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. Treatment of type 2 diabetes with a combination regimen of repaglinide plus pioglitazone. Secondary prevention of macrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the PROactive Study (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events): a randomised controlled trial. Pioglitazone treatment in type 2 diabetes mellitus when combined with portion control diet modifies the metabolic syndrome. Efficacy and safety of pioglitazone versus metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a double-blind, randomized trial. Comparison of the effects of pioglitazone and metformin on insulin resistance and hormonal markers in patients with impaired glucose tolerance and early diabetes. Metabolic efficacy and safety of once-daily pioglitazone monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. A long-term comparison of pioglitazone and gliclazide in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group comparison trial. One-year glycemic control with a sulfonylurea plus pioglitazone versus a sulfonylurea plus metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Long-term effects on lipids and lipoproteins of pioglitazone versus gliclazide addition to metformin and pioglitazone versus metformin addition to sulphonylurea in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Efficacy and safety of therapy with metformin plus pioglitazone in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. Pioglitazone decreases carotid intima-media thickness independently of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: results from a controlled randomized study. Comparison of effect of pioglitazone with metformin or sulfonylurea (monotherapy and combination therapy) on postload glycemia and composite insulin sensitivity index during an oral glucose tolerance test in patients with type 2 diabetes. Efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly versus sitagliptin or pioglitazone as an adjunct to metformin for treatment of type 2 diabetes (DURATION-2): a randomised trial.
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. The efficacy and safety of combination therapy (repaglinide plus pioglitazone) was compared to repaglinide or pioglitazone in 24-week treatment of type 2 diabetes. This randomized, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group study enrolled 246 adults (age 24-85) who had shown inadequate response in previous sulfonylurea or metformin monotherapy (HbA(1c) > 7%). Prior therapy was withdrawn for 2 weeks, followed by randomization to repaglinide, pioglitazone, or repaglinide/pioglitazone. In the first 12 weeks of treatment, repaglinide doses were optimized, followed by 12 weeks of maintenance therapy. Pioglitazone dosage was fixed at 30 mg per day. Baseline HbA(1c) values were comparable (9.0% for repaglinide, 9.1% for pioglitazone, 9.3% for combination). Mean changes in HbA(1c) values at the end of treatment were -1.76% for repaglinide/pioglitazone, -0.18% for repaglinide, +0.32% for pioglitazone. Fasting plasma glucose reductions were -82 mg/dl for combination therapy, -34 mg/dl for repaglinide, -18 mg/dl for pioglitazone. Minor hypoglycemia occurred in 5% of patients for the combination, 8% for repaglinide, and 3% for pioglitazone. Weight gains for combination therapy were correlated to individual HbA(1c) reductions. In summary, for patients who had previously failed oral antidiabetic monotherapy, the combination repaglinide/pioglitazone had acceptable safety, with greater reductions of glycemic parameters than therapy using either agent alone. Patients with type 2 diabetes are at high risk of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction and stroke. There is indirect evidence that agonists of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR gamma) could reduce macrovascular complications. Our aim, therefore, was to ascertain whether pioglitazone reduces macrovascular morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes.
                We did a prospective, randomised controlled trial in 5238 patients with type 2 diabetes who had evidence of macrovascular disease. We recruited patients from primary-care practices and hospitals. We assigned patients to oral pioglitazone titrated from 15 mg to 45 mg (n=2605) or matching placebo (n=2633), to be taken in addition to their glucose-lowering drugs and other medications. Our primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, non fatal myocardial infarction (including silent myocardial infarction), stroke, acute coronary syndrome, endovascular or surgical intervention in the coronary or leg arteries, and amputation above the ankle. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN NCT00174993.
                Two patients were lost to follow-up, but were included in analyses. The average time of observation was 34.5 months. 514 of 2605 patients in the pioglitazone group and 572 of 2633 patients in the placebo group had at least one event in the primary composite endpoint (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80-1.02, p=0.095). The main secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke. 301 patients in the pioglitazone group and 358 in the placebo group reached this endpoint (0.84, 0.72-0.98, p=0.027). Overall safety and tolerability was good with no change in the safety profile of pioglitazone identified. 6% (149 of 2065) and 4% (108 of 2633) of those in the pioglitazone and placebo groups, respectively, were admitted to hospital with heart failure; mortality rates from heart failure did not differ between groups.
                Pioglitazone reduces the composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes who have a high risk of macrovascular events. Treatment with thiazolidinediones (TZDs) produces weight gain.
