Published online before print August 7, 2003, doi: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000090521.25968.4D
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2003 American Heart Association, Inc.
Brief Reviews |
Thiazolidinediones and Blood Lipids in Type 2 Diabetes
From the Department of Vascular Medicine (J.P.H.v.W., E.J.P.d.K., T.J.R.), University Medical Center, and the Centre for Biostatistics (E.P.M.), University of Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Correspondence to E.J.P. de Koning, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, F02.126, Section of Vascular Medicine and Diabetology, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail e.dekoning{at}azu.nl
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
We evaluated study population characteristics and treatment effects on blood lipids between studies in which either rosiglitazone (RSG) or pioglitazone (PIO) was investigated in patients with type 2 diabetes. We performed a summary analysis of all published double-blind, placebo-controlled studies with RSG (4 and 8 mg/d) and PIO (15, 30, and 45 mg/d). Data were analyzed by the random-effects model. Nineteen trials met our inclusion criteria, yielding 5304 patients, 3236 in studies with RSG and 2068 in studies with PIO. Subjects treated with PIO were more obese and showed more pronounced hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia (increased triglycerides and decreased HDL cholesterol) at baseline than did subjects treated with RSG. By weighted linear-regression analysis, studies with PIO showed greater beneficial effects on triglycerides, total cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol, after adjustment for the respective lipid levels at baseline. RSG 8 mg/d showed greater increases in total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol than did RSG 4 mg/d. PIO 30 mg/d showed greater reductions in triglycerides than did PIO 15 mg/d. Studies conducted with PIO showed more beneficial effects on blood lipids, but also different study population characteristics in comparison with studies conducted with RSG. Differences in both pharmacologic properties between agents and study population characteristics are likely to have influenced the results.
Key Words: thiazolidinediones • rosiglitazone • pioglitazone • lipids • cardiovascular disease
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) are oral antihyperglycemic agents that reduce insulin resistance in peripheral tissues and decrease hepatic glucose production.1 TZDs are potent, synthetic ligands for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma-
(PPAR-) activation, which mediates the physiologic response by altering transcription of genes that regulate glucose and lipid metabolism.2–4 Currently, there are 2 TZDs available: rosiglitazone (RSG) and pioglitazone (PIO). Troglitazone has been retracted from the market because of substantially increased risk of severe hepatotoxicity.5–7 The clinical potency of TZDs is correlated closely with their PPAR- binding affinity. RSG has a greater PPAR- binding affinity than does PIO, which translates to a clinical dose that is 
1/6th that of PIO.4,8 Accordingly, the maximum recommended dose of 8 mg/d RSG corresponds to the maximum recommended dose of 45 mg/d PIO, whereas the submaximum dose of 4 mg/d RSG corresponds to the 30 mg/d submaximum dose of PIO. The antihyperglycemic effects of RSG and PIO are well documented. RSG and PIO both demonstrate effective glycemic control when used as monotherapy or in combination with other antihyperglycemic agents.9–12 TZDs also have important nonglycemic effects, such as modulation of lipid metabolism. It has been suggested that RSG and PIO differ in their effects on blood lipids and lipoproteins. Several studies have shown that treatment with PIO is associated with a greater beneficial effect on blood lipid levels than treatment with RSG.13–16 Because dyslipidemia is an important risk factor for atherosclerosis, differential therapeutic modulation of lipid levels might confer a different level of protection from cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Several factors need to be considered when interpreting the effects of different TZDs on blood lipids. First, the differences between RSG and PIO might be related to specific pharmacologic properties of these agents. It has been shown that at the same clinical dose, PIO is associated with greater PPAR-
activation than is RSG.17 PPAR- is the main target for fibrates, a class of lipid-lowering drugs, which mainly reduce triglycerides (TGs) and increase HDL cholesterol (HDL-C).18,19 Second, it is well recognized that the lipid-lowering responses of fibrates and statins are enhanced in patients with more pronounced dyslipidemia at baseline.20,21 Baseline lipid levels might therefore influence the magnitude of treatment effects by TZDs.
