Effect of pioglitazone on arteriosclerosis in comparison with that of glibenclamide. Comparison of pioglitazone and gliclazide in sustaining glycemic control over 2 years in patients with type 2 diabetes. Glimepiride versus pioglitazone combination therapy in subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy: results of a randomized clinical trial. [Six-month effectiveness and tolerability of pioglitazone in combination with sulfonylureas or metformin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus]. Efficacy and tolerability of initial combination therapy with vildagliptin and pioglitazone compared with component monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Pioglitazone hydrochloride monotherapy improves glycemic control in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes: a 6-month randomized placebo-controlled dose-response study. The Pioglitazone 001 Study Group. Efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin added to ongoing pioglitazone therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Long-term therapy with addition of pioglitazone to metformin compared with the addition of gliclazide to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, comparative study. A comparison of lipid and glycemic effects of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia.
Pioglitazone is an insulin-sensitizing agent that has been reported to have anti-arteriosclerotic effects.
                To investigate the anti-arteriosclerotic effects of pioglitazone in patients with diabetes mellitus using pulse wave velocity (PWV) as an index of efficacy.
                Twenty-seven patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomly assigned to two groups, and pioglitazone (n=13) or glibenclamide (n=14) was administered for 6 months. The TG, TC, LDL-C, and HDL-C, FPG, HbA1c, IRI levels, HOMA-IR, and ba-PWV data were examined before and after administration of each agent.
                FPG and HbA1c were significantly improved in both the groups after treatment, but IRI, HOMA-IR and were improved only in the PIO group. The percent change of ba-PWV from the baseline after treatment in the PIO group improved significantly than that in the GC group (-6.3 +/- 5.6% versus 0.8 +/- 5.7%).
                The findings in this study suggested that pioglitazone has anti-arteriosclerotic effects. We concluded that drugs for the treatment of diabetes mellitus should be selected taking into consideration such endpoints as blood sugar control, and also the risk of complications such as cardiovascular events in the future. The hypothesis that pioglitazone treatment is superior to gliclazide treatment in sustaining glycemic control for up to 2 years in patients with type 2 diabetes was tested.
                This was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, 2-year study. Approximately 600 patients from 98 centers participated. Eligible patients had completed a previous 12-month study and consented to continue treatment for a further year. To avoid selection bias, all patients from all centers were included in the primary analysis (a comparison of the time-to-failure distributions of the two groups by using a log-rank test) regardless of whether they continued treatment for a 2nd year. By using repeated-measures ANOVA, time course of least square means of HbA(1c) and homeostasis model of assessment (HOMA) indexes (HOMA-%S and HOMA-%B) were analyzed.
                A greater proportion of patients treated with pioglitazone maintained HbA(1c) <8% over the 2-year period than those treated with gliclazide. A difference between the Kaplan-Meier curves was apparent as early as week 32 and widened at each time point thereafter, becoming statistically significant from week 52 onward. At week 104, 129 (47.8%) of 270 pioglitazone-treated patients and 110 (37.0%) of 297 gliclazide-treated patients maintained HbA(1c) <8%. Compared with gliclazide treatment, pioglitazone treatment produced a larger decrease in HbA(1c), a larger increase in HOMA-%S, and a smaller increase in HOMA-%B during the 2nd year of treatment.
                Pioglitazone is superior to gliclazide in sustaining glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes during the 2nd year of treatment. To compare the effect of add-on glimepiride or pioglitazone in subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.
                Multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label, forcedtitration study involving 203 adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (A1C 7.5-10%) on metformin monotherapy. Subjects were randomized to receive glimepiride or pioglitazone, titrated to the maximum dose for 26 weeks. Subjects were evaluated for A1C changes, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin, C-peptide, and lipid levels. Safety outcomes and diabetes-related healthcare resource utilization were also evaluated.