                To test whether a portion control diet could prevent weight gain during treatment with pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
                This 16-week randomized, open-label, parallel arm study compared three groups: (i) pioglitazone plus the American Diabetes Association diet (Pio + ADA); (ii) pioglitazone plus a portion control weight loss diet (Pio + PC); (iii) metformin plus the American Diabetes Association diet (Met + ADA). All participants received the same advice about calorie reduction, lifestyle change and exercise.
                Fifty-one men and women with T2DM, naive to TZDs, were randomized to a 16-week study. Pioglitazone (Pio) was titrated to a dose of 45 mg/day and metformin (Met) to a dose of 2 g/day. Fasting blood was collected for lipids, insulin and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at baseline and 16 weeks.
                Forty-eight of fifty-one randomized subjects completed the study. Patients treated with Pio + ADA gained 2.15 +/- 1.09 kg (mean +/- SD) compared with a weight loss of 2.59 +/- 1.25 kg (p < 0.05) in the Pio + PC group, and a weight loss of 3.21 +/- 0.7 kg (p < 0.05) in the Met + ADA group. Waist circumference and visceral adipose tissue decreased significantly more in the Pio + PC group than in the Pio + ADA group. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were significantly increased in the Pio + PC group compared with the Met + ADA group. Pioglitazone reduced insulin resistance (homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR)) more than metformin. No significant differences between groups were seen for glucose, insulin, HbA1c or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.
                Pio + PC, prevented weight gain, reduced waist circumference and visceral fat compared with Pio + ADA diet. Pioglitazone increases the insulin sensitivity of peripheral tissues and may provide an alternative first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes. This study compared metabolic control in drug-naive type 2 diabetes patients given either pioglitazone or metformin. Eleven hundred and ninety-nine patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus [glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), 7.5-11%; normal, 4.3-6.1%] were randomized to receive either pioglitazone (< or =45 mg/d) or metformin (< or =850 mg, three times daily). HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin levels, total cholesterol (TC), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, free fatty acids, and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio were measured. Mean HbA1c decreased in both treatment groups from baseline to wk 52 (-1.4% and -1.5%). Significantly greater mean reductions in FPG were observed in the pioglitazone group (-45.0 mg/dl; -2.5 mmol/liter) than in the metformin (-39.6 mg/dl; -2.2 mmol/liter) group (P = 0.016). Favorable changes in triglycerides and HDL-C were more pronounced with pioglitazone. Although low density lipoprotein cholesterol and TC levels increased with pioglitazone, TC/HDL-C ratios decreased similarly with both treatments. The urinary albumin/creatinine ratio was reduced by 19% with pioglitazone treatment, but remained unchanged with metformin therapy (-1%; P = 0.002). There was an increase in body weight of 1.9 kg in the pioglitazone group and a decrease of 2.5 kg in the metformin group. The overall frequency of adverse events was similar between treatment groups, but adverse event profiles were different between treatment groups. HbA1c reduction is similar after pioglitazone and metformin monotherapies, but differences in FPG, plasma lipids, and adverse effects between the two compounds may influence decision-making in individual prescribers. Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) is associated with cardiovascular risk factors, but the effects of pioglitazone and metformin on IGT are not well described. We tested the hypothesis that each drug would exhibit antiatherogenic and anti-inflammatory effects in subjects with IGT and early diabetes. The study design was a prospective, randomized, open label, cross-over study. Blood tests, including a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), were performed at baseline and after each treatment. Pioglitazone 15 mg/day or metformin 500-750 mg/day was given for 3 months. Biochemical markers to assess insulin resistance as well as lipid, inflammatory, neurohumoral, and hemostatic factors were included. Twenty-five subjects (17 male, 8 female; age [mean+/-SD]: 61+/-9 years; 84% hypertensive) completed the protocol. Of 25 subjects, 14 were diagnosed as IGT and 11 as diabetes with 75-g OGTT. Pioglitazone significantly reduced fasting glucose (p<0.05), and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (p<0.05) and metformin (p<0.01) reduced cholesterol. Both drugs significantly reduced aldosterone (both p<0.05) and von Willebrand factor (vWF) (both p<0.05). Plasma adiponectin was increased only by pioglitazone (p<0.001). Neither drug affected BP levels. In conclusion, pioglitazone was superior to metformin for the improvement of insulin resistance and adiponectin, and both drugs were equally effective in reducing vWF and aldosterone in subjects with IGT and early diabetes. Early intervention with pioglitazone or metformin therapy may reduce the incidence of future cardiovascular disease in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance or early diabetes. Pioglitazone is a novel oral anti-diabetic agent belonging to the thiazolidinedione class. Pioglitazone has been shown to be effective and well tolerated in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes, as it reduces insulin resistance and improves glycaemic control and abnormal lipid profiles. This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study was conducted for further evaluation of the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily administration of pioglitazone monotherapy alongside dietary measures in patients with type 2 diabetes. Following a 10-week washout period, 251 patients received one of three treatment regimens for 26 weeks: placebo + diet (n = 84), pioglitazone 15 mg once-daily + diet (n = 89), or pioglitazone 30 mg once-daily + diet (n = 78). Pioglitazone, both 15 and 30 mg/day, in addition to dietary control, was associated with significant reductions (vs. placebo) in mean levels of both glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA 1C ) and fasting blood glucose (FBG). HbA 1C was reduced by 0.92 % and 1.05 %, respectively, and FBG was reduced by 34.3 and 36.0 mg/dl, respectively, compared with the control group. Pioglitazone at 15 and 30 mg/day significantly reduced postprandial blood glucose levels at all visits (- 163 and - 165 mg/dl/hour, respectively) compared with an increase of 47.7 mg/dl/hour on placebo. The profile and frequency of adverse events were similar in all treatment groups. These results indicate that pioglitazone monotherapy together with dietary control is both effective and safe in patients with type 2 diabetes. This study compared the effects of pioglitazone and gliclazide on metabolic control in drug-naive patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus.