We performed a summary analysis of all published double-blind, placebo-controlled studies to evaluate the effects of RSG and PIO on blood lipids in patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition, we critically evaluated study population characteristics between studies conducted with RSG and PIO.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Selection Criteria
We used PUBMED (http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) to search the MEDLINE database up to December 2002 to identify all double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies that evaluated the effects of RSG or PIO on blood lipids in patients with type 2 diabetes. The MEDLINE database was searched for the following terms: "rosiglitazone" and "pioglitazone." These searches were combined with searches for the terms "type 2 diabetes" and "placebo." The search was limited to English-language publications. No age or sex restriction was applied. Forty-six publications were identified by this search strategy. Subsequently, all full-text articles were reviewed, and studies were selected on the basis of a double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment period of at least 8 weeks with either RSG (doses of 4 and 8 mg/d) or PIO (doses of 15, 30, and 45 mg/d). Treatment effects on blood lipids should also have been reported by each study. Both TZD monotherapy and combination therapy with other antihyperglycemic agents (eg, sulfonylureas, metformin, or insulin) were considered eligible. Studies of combination therapy of TZD with lipid-lowering interventions (lipid-lowering agents or active lifestyle interventions) were excluded from analysis, although a concurrent weight-maintenance diet was considered acceptable when applied equally to all intervention arms.
Data Extraction
Both assessment of eligibility and data extraction were performed by a single, nonblinded reviewer (J.P.H.v.W.). The following information was extracted from each study: year of publication, sample size, sex distribution, participant age, TZD monotherapy or combination therapy, concurrent weight maintenance diet, duration of treatment with study medication, body mass index, and blood lipid levels (TGs, total cholesterol [TC], HDL-C, and LDL-cholesterol), including mean changes in each lipid parameter from baseline. Data extraction was performed for the RSG group, the PIO group, and the accompanying placebo groups (RSG placebo and PIO placebo).
Statistical Analysis
2 tests were performed to test for heterogeneity of study results. Because the studies were conducted in various geographic areas, between-study variation could be expected. Hence, all data were combined by using the random-effects model of DerSimonian and Laird.22 The random-effects model weights studies according to the sample size, the within-study variance, and the between-study variance. Weights were set equal to the reciprocal of the variance. We compared study population characteristics between different TZDs (RSG vs PIO) and between TZDs and placebo (RSG vs placebo and PIO vs placebo). In addition, we compared treatment effects on blood lipids (mean absolute changes from baseline) between RSG and PIO. We also performed a weighted linear-regression analysis for each lipid parameter (TGs, TC, HDL-C, and LDL-C) to compare the posttreatment blood lipid levels between studies in which either RSG or PIO was used, after adjustment for the respective lipid level at baseline. In this analysis, the posttreatment blood lipid level was used as the dependent variable and the baseline blood lipid level, as the independent variable. For statistical analysis, we used SPSS software, version 10.0 (SPSS Inc). Statistical significance was reached when P<0.05 (2 sided).
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Study Characteristics
Nineteen trials met our inclusion criteria, yielding 5304 patients: 3236 patients in studies with RSG (Table 1)11,12,23–31 and 2068 patients in studies with PIO (Table 2).9,10,32–37 RSG trials and PIO trials were comparable in sex distribution. Subjects in RSG trials were older than those in PIO trials. Sixty-six percent of the subjects in RSG trials received the study medication as monotherapy, whereas only 27% of the subjects did so in the PIO trials. A concurrent weight maintenance diet was more prevalent in PIO trials than in RSG trials (52% vs 34%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of the RSG group and 8% of the PIO group received the maximum recommended dose (8 mg/d for RSG and 45 mg/d for PIO, respectively). Fifty-seven percent received 30 mg/d PIO and 35%, 15 mg/d PIO. Mean duration of treatment was 22 weeks in the RSG trials and 18 weeks in the PIO trials.
|
|
Baseline Characteristics
The baseline characteristics of the RSG group, PIO group, and accompanying placebo groups (RSG placebo and PIO placebo) are shown in Table 3. Subjects in the PIO group were significantly younger and more obese than were those in the RSG group. In addition, subjects in the PIO group were characterized by a more pronounced hyperglycemia (increased fasting glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin) and dyslipidemia (increased TGs and decreased HDL-C) than in the RSG group. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the TZDs and their accompanying placebo groups (RSG vs RSG placebo and PIO vs PIO placebo, respectively).
|
Treatment Effects of RSG and PIO
2 tests revealed no statistical evidence of heterogeneity of study results (data not shown). The treatment effects of RSG and PIO on blood lipids are shown in Figure 1. The treatment effects are shown as mean changes from baseline of TZD minus placebo for each lipid parameter (
RSG placebo and PIO placebo, respectively). PIO was associated with significantly greater beneficial effects on all blood lipid levels.
|
Influence of Baseline Lipid Levels on Treatment Effects
Because subjects in studies with PIO were more dyslipidemic at baseline than were those in studies with RSG, we performed a weighted linear-regression analysis for each lipid parameter. From this analysis, posttreatment TGs (ß=0.45, P<0.01), TC (ß=0.56, P<0.001) and LDL-C (ß=0.31, P<0.05) were higher in studies with RSG than in studies with PIO. However, posttreatment HDL-C was not significantly different between RSG and PIO (ß=0.02, P=NS).