                Both treatment groups achieved similar and significant mean decreases from baseline to endpoint (week 26) in A1C (p = 0.0001) and FPG (p < 0.05). Glimepiride therapy, however, resulted in a more rapid decline in A1C levels at weeks 6, 12, and 20 vs. pioglitazone (p < 0.05). A mean A1C < or = 7% was reached faster in the glimepiride group (median, 80-90 days vs. 140-150 days [p = 0.024]). Total and LDL cholesterol were significantly higher with pioglitazone treatment than with glimepiride at endpoint (p < 0.05). Glimepiride treatment was associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia and pioglitazone with higher rate of peripheral edema. Healthcare resource utilization was similar between groups, but total healthcare costs were significantly lower for glimepiride versus pioglitazone over the course of the study, driven largely by drug costs. The use of fasting C-peptide concentration > or = 0.27 nmol/L in the inclusion criteria was a potential limitation as it may have included those patients with an improved probability for glimepiride or pioglitazone response. In addition, a larger patient population would have provided a greater degree of data applicability.
                In patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy, add-on glimepiride or pioglitazone results in similar overall improvements in glycemic control. Compared with pioglitazone, glimepiride is associated with faster glycemic control, lower total and LDL cholesterol levels and reduced short-term healthcare costs. Pioglitazone has been reported to improve common cardiovascular risk factors in addition to glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The changes in cardiovascular risk profile were evaluated comparatively in large cohorts either treated or not with pioglitazone-containing combinations in the current clinical setting within Spain.
                A nationwide prospective, controlled, observational cohort clinical study was performed in 2294 patients with T2DM who started, at the criterion of the treating physician, oral antihyperglycemic treatment with either pioglitazone plus a sulfonylurea (Pio+SU; n=851), pioglitazone plus metformin (Pio+Met; n=723) or a sulfonylurea plus metformin (SU+Met; n=720) due to inadequate control with previous therapy. Serum cholesterol, blood glucose, hemoglobin A1C, blood pressure and certain anthropometric parameters were measured at baseline and after 6 months of treatment.
                Serum high density lipoprotein-cholesterol increased in average (mg/dl) 2.08 with Pio+SU, 2.06 with Pio+Met and 0.67 with SU+Met; while triglycerides decreased (mg/dl) 26.6, 30.6 and 17.6 in the same cohorts. Inter-group differences were significant (p<0.001 in both parameters). Total cholesterol decreased significantly more with SU+Met than in the pioglitazone cohorts. Mean fasting plasma glucose and hemoglobin A1C reductions were significantly greater in the pioglitazone cohorts than in the SU+Met cohort: 27.74, 28.94 and 23.46 mg/dl (p=0.012); and 0.80, 0.87 and 0.71% (p=0.016) with Pio+SU, Pio+Met and SU+Met, respectively. Slight, but significant variations of body weight were also registered in the Pio+SU (+1.4 kg) and SU+Met (-0.7 kg) groups.
                Treatment with pioglitazone was associated with significant improvements of lipid and glycemic parameters that are linked to insulin resistance and cardiovascular risk in patients with T2DM in their routine clinical care. The non-randomised allocation of patients to treatments, inherent to its observational design, is an important limitation of the present study. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy and tolerability of initial combination therapy with vildagliptin/pioglitazone to component monotherapy.
                This 24-week, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study assessed the effects of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor vildagliptin (100 mg q.d.), pioglitazone (30 mg q.d.) and vildagliptin combined with pioglitazone (100/30 mg q.d. or 50/15 mg q.d.) in 607 drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). The primary outcome measure was change from baseline in HbA(1c) in patients receiving initial combination therapy compared with pioglitazone monotherapy.
                After 24-week treatment, adjusted mean changes in HbA(1c) from baseline (approximately 8.7%) in patients receiving pioglitazone monotherapy, 50/15 mg combination, 100/30 mg combination and vildagliptin monotherapy were -1.4 +/- 0.1%, -1.7 +/- 0.1%, -1.9 +/- 0.1% and -1.1 +/- 0.1% respectively. Both low-dose and high-dose combinations were significantly more efficacious than pioglitazone alone (p = 0.039 and p < 0.001 respectively). Adjusted mean changes in fasting plasma glucose were -1.9 +/- 0.2, -2.4 +/- 0.2, -2.8 +/- 0.2 and -1.3 +/- 0.2 mmol/l respectively, and both combination groups were significantly more effective than pioglitazone monotherapy (p = 0.022 and p < 0.001 respectively). The overall incidence of adverse events ranged from 45.8% in the low-dose combination to 51.6% in the pioglitazone monotherapy group. The incidence of peripheral oedema was highest in patients receiving pioglitazone monotherapy (9.3%) and lowest in those receiving low-dose combination (3.5%). One mild hypoglycaemic event was reported by one patient receiving high-dose combination and one patient receiving vildagliptin monotherapy.