                A total of 1270 patients with Type 2 diabetes were randomized in a parallel-group, double-dummy, double-blind study. Patients with poorly controlled Type 2 diabetes (HbA1c 7.5-11%), despite dietary advice, received either pioglitazone up to 45 mg once daily or gliclazide up to 160 mg two times daily. Primary efficacy endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to the end of the study. Secondary efficacy endpoints included change in fasting plasma glucose, fasting plasma insulin and plasma lipids. At selected centres, oral glucose tolerance tests were performed and C-peptide and pro-insulin levels were measured.
                Mean HbA1c values decreased by the same amount in the two treatment groups from baseline to week 52 [pioglitazone: -1.4%; gliclazide: -1.4%; (90% CI: -0.18 to 0.02)]. A significantly greater mean reduction in fasting plasma glucose was observed in the pioglitazone group (2.4 mmol/l) than in the gliclazide group [2.0 mmol/l; treatment difference -0.4 mmol/l in favour of pioglitazone; P = 0.002; (95% CI: -0.7 to -0.1)]. Improvements in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and total cholesterol/HDL-C were greater with pioglitazone than with gliclazide (P < 0.001). The frequencies of adverse events were comparable between the two treatment groups, but more hypoglycaemic events were reported for gliclazide, whereas twice as many patients reported oedema with pioglitazone than with gliclazide.
                Pioglitazone monotherapy was equivalent to gliclazide in reducing HbA1c, with specific differences between treatments in terms of mechanism of action, plasma lipids and adverse events. The goal was to assess the 1-year efficacy and safety of the addition of pioglitazone or metformin to existing sulfonylurea (SU) therapy in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes.
                In this multicenter, double-blind study, patients were randomized to receive either pioglitazone 15 mg (n = 319) or metformin 850 mg (n = 320) and up to 45 mg/day and 2,550 mg/day, respectively. The primary efficacy endpoint was HbA(1c) at week 52. Fasting plasma glucose, insulin, and lipid profiles were also measured.
                HbA(1c) was reduced by 1.20% in the SU plus pioglitazone group and 1.36% in the SU plus metformin group, and fasting plasma glucose was reduced by 2.2 and 2.3 mmol/l in the respective groups. Fasting insulin levels were also reduced (pioglitazone arm -1.3 micro IU/ml; metformin arm -0.8 micro IU/ml). There were no significant between-treatment differences in these three parameters. Pioglitazone addition to SU significantly reduced triglycerides (-16 vs. -9%; P = 0.008) and increased HDL cholesterol (14 vs. 8%; P < 0.001) compared with metformin addition. LDL cholesterol was increased 2% by the addition of pioglitazone and decreased 5% by the addition of metformin to SU (P < 0.001). Urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio was reduced by 15% in the SU plus pioglitazone group and increased 2% in the SU plus metformin group (P = 0.017). Both combinations were well tolerated with no evidence of hepatic or cardiac toxicity in either group.
                Clinically equivalent improvements in glycemic control were observed for both combinations. Compared with metformin plus SU, addition of pioglitazone to SU resulted in a reduction of the urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio, a small but significant rise in LDL cholesterol, and significantly greater improvements in triglyceride levels and HDL cholesterol levels. Metformin plus SU was associated with a significant reduction in LDL cholesterol. SU plus pioglitazone is an effective and well-tolerated combination regimen that may provide additional beneficial effects for patients with type 2 diabetes. The aim of this study was to determine the long-term effects of pioglitazone add-on to metformin or sulphonylurea on plasma lipids and lipoproteins.
