The prospective pioglitazone clinical trial in macrovascular events (PROactive): can pioglitazone reduce cardiovascular events in diabetes? Study design and baseline characteristics of 5238 patients

Long-term effects of pioglitazone and metformin on insulin sensitivity in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIM

Despite their comparable glycaemic effects in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), pioglitazone and metformin may have different effects on insulin sensitivity because they have different mechanisms of action. We studied the changes in insulin sensitivity, as assessed by the Quantitative Insulin Sensitivity Check Index (QUICKI), in patients with T2DM who used metformin or pioglitazone as monotherapy or in combination therapy with sulphonylurea.

METHODS

Data in this report are from two multicentre, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy studies conducted in Europe (monotherapy) or in Europe and Canada (combination therapy study). Patients were randomized to 52 weeks of treatment consisting of a 12-week forced titration period and a 40-week maintenance period. HbA(1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and fasting serum insulin (FSI) were quantified from a single blood sample at weeks 0, 8, 16, 24, 32, 42 and 52. Insulin sensitivity was assessed with QUICKI, which is calculated from FSI and fasting blood glucose (FBG) concentrations using the formula 1/(log(10) FSI + log(10) FBG). Time course effects of the treatments were compared by repeated measures analysis of covariance.

RESULTS

As monotherapy, pioglitazone and metformin increased QUICKI compared with baseline (baseline vs. end point [mean +/- sem]; pioglitazone [0.303 +/- 0.001 vs. 0.321 +/- 0.001; P < 0.001] and metformin [0.304 +/- 0.001 vs. 0.315 +/- 0.001; P < 0.001]). Pioglitazone increased insulin sensitivity more than metformin from week 4 through week 52. There were significant increases in QUICKI from baseline in both combination therapy groups (baseline vs. end point; pioglitazone + sulphonylurea [0.305 +/- 0.001 vs. 0.319 +/- 0.001; P < 0.001] and metformin + sulphonylurea [0.306 +/- 0.001 vs. 0.317 +/- 0.001; P < 0.001]). Overall, pioglitazone + sulphonylurea significantly increased insulin sensitivity more than metformin + sulphonylurea.

CONCLUSION

Pioglitazone differed from metformin in its effects on insulin sensitivity despite both drugs having comparable glycaemic effects.

Comparison of metabolic effects of pioglitazone, metformin, and glimepiride over 1 year in Japanese patients with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To compare the metabolic effects of pioglitazone, metformin, and glimepiride in the treatment of Japanese patients with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

A total of 114 patients with Type 2 diabetes who had never used oral hypoglycaemic drugs were studied for 12 months. Patients were randomly assigned to pioglitazone (30-45 mg/day, n = 38), metformin (750 mg/day, n = 39), or glimepiride (1.0-2.0 mg/day, n = 37). The effect of treatment on fasting plasma glucose (FPG), glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), 1,5-anhydroglucitol (1,5AG), total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol, triglycerides, free fatty acids (FFA), and fasting plasma insulin levels was monitored monthly. Body weight and safety data were also collected.

RESULTS

Eight patients withdrew from the study (three in the pioglitazone group, two in the metformin group, and three in the glimepiride group). The rate of reduction of HbA(1c) was fastest in patients receiving glimepiride and slowest in patients receiving pioglitazone. Although there were no significant differences among the three groups in HbA(1c) levels at the end of the study, patients taking pioglitazone had relatively lower FPG and 1,5AG levels than patients taking the other two drugs. These results suggest that pioglitazone acts predominantly on nocturnal metabolism rather than at mealtimes. FFA were reduced significantly in those taking pioglitazone (542.2 microEq/l vs. 237.3 microEq/l; P < 0.01) before a decrease in HbA(1c) was apparent. The change in FFA levels correlated with the change in HbA(1c) (r = 0.409, P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in other lipid parameters among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Pioglitazone, metformin, and glimepiride are equally effective in reducing blood glucose in patients with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes. However, their specific characteristics, such as the rapid action on blood glucose levels of glimepiride and the favourable action on FPG and FFA of pioglitazone, should be considered when choosing an appropriate agent.