Treatment Effects of RSG and PIO per Treatment Dose
Treatment with the respective maximum recommended dose of each TZD was more prevalent in the RSG group than in the PIO group. Therefore, we performed a subgroup analysis in which we evaluated the effects of RSG and PIO on blood lipids per treatment dose (Table 4). The maximum and submaximum recommended doses of RSG (8 and 4 mg/d, respectively) had similar effects on TG and HDL-C. However, RSG at 8 mg/d was associated with significantly greater increases in TC and LDL-C compared with 4 mg/d RSG. PIO 30 mg/d was associated with significantly greater reductions in TG than was PIO 15 mg/d. The different doses of PIO had comparable effects on TC, HDL-C, and LDL-C.
|
Subgroup Analysis of Monotherapy Trials and Combination Therapy Trials
Because monotherapy was more prevalent in studies with RSG, we evaluated the treatment effects of RSG and PIO on blood lipids for monotherapy trials and combination therapy trials separately (Table 5). RSG combination therapy trials showed greater beneficial effects on all lipid levels than did RSG monotherapy trials. PIO combination therapy trials showed similar effects on blood lipids compared with PIO monotherapy trials. PIO monotherapy trials showed greater beneficial effects on all lipid levels compared with RSG monotherapy trials, whereas PIO combination therapy trials showed greater beneficial effects on TGs, TC, and LDL-C than did RSG combination therapy trials.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
In clinical practice, there is much debate concerning the potential different effects of RSG and PIO on blood lipids. This might have important implications, because dyslipidemia is a major risk factor for atherosclerosis in patients with type 2 diabetes. Because no data on prospective, randomized, double-blind PIO versus RSG studies were available, we performed a summary analysis of all published double-blind, placebo-controlled studies with either RSG or PIO. The main outcome of our summary analysis is that studies with PIO showed more beneficial treatment effects on blood lipids in comparison with studies with RSG, but important differences in baseline characteristics existed between the study populations.
During the past several years, TZDs have received increasing attention for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. The antihyperglycemic effects of RSG and PIO are well documented and appear to be equivalent between comparable doses of the 2 agents.13 In addition to glucose lowering, TZDs influence lipid metabolism, most likely by directing a PPAR-–mediated change in adipocyte metabolism and insulin sensitivity. Hence, TZDs could potentially modulate the characteristic diabetic dyslipidemia, which is characterized by increased TGs, reduced HDL-C and the predominance of atherogenic, small, dense LDL particles.38
We found that studies with PIO show greater beneficial effects on TGs, TC, and LDL-C than did studies with RSG. Whether the magnitude of these differences is sufficient to produce clinically relevant cardiovascular benefits is an open question. The currently available data support a dose-dependent effect of RSG on TC and LDL-C, whereas PIO might exert dose-related effects on TGs. However, only a small number of subjects were receiving the maximum recommended dose of PIO.
Studies with PIO showed greater beneficial effects on TGs than did studies with RSG. Several factors might explain the differential effects of RSG and PIO on TG levels. First, it has been shown that at the same clinical dose, PIO is associated with greater PPAR- activation than is RSG.17 PPAR- is the main target for fibrates, a class of lipid-lowering drugs, which mainly reduce TGs and increase HDL-C.18,19 Increased PPAR- activation by PIO might explain the observed beneficial effects of PIO on TGs. Second, it is well recognized that the lipid-lowering responses are partly dependent on the baseline characteristics of the study group. The lipid-lowering responses of fibrates and statins are enhanced in patients with more pronounced dyslipidemia at baseline.20,21 In our summary analysis, we have shown that subjects treated with PIO were characterized by a more pronounced dyslipidemia (increased TGs and decreased HDL-C) at baseline than were those treated with RSG. These differences in patient baseline characteristics between studies with RSG and PIO are likely to have influenced the magnitude of the effects on TGs and HDL-C. The observation that after adjustment for baseline HDL-C, there was no longer a statistically significant difference in posttreatment HDL-C between RSG and PIO supports this hypothesis. Moreover, in a recent study with PIO, it was shown that patients with the lowest baseline HDL-C levels responded with HDL-C increases of greater magnitude than did those who had higher HDL-C levels at baseline.36 Studies with RSG showed greater increases in TC and LDL-C compared with studies with PIO, despite similar baseline levels. Why RSG and PIO exert different effects on TC and LDL-C is an open issue. Interestingly, TZDs improve LDL particle density, causing a shift from small, dense LDL particles to larger, buoyant LDL particles, which are less prone to oxidative modification and are therefore, thought to be less atherogenic.39–42 These changes in LDL-C density elicited by TZDs might be more meaningful than the small changes in overall LDL-C levels.
