In this task, you are given a passage which has a question and the context. You have to generate an answer to the question based on the information present in the context.

[EX Q]: Context: The basis of the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy is the use of drugs that block the transmission of pain (antineuritics) and a good metabolic control of underlying disease.', 'To describe the outcomes of 17 type-2 diabetics with painful neuropathy, treated between 1988 and 2005 with symptomatic therapy plus intensified insulin.', 'Review of medical records of 17 type-2 diabetic patients, aged 63+/-11 years and a duration of diabetes of 15+/-8 years. All patients received intensified insulin therapy with 0.35 units/kg of NPH insulin (2/3 before breakfast and 1/3 evening meal), plus capillary glucose measurements and regular insulin (with sliding-scale centered in approximately 0.1 units/kg) before the 3 main meals. All patients were also treated with gabapentin, nortriptyline or clomipramine. Pain was assessed using a visual analog score of 10 points.', 'After 1 year, glycosilated hemoglobin decreased from 10.0+/-1.4% to 7.7+/-1.2% (p approximately =0.003). Pain decreased from 10 to 5.1+/-3.3 at one month, 2.3+/-3.2 at six months, and 3.1+/-3.6 at 1 year (p <0.01). There was a direct statistical correlation between the reduction of HbA1C and pain decline (r =0.736; p =0.037). Pain scores were lower than those reported elsewhere for Pregabalin (n =76; p =0.05), Lamotrigine (n =27; p <0.0005), Topiramate (n =208; p <0.005), and Gabapentin (n =84; p <0.025). The lack of difference to Sodium Valproate (n =21; p =0.07) had borderline significance.\Question: Is [ Intensified insulin therapy plus antineuritic medication more effective than antineuritics alone in painful diabetic neuropathy ]?
[EX A]: The addition of intensified insulin therapy to the symptomatic treatment of painful neuropathy in type-2 diabetics, significantly enhanced the reduction of pain. The lowering of glycosilated hemoglobin was a significant predictor of success in pain reduction.

[EX Q]: Context: To evaluate the efficacy of continuous low-level heat wrap therapy for the treatment of various sources of wrist pain including strain and sprain (SS), tendinosis (T), osteoarthritis (OA), and carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).', 'Prospective, randomized, parallel, single-blind (investigator), placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial.', 'Two community-based research facilities.', 'Ninety-three patients (age range, 18-65 y) with wrist pain.', 'Subjects with moderate or greater wrist pain were randomized and stratified to 1 of the following treatments: efficacy evaluation (heat wrap, n=39; oral placebo, n=42) or blinding (oral acetaminophen, n=6; unheated wrap, n=6). Data were recorded over 3 days of treatment and 2 days of follow-up.', 'The primary comparison was between the heat wrap and the oral placebo group among SS/T/OA subjects for pain relief. Outcome measures included pain relief (0-5 scale), joint stiffness (101-point numeric rating scale), grip strength measured by dynamometry, and perceived pain and disability (Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation [PRWE]); subjects with CTS also completed the Symptom Severity Scale and Functional Status Scale.', 'Heat wrap therapy showed significant benefits in day 1 to 3 mean pain relief (P=.045) and increased day 3 grip strength (P=.02) versus oral placebo for the SS/T/OA group. However, joint stiffness and PRWE results were comparable between the 2 treatments. For the CTS group, heat wraps provided greater day 1 to 3/hour 0 to 8 mean pain relief (P=.001), day 1 to 3 mean joint stiffness reduction (P=.004), increased day 3 grip strength (P=.003), reduced PRWE scores (P=.0015), reduced symptom severity (P=.001), and improved functional status (P=.04). In addition, the heat wrap showed significant extended benefits through follow-up (day 5) in the CTS group.\Question: Is continuous low-level heat wrap therapy effective for treating wrist pain?
[EX A]: Continuous low-level heat wrap therapy was efficacious for the treatment of common conditions causing wrist pain and impairment.

[EX Q]: Context: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and peptide YY (PYY) are secreted from enteroendocrine L cells in response to nutrient ingestion. As glutamine is an important metabolic fuel for the gut, the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of glutamine on the GLP-1-secreting cell line, GLUTag.', 'GLP-1 release was measured following incubation of GLUTag cells under a range of conditions. Single cells were studied by electrophysiology, calcium imaging and cytosolic ATP measurement using recombinant luciferase.', 'Glutamine was a more potent GLP-1 secretagogue than glucose or other amino acids, increasing GLP-1 release 7.1+/-0.7-fold ( n=19) at 10 mmol/l, with an estimated median effective concentration of between 0.1 and 1 mmol/l. Glutamine (10 mmol/l) induced a sodium-dependent inward current of 3.2+/-1.2 pA per cell ( n=9), which triggered membrane depolarisation and an increase in intracellular calcium. Asparagine and alanine produced electrophysiological and calcium changes that were at least as large as those caused by glutamine, but they were less effective GLP-1 secretagogues, suggesting that glutamine also potentiates secretion downstream of the calcium signal. This was confirmed by measuring secretion in the presence of 30 mmol/l KCl + diazoxide, or in alpha-haemolysin-permeabilised cells. Glutamine increased cytosolic ATP, but was less effective than glucose.\Question: Does glutamine potently stimulate glucagon-like peptide-1 secretion from GLUTag cells?
[EX A]:
Glutamine acts as a trigger and potentiator of GLP-1 release, consistent with its role as the major metabolic fuel for the gut. The results suggest that nutritional agents like glutamine might have beneficial effects in diabetes and obesity.