Improvement of cardiovascular risk markers by pioglitazone is independent from glycemic control: results from the pioneer study

OBJECTIVES

This study was performed to assess whether the anti-inflammatory and antiatherogenic effects of pioglitazone suggested by animal experiments are reproducible in man and independent from improvements in metabolic control.

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes is associated with increased cardiovascular risk.

METHODS

A total of 192 patients were enrolled into a six-month, prospective, open-label, controlled clinical study. They were randomized to receive either pioglitazone (45 mg) or glimepiride (1 to 6 mg, with the intent to optimize therapy). Biochemical and clinical markers to assess therapeutic effects included HbA1c, fasting glucose, insulin, adiponectin, lipids, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), intracellular adhesion molecule, vascular cell adhesion molecule, vascular endothelial growth factor, fibrinogen, von Willebrand factor, matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-9, monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP)-1, soluble CD40 ligand, and carotid intima-media thickness (IMT).

RESULTS

The study was completed by 173 patients (66 female, 107 male; age [+/- SD]: 63 +/- 8 years; disease duration: 7.2 +/- 7.2 years; HbA1c: 7.5 +/- 0.9%; pioglitazone arm: 89 patients). A comparable reduction in HbA1c was seen in both groups (p < 0.001). In the pioglitazone group, reductions were observed for glucose (p < 0.001 vs. glimepiride group at end point), insulin (p < 0.001), low-density lipoprotein/high-density lipoprotein ratio (p < 0.001), hsCRP (p < 0.05), MMP-9 (p < 0.05), MCP-1 (p < 0.05), and carotid IMT (p < 0.001), and an increase was seen in high-density lipoprotein (p < 0.001) and adiponectin (p < 0.001). Spearman ranks analysis revealed only one correlation between the reduction in cardiovascular risk parameters and the improvement in the metabolic parameters (MMP-9 and fasting blood glucose, p < 0.05)

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective study gives evidence of an anti-inflammatory and antiatherogenic effect of pioglitazone versus glimepiride. This effect is independent from blood glucose control and may be attributed to peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma activation.

A comparison of lipid and glycemic effects of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia

OBJECTIVE

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.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Insulin-sensitizing antihyperglycemic drugs and mortality after acute myocardial infarction: insights from the National Heart Care Project

OBJECTIVE

Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) and metformin are insulin-sensitizing antihyperglycemic agents with reported benefits on atherosclerosis. Despite extensive use in patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease, there is a paucity of outcomes data with metformin and none yet with TZDs. We sought to determine the impact of these insulin sensitizers on outcomes in diabetic patients after hospitalization with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 24,953 Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes discharged after hospitalization with AMI between April 1998 and March 1999 or July 2000 and June 2001. The independent association between discharge prescription for metformin, TZD, or both agents and outcomes at 1 year was assessed in multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for patient, physician, and hospital variables. The primary outcome was time to death within 1 year of discharge; secondary outcomes were time to first rehospitalization within 1 year of discharge for AMI, heart failure, and all causes.

RESULTS

There were 8,872 patients discharged on an antihyperglycemic agent, of which 819 were prescribed a TZD, 1,273 metformin, and 139 both drugs. After multivariable analysis, compared with patients prescribed an antihyperglycemic regimen that included no insulin sensitizer, mortality rates were not significantly different in patients treated with either metformin (hazard ratio [HR] 0.92 [95% CI 0.81-1.06]) or a TZD (0.92 [0.80-1.05]) but were lower in those prescribed both drugs (0.52 [0.34-0.82]). The results were similar among patients with heart failure. The prescription of a TZD was associated with a borderline higher risk of all-cause readmission (1.09[1.00-1.20]), predominately due to a higher risk for heart failure readmission (1.17 [1.05-1.30]).