Besides differences in baseline lipids, subjects treated with PIO were more obese and had worse glycemic control at baseline than did subjects treated with RSG. In addition, a concurrent weight maintenance diet was more prevalent in PIO trials than in RSG trials, whereas more subjects in RSG trials were on monotherapy. These factors might also have influenced the results. Interestingly, RSG combination therapy trials showed greater beneficial effects on all blood lipids compared with RSG monotherapy trials. These differences were not observed in studies with PIO. Because monotherapy was more prevalent in RSG trials, this could have contributed to the results. Regrettably, the number of studies was limited, and we could not adjust for other relevant parameters (eg, body mass index, glycemic control) to more reliably estimate the differences in treatment effects between studies with RSG and those with PIO. Although differences in study population characteristics were a confounding factor for our analysis, it should be noted that this is also one of the most interesting findings that is often not accounted for when discussing differential effects of TZDs in clinical practice. Apparently, studies with RSG are performed in a "different patient population" than are studies with PIO. Our results emphasize the importance of study population characteristics when examining clinical data from studies performed with different TZDs. Clearly, there is a need for direct, double-blind comparisons of the 2 agents in the same population.
Our data are in line with several open-label, prospective or retrospective studies on the effects of RSG and PIO on blood lipids.14,15 Khan et al14 performed an open-label, randomized comparison of RSG and PIO in patients previously treated with troglitazone. In that study, conversion to pioglitazone was associated with significant improvements in all lipid levels, whereas conversion to RSG led to significant increases in all lipid levels, despite similar weight increases and glycemic control in the RSG group and PIO group. In a recent retrospective review of randomly selected medical records, it was shown that treatment with PIO was associated with greater beneficial effects on blood lipid levels than was treatment with RSG, despite similar glycemic control.13 However, that article failed to take into account a large body of evidence from double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies, which represent the "gold standard" for clinical analysis.
In conclusion, studies conducted with PIO showed more beneficial effects on blood lipids, but also different study population characteristics, in comparison with studies conducted with RSG. Differences in both pharmacologic properties and study population characteristics between the 2 agents are likely to have influenced the results. When examining the available clinical data from studies performed with different TZDs, it is important to interpret the results in light of the prevailing study population characteristics.
Received July 18, 2003; accepted July 29, 2003.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1. Saltiel AR, Olefsky JM. Thiazolidinediones in the treatment of insulin resistance and type II diabetes. Diabetes. 1996; 45: 1661–1669.[Abstract]
2. Ibrahimi A, Teboul L, Gaillard D, Amri EZ, Ailhaud G, Young P, Cawthorne MA, Grimaldi PA. Evidence for a common mechanism of action for fatty acids and thiazolidinedione antidiabetic agents on gene expression in preadipose cells. Mol Pharmacol. 1994; 46: 1070–1076.[Abstract]
3. Lehmann JM, Moore LB, Smith-Oliver TA, Wilkison WO, Willson TM, Kliewer SA. An antidiabetic thiazolidinedione is a high affinity ligand for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor- (PPAR-). J Biol Chem. 1995; 270: 12953–12956.
4. Young PW, Buckle DR, Cantello BC, Chapman H, Clapham JC, Coyle PJ, Haigh D, Hindley RM, Holder JC, Kallender H, Latter AJ, Lawrie KW, Mossakowska D, Murphy GJ, Roxbee CL, Smith SA. Identification of high-affinity binding sites for the insulin sensitizer rosiglitazone (BRL-49653) in rodent and human adipocytes using a radioiodinated ligand for peroxisomal proliferator-activated receptor-. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1998; 284: 751–759.