                First-line treatment with vildagliptin/pioglitazone combination in patients with T2DM provides better glycaemic control than either monotherapy component yet has minimal risk of hypoglycaemia and a tolerability profile comparable with component monotherapy. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of four doses of pioglitazone monotherapy in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes.
                There were 408 patients randomized in this multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. Patients who had HbA1c > or = 7.0%, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) > or = 140 mg/dl, and C-peptide > 1 ng/ml were randomized to receive placebo or 7.5, 15, 30, or 45 mg pioglitazone administered once a day for 26 weeks.
                Patients treated with 15, 30, or 45 mg pioglitazone had significant mean decreases in HbA1c (range -1.00 to -1.60% difference from placebo) and FPG (-39.1 to -65.3 mg/dl difference from placebo). The decreases in FPG were observed as early as the second week of therapy; maximal decreases occurred after 10-14 weeks and were maintained until the end of therapy (week 26). In the 15-, 30-, or 45-mg pioglitazone groups, there were significant mean percent decreases in triglycerides, significant mean percent increases in HDL cholesterol, and only small percent changes in total cholesterol and LDL. The subset of patients naive to therapy had greater improvements in HbA1c and FPG (difference from placebo of -2.55% and -79.9 mg/dl for the 45-mg group) compared with previously treated patients. The overall adverse event profile of pioglitazone was similar to that of placebo. There was no evidence of drug-induced hepatotoxicity or drug-induced elevations of alanine aminotransferase levels in this study
                Pioglitazone monotherapy significantly improves HbA1c and FPG while producing beneficial effects on serum lipids in patients with type 2 diabetes with no evidence of drug-induced hepatotoxicity. The efficacy and tolerability of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin added to ongoing pioglitazone therapy were assessed in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA(1c)] > or =7% and < or =10%) while receiving a stable dose of pioglitazone.
                This was a 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study in patients aged > or =18 years (ClinicalTrials. gov NCT00086502). At screening, all patients began a diet/exercise program that continued throughout the study period. Patients taking antihyperglycemic therapy other than pioglitazone underwent a washout of this therapy and entered an 8- to 14-week open-label pioglitazone dose-titration/stabilization period. Patients with an HbA(1c) > or =7% and < or =10% at the end of this period entered a 2-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period (total duration of run-in period, up to 21 weeks). Patients who had been receiving pioglitazone monotherapy (30 or 45 mg/d) and had an HbA(1c) > or =7% and < or =10% entered the 2-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period directly. Thus, at the time of randomization, all patients were receiving ongoing pioglitazone (30 or 45 mg/d). Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive sitagliptin 100 mg once daily or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the change from baseline in HbA(1c) at week 24. Secondary efficacy end points included the change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin, and proinsulin; the Homeostasis Model Assessment beta-cell function and insulin-resistance indexes; the proinsulin/ insulin ratio; the Quantitative Insulin Sensitivity Check Index; the percent changes from baseline in selected lipid parameters; the proportion of patients meeting the American Diabetes Association HbA(1c), goal of <7.0%; the proportion of patients requiring metformin rescue therapy; and the time to the initiation of rescue therapy.