                The effects of pioglitazone were studied in two clinical trials in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c > or =7.5 and < or =11%). In the first trial, patients currently receiving metformin were randomised to pioglitazone (15-45 mg/day, n=317) or gliclazide (80-320 mg/day, n=313) add-on therapy. In the second study, pioglitazone (15-45 mg/day, n=319) or metformin (850-2,550 mg/day, n=320) was added to sulphonylurea therapy. Patients were force-titrated to the maximum tolerated dose of add-on therapy, which was maintained to the 2-year endpoint.
                There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with respect to HbA1c reduction from baseline to week 104. Whether added to metformin or sulphonylurea, pioglitazone caused highly significant greater decreases in triglycerides and increases in HDL cholesterol from baseline to week 104 than treatments with gliclazide or metformin add-on therapies (p< or =0.001). The triglyceride reductions noted with pioglitazone were maintained over time, with decreases of 16-18% at 1 year and 17-23% at 2 years. In the pioglitazone groups, the improvement in HDL cholesterol at 1 year was maintained, with 21-22% augmentations at 2 years (p<0.001 between-group difference). Small but statistically significant greater reductions in LDL cholesterol were observed with gliclazide vs pioglitazone add-on to metformin and metformin vs pioglitazone add-on to sulphonylurea (p<0.001 for between-group difference). In the pioglitazone groups, mean LDL cholesterol at 2 years was similar to mean baseline LDL cholesterol.
                After 2 years, highly significant decreases in triglycerides and increases in HDL cholesterol that were sustained over time or even improved were observed when pioglitazone was added to metformin or sulphonylurea therapy. These effects of pioglitazone on lipids may be potentially beneficial in reducing cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes. To assess the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with pioglitazone and metformin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.
                During a 12-week observation period 236 patients were treated with metformin 500 or 750 mg/day. 169 patients with a confirmed HbA(1c) level >or= 6.5% were randomized (stratified according to metformin dosage) to receive pioglitazone 15 mg/day for 12 weeks then increased to 30 mg/day for a further 16 weeks (n = 83), or placebo (n = 86). Outcome measures included HbA(1c), fasting blood glucose (FBG), percentage of patients achieving HbA(1c) < 6.5%, lipid profile, and other metabolic parameters.
                Mean HbA(1c) was reduced by 0.67% in patients receiving pioglitazone plus metformin versus an increase of 0.25% in those receiving metformin alone (p < 0.0001). After 8 weeks' treatment and until the end of the study, HbA(1c) was significantly lower with pioglitazone plus metformin and more patients in this group achieved an HbA(1c) < 6.5% (38.6% vs. 8.1%; p < 0.0001). FBG was also reduced by a significantly greater amount in patients receiving pioglitazone plus metformin compared with metformin monotherapy (-20.5 vs. 1.9 mg/dl; p < 0.0001). Combination therapy was associated with significantly increased HDL-cholesterol, total cholesterol, and adiponectin, and significantly decreased levels of fasting insulin, free fatty acids, and homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance (HOMA-R) compared with metformin monotherapy. Overall, combination therapy and monotherapy were equally well tolerated and the incidence of adverse effects 'possibly' related to therapy was 15.7% and 11.6% (p = 0.505), respectively. Edema occurred slightly more often in the combination group (6.0 vs. 1.2%).
                Pioglitazone plus metformin significantly improved glycemic control (HbA(1c) and FBG), and markers associated with increased insulin resistance and cardiovascular risk compared with metformin monotherapy.
                UMIN 000001110. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) is a strong predictor of myocardial infarction and stroke.
                We compared the effects of pioglitazone-based therapy (45 mg/d) and glimepiride-based treatment (2.7+/-1.6 mg/d) for 12 and 24 weeks on metabolic control (HbA1c), insulin resistance (homeostasis model assessment), and carotid IMT (B-mode ultrasonography) in a randomized controlled study in 173 orally treated patients with type 2 diabetes (66 women, 107 men; mean+/-SD age, 62.6+/-7.9 years; body mass index, 31.8+/-4.6 kg/m2; HbA1c, 7.5+/-0.9%). Treatment was generally well tolerated in both groups. Despite similar improvements in metabolic control (HbA1c) after 24 weeks (-0.8+/-0.9% [pioglitazone] versus -0.6+/-0.8% [glimepiride]; P=NS), carotid IMT was reduced only in the pioglitazone group after 12 weeks (-0.033+/-0.052 versus -0.002+/-0.047 mm [glimepiride]; P<0.01 between groups) and 24 weeks (-0.054+/-0.059 versus -0.011+/-0.058 mm [glimepiride]; P<0.005 between groups). Insulin resistance was also improved only in the pioglitazone group (homeostasis model assessment, -2.2+/-3.4 versus -0.3+/-3.3; P<0.0001 between groups). Reduction of IMT correlated with improvement in insulin resistance (r=0.29, P<0.0005) and was independent of improvement in glycemic control (r=0.03, P=0.68).