5. Gitlin N, Julie NL, Spurr CL, Lim KN, Juarbe HM. Two cases of severe clinical and histologic hepatotoxicity associated with troglitazone. Ann Intern Med. 1998; 129: 36–38.
6. Shibuya A, Watanabe M, Fujita Y, Saigenji K, Kuwao S, Takahashi H, Takeuchi H. An autopsy case of troglitazone-induced fulminant hepatitis. Diabetes Care. 1998; 21: 2140–2143.[Abstract]
7. Watkins PB, Whitcomb RW. Hepatic dysfunction associated with troglitazone. N Engl J Med. 1998; 338: 916–917.
8. Adams M, Montague CT, Prins JB, Holder JC, Smith SA, Sanders L, Digby JE, Sewter CP, Lazar MA, Chatterjee VK, O’Rahilly S. Activators of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor- have depot-specific effects on human preadipocyte differentiation. J Clin Invest. 1997; 100: 3149–3153.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
9. Aronoff S, Rosenblatt S, Braithwaite S, Egan JW, Mathisen AL, Schneider RL. 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. Diabetes Care. 2000; 23: 1605–1611.
10. Kipnes MS, Krosnick A, Rendell MS, Egan JW, Mathisen AL, Schneider RL. Pioglitazone hydrochloride in combination with sulfonylurea therapy improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. Am J Med. 2001; 111: 10–17.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
11. Lebovitz HE, Dole JF, Patwardhan R, Rappaport EB, Freed MI. Rosiglitazone monotherapy is effective in patients with type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2001; 86: 280–288.
12. Wolffenbuttel BH, Gomis R, Squatrito S, Jones NP, Patwardhan RN. Addition of low-dose rosiglitazone to sulphonylurea therapy improves glycaemic control in Type 2 diabetic patients. Diabet Med. 2000; 17: 40–47.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13. Boyle PJ, King AB, Olansky L, Marchetti A, Lau H, Magar R, Martin J. Effects of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone on blood lipid levels and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a retrospective review of randomly selected medical records. Clin Ther. 2002; 24: 378–396.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. Khan MA, St Peter JV, Xue JL. A prospective, randomized comparison of the metabolic effects of pioglitazone or rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes who were previously treated with troglitazone. Diabetes Care. 2002; 25: 708–711.
15. King AB. A comparison in a clinical setting of the efficacy and side effects of three thiazolidinediones. Diabetes Care. 2000; 23: 557.
16. LaCivita KA, Villarreal G. Differences in lipid profiles of patients given rosiglitazone followed by pioglitazone. Curr Med Res Opin. 2002; 18: 363–370.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
17. Wurch T, Junquero D, Delhon A, Pauwels J. Pharmacological analysis of wild-type , and 
subtypes of the human peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2002; 365: 133–140.[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
18. Bocher V, Chinetti G, Fruchart JC, Staels B. Role of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARS) in the regulation of lipids and inflammation control. J Soc Biol. 2002; 196: 47–52.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
19. Neve BP, Fruchart JC, Staels B. Role of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPAR) in atherosclerosis. Biochem Pharmacol. 2000; 60: 1245–1250.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
20. Leaf DA, Connor WE, Illingworth DR, Bacon SP, Sexton G. The hypolipidemic effects of gemfibrozil in type V hyperlipidemia: a double-blind, crossover study. JAMA. 1989; 262: 3154–3160.
21. Stein EA, Lane M, Laskarzewski P. Comparison of statins in hypertriglyceridemia. Am J Cardiol. 1998; 81: 66B–69B.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
22. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7: 177–188.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
23. Miyazaki Y, Glass L, Triplitt C, Matsuda M, Cusi K, Mahankali A, Mahankali S, Mandarino LJ, DeFronzo RA. Effect of rosiglitazone on glucose and non-esterified fatty acid metabolism in type II diabetic patients. Diabetologia. 2001; 44: 2210–2219.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
24. Raskin P, Rappaport EB, Cole ST, Yan Y, Patwardhan R, Freed MI. Rosiglitazone short-term monotherapy lowers fasting and post-prandial glucose in patients with type II diabetes. Diabetologia. 2000; 43: 278–284.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
25. Raskin P, Rendell M, Riddle MC, Dole JF, Freed MI, Rosenstock J. A randomized trial of rosiglitazone therapy in patients with inadequately controlled insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2001; 24: 1226–1232.