CONCLUSIONS

Individually, prescription of insulin-sensitizing drugs is not associated with a significantly different risk of death in older diabetic patients within 1 year following AMI compared with other antihyperglycemic agents. Combined, however, metformin and TZDs may exert benefit. TZD prescription is associated with a higher risk of readmission for heart failure after myocardial infarction.

Long-term efficacy and tolerability of add-on pioglitazone therapy to failing monotherapy compared with addition of gliclazide or metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this analysis was to examine the long-term effects of pioglitazone or gliclazide addition to failing metformin monotherapy and pioglitazone or metformin addition to failing sulphonylurea monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Two 2-year, randomised, multicentre trials were performed in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c 7.5-11% inclusive), who were receiving either metformin or a sulphonylurea at > or = 50% of the maximum recommended dose or at the maximum tolerated dose. In the first study, patients on metformin received add-on therapy with pioglitazone (15-45 mg/day, n = 317) or gliclazide (80-320 mg/day, n = 313). In the second study, patients on sulphonylurea therapy were randomised to receive add-on therapy with either pioglitazone (15-45 mg/day, n = 319) or metformin (850-2,550 mg/day, n = 320). HbA(1)c, fasting plasma glucose, insulin and lipids were investigated.

RESULTS

At week 104, the mean reduction from baseline in HbA(1)c was 0.89% for pioglitazone and 0.77% for gliclazide addition to metformin (p = 0.200). There was a statistically significant between-group difference for the change in mean fasting plasma glucose at week 104 (-1.8 mmol/l for pioglitazone vs -1.1 mmol/l for gliclazide, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in changes from baseline in glycaemic parameters for pioglitazone compared with metformin addition to sulphonylurea therapy. Whether added to metformin or sulphonylurea, pioglitazone caused significantly greater decreases in triglycerides and significantly greater increases in HDL cholesterol than the comparator regimens (p < or = 0.001). There were decreases in LDL cholesterol in the comparator groups and these were significantly different from the small changes observed with pioglitazone (p < 0.001). All treatment regimens were well tolerated. There were weight increases of 2.5 kg and 3.7 kg in the pioglitazone and 1.2 kg in the gliclazide add-on groups, and there was a mean decrease of 1.7 kg in the metformin add-on group.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

As add-on therapy to existing sulphonylurea or metformin therapy, pioglitazone improved glycaemic control and this improvement was sustained over 2 years. Furthermore, there were potential benefits in terms of improvements in specific lipid abnormalities. This could offer an advantage over the addition of other oral agents in the long-term treatment of diabetes.

Thiazolidinediones, peripheral oedema and congestive heart failure: what is the evidence?

Cardiovascular disease is the most common complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus (type 2 DM), accounting for approximately 80% of deaths. While atherosclerotic vascular disease accounts for much of the cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among diabetic patients, congestive heart failure (CHF) is another key complication associated with diabetes, with an incidence three to five times greater in diabetic patients than in those without diabetes. One of the most promising developments in the treatment of type 2 DM has been the introduction of the thiazolidinedione (TZD) class of drugs, which appear to have pleiotropic effects beyond glycaemic control. Enthusiasm has been tempered, however, by concerns for safety in patients with CHF, given reports of worsening heart failure symptoms and peripheral oedema. With the growing epidemic of type 2 DM and the increasing use of TZDs, such concern has important therapeutic implications for a population of patients with a high prevalence of often subclinical systolic and diastolic dysfunction. This review provides an overview of the currently available data regarding the effects of TZDs on fluid retention and cardiac function. Particular emphasis is placed on the mechanisms of development of peripheral oedema and its significance in patients with impaired left ventricular function. TZDs are well known to cause an expansion in plasma volume; there has also been concern that TZDs may have direct toxic effects on the myocardium, leading to impaired cardiac function. Studies to date do not support this hypothesis and in fact there is growing evidence from animal models and human trials that treatment with TZDs actually improves cardiac function. There are also preclinical data to suggest TZDs may protect the myocardium in the setting of ischaemic insult or the toxic effects of myocardial lipid deposition. Ongoing clinical trials examining the use of these agents in patients at risk for heart failure will probably provide further insight into the aggregate cardiovascular effects of this promising class of medications.

