorexia and cachexia but reduced in obesity, a notable exception being Prader-Willi syndrome. The negative association between ghrelin secretion and body weight is emphasized by evidence that weight increase and decrease reduces and augments circulating ghrelin levels in anorexia and obesity, respectively, and agrees with the clear negative association between ghrelin and insulin levels. In fact, ghrelin secretion is increased by fasting whereas it is decreased by glucose load as well as during euglycemic clamp but not after arginine or free fatty acid load in normal subjects; in physiological conditions, however, the most remarkable inhibitory input on ghrelin secretion is represented by somatostatin as well as by its natural analog cortistatin that concomitantly reduce beta-cell secretion. This evidence indicates that the endocrine pancreas plays a role in directly or indirectly modulating ghrelin secretion.

The endocrine response to ghrelin as a function of gender in humans in young and elderly subjects.

Ghrelin modulates somatotroph, lactotroph, corticotroph, and insulin secretion and glucose metabolism. To clarify the influence of gender and age on the endocrine actions of ghrelin in humans, we studied the effects of ghrelin (1.0 micro g/kg iv) or placebo on GH, prolactin (PRL), ACTH, cortisol, insulin, glucagon, and glucose levels in 18 young subjects (YS) and 16 elderly subjects (ES) of both genders. The GH response to GHRH (1.0 micro g/kg iv) was also studied. The GH response to ghrelin in YS was higher (P < 0.01) than in ES and both higher (P < 0.01) than to GHRH, without gender-related differences. In YS ghrelin also induced: 1) gender-independent increase (P < 0.01) in PRL, ACTH, and cortisol levels; 2) gender-independent increase in glucose levels (P < 0.01); 3) decrease (P < 0.01) in insulin levels in male YS; and 4) no change in glucagon. In ES, ghrelin induced gender-independent PRL, ACTH, and cortisol responses (P < 0.01). In ES ghrelin elicited gender-independent transient decrease in insulin (P < 0.01) coupled with increase in glucose levels (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the GH-releasing effect of ghrelin is independent of gender but undergoes age-related decrease. The effect of ghrelin on lactotroph and corticotroph secretion is age and gender independent. In both ES and YS, ghrelin influences insulin secretion and glucose metabolism.

Ghrelin secretion is inhibited by either somatostatin or cortistatin in humans.

Ghrelin possesses endocrine and non-endocrine actions mediated by the GH Secretagogue (GHS)-Receptors (GHS-R). The regulation of ghrelin secretion is still largely unknown. Somatostatin (SRIF) modulates central and gastroenteropancreatic hormonal secretions and functions. SRIF actions are partially shared by cortistatin (CST), a natural SRIF analogue, that binds all SRIF receptors and also GHS-R. Herein, we studied the effects of SRIF-14 or CST-14 (2.0 micro g/kg/h i.v. over 120 min) and of placebo on ghrelin, GH, insulin, glucagon and glucose levels in 6 normal young men. Placebo unaffected GH, insulin, glucagon, glucose and ghrelin levels. SRIF and CST similarly inhibited (p < 0.05) spontaneous GH secretion of about 90%. After SRIF or CST withdrawal, GH levels recovered to baseline levels. Both SRIF and CST similarly inhibited (p<0.01) insulin secretion of about 45%. In both sessions, after SRIF or CST withdrawal, insulin overrode baseline levels. Both SRIF and CST similarly inhibited (p < 0.01) glucagon levels of about 40%. After SRIF or CST withdrawal, glucagon persisted lower (p < 0.05) than at baseline. Neither SRIF nor CST modified glucose levels. Both SRIF and CST similarly inhibited (p < 0.01) circulating ghrelin levels of about 55%. Ghrelin levels progressively decreased from time +15 min, reaching the nadir at 120 and 105 min for SRIF and CST, respectively. Even 30 min after SRIF or CST withdrawal, ghrelin levels persisted lower (p < 0.05) than those at baseline. In conclusion, this study first shows that SRIF and CST strongly inhibits ghrelin secretion that, differently from GH and insulin secretion, persists inhibited even after stopping the infusion of SRIF or CST.