26. Phillips LS, Grunberger G, Miller E, Patwardhan R, Rappaport EB, Salzman A. Once- and twice-daily dosing with rosiglitazone improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2001; 24: 308–315.
27. Nolan JJ, Jones NP, Patwardhan R, Deacon LF. Rosiglitazone taken once daily provides effective glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2000; 17: 287–294.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
28. Fonseca V, Rosenstock J, Patwardhan R, Salzman A. Effect of metformin and rosiglitazone combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2000; 283: 1695–1702.
29. Gomez-Perez FJ, Fanghanel-Salmon G, Antonio BJ, Montes-Villarreal J, Berry RA, Warsi G, Gould EM. Efficacy and safety of rosiglitazone plus metformin in Mexicans with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2002; 18: 127–134.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
30. Patel J, Anderson RJ, Rappaport EB. Rosiglitazone monotherapy improves glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: a twelve-week, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 1999; 1: 165–172.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
31. Carey DG, Cowin GJ, Galloway GJ, Jones NP, Richards JC, Biswas N, Doddrell DM. Sensitivity effect of rosiglitazone on insulin and body composition in type 2 diabetic patients. Obes Res. 2002; 10: 1008–1015.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
32. Miyazaki Y, Mahankali A, Matsuda M, Glass L, Mahankali S, Ferrannini E, Cusi K, Mandarino LJ, DeFronzo RA. Improved glycemic control and enhanced insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetic subjects treated with pioglitazone. Diabetes Care. 2001; 24: 710–719.
33. Kawamori R, Matsuhisa M, Kinoshita J, Mochizuki K, Niwa M, Arisaka T, Ikeda M, Kubota M, Wada M, Kanda T, Ikebuchi M, Tohdo R, Yamasaki Y. Pioglitazone enhances splanchnic glucose uptake as well as peripheral glucose uptake in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: AD-4833 Clamp-OGL Study Group. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 1998; 41: 35–43.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
34. Einhorn D, Rendell M, Rosenzweig J, Egan JW, Mathisen AL, Schneider RL. Pioglitazone hydrochloride in combination with metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, placebo-controlled study: the Pioglitazone 027 Study Group. Clin Ther. 2000; 22: 1395–1409.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
35. Miyazaki Y, Matsuda M, DeFronzo RA. Dose-response effect of pioglitazone on insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2002; 25: 517–523.
36. Rosenblatt S, Miskin B, Glazer NB, Prince MJ, Robertson KE. The impact of pioglitazone on glycemic control and atherogenic dyslipidemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Coron Artery Dis. 2001; 12: 413–423.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
37. Rosenstock J, Einhorn D, Hershon K, Glazer NB, Yu S. Efficacy and safety of pioglitazone in type 2 diabetes: a randomised, placebo-controlled study in patients receiving stable insulin therapy. Int J Clin Pract. 2002; 56: 251–257.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
38. Ginsberg HN, Huang LS. The insulin resistance syndrome: impact on lipoprotein metabolism and atherothrombosis. J Cardiovasc Risk. 2000; 7: 325–331.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
39. Tack CJ, Smits P, Demacker PN, Stalenhoef AF. Troglitazone decreases the proportion of small, dense LDL and increases the resistance of LDL to oxidation in obese subjects. Diabetes Care. 1998; 21: 796–799.[Abstract]
40. Hirano T, Yoshino G, Kazumi T. Troglitazone and small low-density lipoprotein in type 2 diabetes. Ann Intern Med. 1998; 129: 162–163.