Antidiabetic mechanisms of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor antagonists: beyond the renin-angiotensin system

Several lines of evidence suggest that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and some angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) may improve insulin sensitivity and decrease the risk for type 2 diabetes. It is widely assumed that the potential antidiabetic properties of these agents are largely mediated by their ability to interfere with the adverse metabolic effects of angiotensin II. However, recent studies suggest that ACE inhibitors might improve glucose metabolism primarily through effects on kinin-nitric oxide pathways. In addition, one ARB in particular, telmisartan, has been found to effectively activate the peroxisome proliferator activated receptor gamma (PPARgamma), a well-known target for insulin-sensitizing, antidiabetic drugs. Thus, the beneficial metabolic effects of some ACE inhibitors and ARBs may go well beyond their effects on the renin-angiotensin system. Moreover, the identification of telmisartan as a unique angiotensin II receptor antagonist with selective PPARgamma modulating ability suggests new opportunities for developing third-generation ARBs and PPARgamma activators, with enhanced potential for treating hypertension, diabetes and the metabolic syndrome.

Prevention of cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus: trials on the horizon

There has been an explosion of interest in CVD and diabetes mellitus because of the epidemic nature of the diseases and their tight epidemiologic link. Clinical trials over the past decade have built substantial evidence for the role of lipid management, blood pressure control, and antiplatelet therapy in managing risk for CVD in patients who have diabetes mellitus. The many clinical trials underway will not only hone existing recommendations by establishing appropriate targets and techniques for lipid and blood pressure management, but also should demonstrate the role and most appropriate techniques for management of glycemia, flow-limiting coronary lesions, and obesity.

Thiazolidinediones and cardiovascular disease

Thiazolidinediones hold promise for reducing cardiovascular events and human atherosclerosis. Similar to statins and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, peroxisome proliferator activated receptor gamma (PPARgamma) exerts anti-inflammatory and antiatherosclerotic actions in the vessel wall. A number of clinical trials in subjects with or without diabetes have shown that thiazolidinedione therapy can reduce in-stent restenosis and delay progression of atherosclerosis measured by carotid artery ultrasound. PPARgamma directly promotes expression of ATP-binding cassette transporter G1, mediating cellular cholesterol efflux to high-density lipoproteins from macrophages, which may further explain the potential cardiovascular benefit of this class. Whether the benefits observed in animal models will translate in clinical practice is being evaluated in several large, randomized controlled trials.

Potential cardiovascular benefits of insulin sensitizers

A multiple risk factor approach is needed in patients who have type 2 diabetes. Because many risk factors are linked with IR, treatment with insulin sensitizers has the potential to modulate these risk factors favorably. TZDs 'have many important effects beyond lowering blood glucose. By targeting IR, they improve many cardiovascular risk factors that are associated with the IR syndrome. In particular, they increase HDL-C, have anti-inflammatory effects, improve endothelial function and fibrinolysis, and decrease carotid intimal thickness; however, no evidence-based studies on cardiovascular outcomes are available to substantiate the potential cardioprotective effects of TZDs. Several clinical trials that were designed to investigate the effect that these agents have on reducing cardiovascular events are well under way.

Pioglitazone elicits long-term improvements in insulin sensitivity in patients with type 2 diabetes: comparisons with gliclazide-based regimens

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Recent studies have demonstrated that pioglitazone (PIO) has beneficial effects on insulin sensitivity compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes. The effects of PIO and gliclazide (GLIC)-based therapy on insulin sensitivity have not previously been directly compared. This analysis aimed to compare the effects of 52 weeks of treatment with PIO (30-45 mg/day) and GLIC (80-320 mg/day), both titrated to maximum tolerable doses, as monotherapy or in combination with metformin (MET), on insulin sensitivity and lipid parameters known to be related to insulin sensitivity in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We performed an analysis of 1,880 patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c 7.5-11.0%) who were participants in two parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, multicentre, clinical trials. Measures of insulin sensitivity and lipids were assessed.