                We found a substantial regression of carotid IMT, independent of improved glycemic control, after 12 and 24 weeks of pioglitazone treatment. This finding may have important prognostic implications for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Pioglitazone, metformin, and gliclazide lower HbA(1c) and fasting plasma glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes. We compared the effects of these three drugs, used as monotherapy and in combination, on postload glycemia and composite insulin sensitivity index (CISI) in these patients.
                Postload glycemia and CISI were analyzed for 940 patients who had oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) in four multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group clinical trials (pioglitazone versus metformin, pioglitazone versus gliclazide, pioglitazone plus sulfonylurea versus metformin plus sulfonylurea, and pioglitazone plus metformin versus gliclazide plus metformin). Plasma glucose and insulin were determined during the 3-h OGTT performed at baseline and after 1 year of therapy. Incremental area under the curve for glucose was the surrogate for postload glycemia. CISI was calculated using the formula {10,000/ radical of [(fasting glucose x fasting insulin) x (mean glucose x mean insulin)]} during the OGTT.
                In monotherapy, pioglitazone reduced postload glycemia and enhanced CISI more than metformin and gliclazide. In combination therapy, pioglitazone plus sulfonylurea reduced postload glycemia and increased CISI more than metformin plus sulfonylurea. Pioglitazone plus metformin also decreased postload glycemia and increased CISI more than gliclazide plus metformin.
                Pioglitazone improves postload glycemia and CISI more than metformin or gliclazide when used as monotherapy or in combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Most patients with type 2 diabetes begin pharmacotherapy with metformin, but eventually need additional treatment. We assessed the safety and efficacy of once weekly exenatide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, versus maximum approved doses of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, sitagliptin, or the thiazolidinedione, pioglitazone, in patients treated with metformin.
                In this 26-week randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, superiority trial, patients with type 2 diabetes who had been treated with metformin, and at baseline had mean glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) of 8.5% (SD 1.1), fasting plasma glucose of 9.1 mmol/L (2.6), and weight of 88.0 kg (20.1), were enrolled and treated at 72 sites in the USA, India, and Mexico. Patients were randomly assigned to receive: 2 mg injected exenatide once weekly plus oral placebo once daily; 100 mg oral sitagliptin once daily plus injected placebo once weekly; or 45 mg oral pioglitazone once daily plus injected placebo once weekly. Primary endpoint was change in HbA(1c) between baseline and week 26. Analysis was by intention to treat, for all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00637273.
                170 patients were assigned to receive once weekly exenatide, 172 to receive sitagliptin, and 172 to receive pioglitazone. 491 patients received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (160 on exenatide, 166 on sitagliptin, and 165 on pioglitazone). Treatment with exenatide reduced HbA(1c) (least square mean -1.5%, 95% CI -1.7 to -1.4) significantly more than did sitagliptin (-0.9%, -1.1 to -0.7) or pioglitazone (-1.2%, -1.4 to -1.0). Treatment differences were -0.6% (95% CI -0.9 to -0.4, p<0.0001) for exenatide versus sitagliptin, and -0.3% (-0.6 to -0.1, p=0.0165) for exenatide versus pioglitazone. Weight loss with exenatide (-2.3 kg, 95% CI-2.9 to -1.7) was significantly greater than with sitagliptin (difference -1.5 kg, 95% CI -2.4 to -0.7, p=0.0002) or pioglitazone (difference -5.1 kg, -5.9 to -4.3, p<0.0001). No episodes of major hypoglycaemia occurred. The most frequent adverse events with exenatide and sitagliptin were nausea (n=38, 24%, and n=16, 10%, respectively) and diarrhoea (n=29, 18%, and n=16, 10%, respectively); upper-respiratory-tract infection (n=17, 10%) and peripheral oedema (n=13, 8%) were the most frequent events with pioglitazone.
                The goal of many clinicians who manage diabetes is to achieve optimum glucose control alongside weight loss and a minimum number of hypoglycaemic episodes. Addition of exenatide once weekly to metformin achieved this goal more often than did addition of maximum daily doses of either sitagliptin or pioglitazone.
                Amylin Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly.
                Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
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.