41. Cominacini L, Young MM, Capriati A, Garbin U, Fratta PA, Campagnola M, Davoli A, Rigoni A, Contessi GB, Lo CV. Troglitazone increases the resistance of low density lipoprotein to oxidation in healthy volunteers. Diabetologia. 1997; 40: 1211–1218.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
42. Cominacini L, Garbin U, Fratta PA, Campagnola M, Davoli A, Foot E, Sighieri G, Sironi AM, Lo CV, Ferrannini E. Troglitazone reduces LDL oxidation and lowers plasma E-selectin concentration in NIDDM patients. Diabetes. 1998; 47: 130–133.[Abstract]
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  A. Bitto, D. Altavilla, A. Bonaiuto, F. Polito, L. Minutoli, V. Di Stefano, D. Giuliani, S. Guarini, V. Arcoraci, and F. Squadrito Effects of aglycone genistein in a rat experimental model of postmenopausal metabolic syndrome J. Endocrinol., March 1, 2009; 200(3): 367 - 376. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. J. Betteridge, R. A. DeFronzo, and R. J. Chilton PROactive: time for a critical appraisal Eur. Heart J., April 2, 2008; 29(8): 969 - 983. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. P. Naoumova, H. Kindler, L. Leccisotti, M. Mongillo, M. T. Khan, C. Neuwirth, M. Seed, P. Holvoet, J. Betteridge, and P. G. Camici Pioglitazone Improves Myocardial Blood Flow and Glucose Utilization in Nondiabetic Patients With Combined Hyperlipidemia: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., November 20, 2007; 50(21): 2051 - 2058. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Qin, T. Liu, V. S. Kamanna, and M. L. Kashyap Pioglitazone Stimulates Apolipoprotein A-I Production Without Affecting HDL Removal in HepG2 Cells: Involvement of PPAR-{alpha} Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol, November 1, 2007; 27(11): 2428 - 2434. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Bolen, L. Feldman, J. Vassy, L. Wilson, H.-C. Yeh, S. Marinopoulos, C. Wiley, E. Selvin, R. Wilson, E. B. Bass, et al. Systematic Review: Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Oral Medications for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Ann Intern Med, September 18, 2007; 147(6): 386 - 399. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Bays, J. McElhattan, and B. S Bryzinski A double-blind, randomised trial of tesaglitazar versus pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus Diabetes and Vascular Disease Research, September 1, 2007; 4(3): 181 - 193. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. M. Hall and D. P. McDonnell The Molecular Mechanisms Underlying the Proinflammatory Actions of Thiazolidinediones in Human Macrophages Mol. Endocrinol., August 1, 2007; 21(8): 1756 - 1768. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Z. T. Bloomgarden Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Diabetes Care, February 1, 2007; 30(2): 423 - 431. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. A Ajjan and P. J Grant Cardiovascular disease prevention in patients with type 2 diabetes: the role of oral anti-diabetic agents Diabetes and Vascular Disease Research, December 1, 2006; 3(3): 147 - 158. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. W Campbell The role of metformin and pioglitazone in early combination treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus The British Journal of Diabetes & Vascular Disease, September 1, 2006; 6(5): 207 - 215. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Shen, M. H. Liu, T. Y. Ng, Y. H. Chan, and E. L. Yong Differential Effects of Isoflavones, from Astragalus Membranaceus and Pueraria Thomsonii, on the Activation of PPAR{alpha}, PPAR{gamma}, and Adipocyte Differentiation In Vitro J. Nutr., April 1, 2006; 136(4): 899 - 905. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Blaschke, Y. Takata, E. Caglayan, R. E. Law, and W. A. Hsueh Obesity, Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor, and Atherosclerosis in Type 2 Diabetes Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol, January 1, 2006; 26(1): 28 - 40. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. W Campbell Pioglitazone -- an oral antidiabetic agent and metabolic syndrome modulator. Can theory translate into practice? The British Journal of Diabetes & Vascular Disease, July 1, 2005; 5(4): 209 - 216. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. B. Goldberg, D. M. Kendall, M. A. Deeg, J. B. Buse, A. J. Zagar, J. A. Pinaire, M. H. Tan, M. A. Khan, A. T. Perez, S. J. Jacober, et al. A Comparison of Lipid and Glycemic Effects of Pioglitazone and Rosiglitazone in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Dyslipidemia Diabetes Care, July 1, 2005; 28(7): 1547 - 1554. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Cariou, J.-C. Fruchart, and B. Staels Review: Vascular protective effects of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists The British Journal of Diabetes & Vascular Disease, May 1, 2005; 5(3): 126 - 132. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. P.H. van Wijk, E. J.P. de Koning, M. Castro Cabezas, and T. J. Rabelink Rosiglitazone Improves Postprandial Triglyceride and Free Fatty Acid Metabolism in Type 2 Diabetes Diabetes Care, April 1, 2005; 28(4): 844 - 849. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Perez, M. Khan, T. Johnson, and M. Karunaratne Pioglitazone plus a sulphonylurea or metformin is associated with increased lipoprotein particle size in patients with type 2 diabetes Diabetes and Vascular Disease Research, May 1, 2004; 1(1): 44 - 50. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||