RESULTS

The PIO- and GLIC-based regimens produced similar levels of glycaemic control (HbA1c). In both trials, insulin sensitivity as assessed using the homeostasis model assessment was improved in patients receiving PIO, but decreased in those receiving GLIC (mean change, baseline to endpoint: PIO 15.5, GLIC -15.6; p<0.001 and PIO+MET 18.9, GLIC+MET -5.3; p<0.001). Improvements in the atherogenic index of plasma (mean change: PIO -0.17, GLIC -0.08; p<0.001 and PIO+MET -0.17, GLIC+MET -0.02; p<0.001), triglycerides (mean change, mmol/l: PIO+MET -0.62, GLIC+MET -0.22; p<0.001) and NEFA (mean change, mmol/l: PIO+MET -0.12, GLIC+MET-0.05; p<0.001) were greater in PIO-treated patients than in patients receiving GLIC.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

The PIO-based regimens resulted in improved insulin sensitivity and more favourable insulin sensitivity-related lipid profiles compared with the GLIC-based regimens. These benefits may be important in the management of cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes.

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

OBJECTIVE

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.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

The impact of antidiabetic therapies on cardiovascular disease

Cardiovascular disease disproportionately affects people with diabetes and is a leading cause of death. Glycemic control has so far not been conclusively shown to decrease cardiovascular events. The therapeutic agents used in treating glycemia have different effects on cardiovascular risks and, therefore, may have different effects on outcome. Insulin sensitizers impact cardiovascular risk factors, including dyslipidemia and fibrinolysis. Metformin is the only oral antidiabetic medication shown to decrease cardiovascular events independent of glycemic control. Thiazolidinediones improve insulin resistance and lower insulin concentrations, which is beneficial because hyperinsulinemia is an independent predictor of cardiovascular disease. Insulin therapy acutely reduces cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in patients with diabetes and known coronary artery disease and also in patients with hyperglycemia when critically ill, but the long-term effects are unclear. In contrast, insulin secretagogues have very little effect on both cardiovascular risk factors and outcomes.

Preventative effects of rosiglitazone on restenosis after coronary stent implantation in patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Despite the popularity of coronary stenting in coronary artery disease (CAD), restenosis remains a challenging clinical problem. This study evaluated the efficacy of rosiglitazone for preventing in-stent restenosis in type 2 diabetic patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective, randomized, case-controlled trial involving 95 diabetic patients with CAD who were randomly assigned to either the control or rosiglitazone group (48 and 47 patients, respectively). Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was performed at study entry and again at 6-month follow-up. The primary end point was the restenosis rate, which was determined by QCA.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients (45 patients with 55 lesions in the control group and 38 patients with 51 lesions in the rosiglitazone group) completed follow-up angiography. Rosiglitazone treatment for 6 months reduced fasting insulin concentration. The high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentration was significantly reduced in the rosiglitazone group compared with that in the control group (from 2.92 +/- 1.98 to 0.62 +/- 0.44 mg/l, P < 0.001 vs. from 2.01 +/- 1.33 to 1.79 +/- 1.22 mg/l, P = NS). However, the baseline and follow-up glucose and lipid concentrations were not different between two groups. The rate of in-stent restenosis was significantly reduced in the rosiglitazone group compared with the control group (for stent lesions: 17.6 vs. 38.2%, P = 0.030). The rosiglitazone group had a significantly lower degree of diameter stenosis (23.0 +/- 23.4% vs. 40.9 +/- 31.9%, P = 0.004) compared with the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that treatment with rosiglitazone significantly reduces in-stent restenosis in diabetic patients with CAD who underwent coronary stent implantation.