                One hundred seventy-five patients were randomized to receive sitagliptin, and 178 were randomized to receive placebo. The mean (SD) baseline HbAlc value was 8.1% (0.8) in the sitagliptin group and 8.0% (0.8) in the placebo group. After 24 weeks, sitagliptin added to pioglitazone therapy was associated with significant reductions compared with placebo in HbA(1c) (between-treatment difference in least squares [LS] mean change from baseline. -0.70 %; 95 % CI, -0.85 to -0.54; P < 0.001) and FPG (-17.7 mg/dL; 95% CI, -24.3 to -11.0; P < 0.001). Mean HbA(1c) values at end point were 7.2% (0.9) and 7.8% (1.1) in the respective treatment groups, and the proportions of patients reaching a target HbA(1c) of <7.0% were 45.4% and 23.0% (P < 0.001). Significant reductions in fasting serum proinsulin levels and the proinsulin/insulin ratio were seen with sitagliptin treatment compared with placebo (both, P < 0.01). Sitagliptin was generally well tolerated, with no increased risk of hypoglycemia compared with placebo (2 vs 0 patients, respectively). This 52-week, randomized, double-blind study compared the efficacy and safety of metformin plus pioglitazone with the established combination of metformin plus gliclazide in type 2 diabetes mellitus.
                Patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c > or = 7.5% to < or =11.0%) received either pioglitazone 15 mg o.d. (titrated up to 45 mg; n = 317) or gliclazide 80 mg o.d. (titrated up to 320 mg; n = 313) and metformin at the pre-study dose. HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin, lipids and the urinary albumin/creatinine ratio were measured.
                There were no significant differences in HbA1c (1% decrease in both groups) and FPG between groups. There was a decrease in fasting insulin in the pioglitazone group compared to an increase in the gliclazide group (p < 0.001). There were significantly greater improvements in triglycerides and HDL-cholesterol in the metformin plus pioglitazone group compared to the metformin plus gliclazide group (p < 0.001). Mean LDL-cholesterol decreased with metformin plus gliclazide and increased with metformin plus pioglitazone (p < 0.001); however, this increase was considerably less marked than that in HDL-cholesterol. The mean urinary albumin/creatinine ratio was reduced by 10% in the metformin plus pioglitazone group compared to an increase of 6% in the metformin plus gliclazide group (p = 0.027). The incidence of adverse events was comparable between groups and both combinations were well tolerated.
                Compared to the established combination of metformin plus gliclazide, this study indicates potential benefits of addition of pioglitazone to metformin in terms of improvements in microalbuminuria and specific abnormalities associated with diabetic dyslipidemia.
                Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published reports suggest that pioglitazone and rosiglitazone have different effects on lipids in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, these previous studies were either retrospective chart reviews or clinical trials not rigorously controlled for concomitant glucose- and lipid-lowering therapies. This study examines the lipid and glycemic effects of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone.
                We enrolled subjects with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (treated with diet alone or oral monotherapy) and dyslipidemia (not treated with any lipid-lowering agents). After a 4-week placebo washout period, subjects randomly assigned to the pioglitazone arm (n = 400) were treated with 30 mg once daily for 12 weeks followed by 45 mg once daily for an additional 12 weeks, whereas subjects randomly assigned to rosiglitazone (n = 402) were treated with 4 mg once daily followed by 4 mg twice daily for the same intervals.
                Triglyceride levels were reduced by 51.9 +/- 7.8 mg/dl with pioglitazone, but were increased by 13.1 +/- 7.8 mg/dl with rosiglitazone (P < 0.001 between treatments). Additionally, the increase in HDL cholesterol was greater (5.2 +/- 0.5 vs. 2.4 +/- 0.5 mg/dl; P < 0.001) and the increase in LDL cholesterol was less (12.3 +/- 1.6 vs. 21.3 +/- 1.6 mg/dl; P < 0.001) for pioglitazone compared with rosiglitazone, respectively. LDL particle concentration was reduced with pioglitazone and increased with rosiglitazone (P < 0.001). LDL particle size increased more with pioglitazone (P = 0.005).
                Pioglitazone and rosiglitazone have significantly different effects on plasma lipids independent of glycemic control or concomitant lipid-lowering or other antihyperglycemic therapy. Pioglitazone compared with rosiglitazone is associated with significant improvements in triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, LDL particle concentration, and LDL particle size.
Until new evidence becomes available, the benefit-risk ratio of pioglitazone remains unclear. Different therapeutic indications for pioglitazone of the two big U.S. and European drug agencies should be clarified to reduce uncertainties amongst patients and physicians.