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

Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. The combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (M+S) is a widely used treatment. Whether M+S shows better or worse effects in comparison with other antidiabetic medications for people with T2DM is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin and sulphonylurea (second- or third-generation) combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of a recent systematic review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The updated search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was March 2018. We searched manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomising participants 18 years old or more with T2DM to M+S compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention or metformin monotherapy with a treatment duration of 52 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs randomising 28,746 people. Treatment duration ranged between one to four years. We judged none of these trials as low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most important events per person were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events (SAE), non-fatal stroke (NFS), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and microvascular complications. Most important comparisons were as follows:Five trials compared M+S (N = 1194) with metformin plus a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue (N = 1675): all-cause mortality was 11/1057 (1%) versus 11/1537 (0.7%), risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.67); 3 trials; 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 1/307 (0.3%) versus 1/302 (0.3%), low-certainty evidence; serious adverse events (SAE) 128/1057 (12.1%) versus 194/1537 (12.6%), RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.11); 3 trials; 2594 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) 2/549 (0.4%) versus 6/1026 (0.6%), RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.82); 2 trials; 1575 participants; very low-certainty evidence.Nine trials compared M+S (N = 5414) with metformin plus a dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor (N = 6346): all-cause mortality was 33/5387 (0.6%) versus 26/6307 (0.4%), RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.28); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 11/2989 (0.4%) versus 9/3885 (0.2%), RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.79); 6 trials; 6874 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 735/5387 (13.6%) versus 779/6307 (12.4%), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.18); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 14/2098 (0.7%) versus 8/2995 (0.3%), RR 2.21 (95% CI 0.74 to 6.58); 4 trials; 5093 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 15/2989 (0.5%) versus 13/3885 (0.3%), RR 1.45 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.07); 6 trials; 6874 participants; very low-certainty evidence; one trial in 64 participants reported no microvascular complications were observed (very low-certainty evidence).Eleven trials compared M+S (N = 3626) with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (N = 3685): all-cause mortality was 123/3300 (3.7%) versus 114/3354 (3.4%), RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.40); 6 trials; 6654 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 37/2946 (1.3%) versus 41/2994 (1.4%), RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.67); 4 trials; 5940 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 666/3300 (20.2%) versus 671/3354 (20%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.11); 6 trials; 6654 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 20/1540 (1.3%) versus 16/1583 (1%), RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.47); P = 0.45; 2 trials; 3123 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 25/1841 (1.4%) versus 21/1877 (1.1%), RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.68 to 2.14); P = 0.51; 3 trials; 3718 participants; very low-certainty evidence; three trials (3123 participants) reported no microvascular complications (very low-certainty evidence).Three trials compared M+S (N = 462) with metformin plus a glinide (N = 476): one person died in each intervention group (3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence); no cardiovascular mortality (2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence); SAE 34/424 (8%) versus 27/450 (6%), RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 5.21); P = 0.37; 3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence; no NFS (1 trial; 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence); non-fatal MI 2/215 (0.9%) participants in the M+S group; 2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence; no microvascular complications (1 trial; 233 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four trials compared M+S (N = 2109) with metformin plus a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (N = 3032): all-cause mortality was 13/2107 (0.6%) versus 19/3027 (0.6%), RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.09); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 4/1327 (0.3%) versus 6/2262 (0.3%), RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.33 to 4.41); 3 trials; 3589 participants; very low-certainty evidence; SAE 315/2107 (15.5%) versus 375/3027 (12.4%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.37); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 3/919 (0.3%) versus 7/1856 (0.4%), RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.34); 2 trials; 2775 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 7/890 (0.8%) versus 8/1374 (0.6%), RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.49 to 4.18; 2 trials); 2264 participants; very low-certainty evidence; amputation of lower extremity 1/437 (0.2%) versus 1/888 (0.1%); very low-certainty evidence.Trials reported more hypoglycaemic episodes with M+S combination compared to all other metformin-antidiabetic agent combinations. Results for M+S versus metformin monotherapy were inconclusive. There were no RCTs comparing M+S with metformin plus insulin. We identified nine ongoing trials and two trials are awaiting assessment. Together these trials will include approximately 16,631 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconclusive evidence whether M+S combination therapy compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention results in benefit or harm for most patient-important outcomes (mortality, SAEs, macrovascular and microvascular complications) with the exception of hypoglycaemia (more harm for M+S combination). No RCT reported on health-related quality of life.

Thiazolidinedione drugs in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: past, present and future

Thiazolidinedione (TZD) drugs used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have proven effective in improving insulin sensitivity, hyperglycemia, and lipid metabolism. Though well tolerated by some patients, their mechanism of action as ligands of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) results in the activation of several pathways in addition to those responsible for glycemic control and lipid homeostasis. These pathways, which include those related to inflammation, bone formation, and cell proliferation, may lead to adverse health outcomes. As treatment with TZDs has been associated with adverse hepatic, cardiovascular, osteological, and carcinogenic events in some studies, the role of TZDs in the treatment of T2DM continues to be debated. At the same time, new therapeutic roles for TZDs are being investigated, with new forms and isoforms currently in the pre-clinical phase for use in the prevention and treatment of some cancers, inflammatory diseases, and other conditions. The aims of this review are to provide an overview of the mechanism(s) of action of TZDs, a review of their safety for use in the treatment of T2DM, and a perspective on their current and future therapeutic roles.

Pioglitazone and the Risk of Bladder Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

People with type 2 diabetes are at increased risk of bladder cancer. Pioglitazone is said to increase it further, although published evidence is mixed. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine if any link between the use of pioglitazone and an increased risk of bladder cancer can be found. A comprehensive literature search was conducted through electronic databases as well as registries for data of clinical trials to identify studies that investigate the effect of pioglitazone on bladder cancer in diabetic patients. We used the risk ratio (RR) and the hazard ratio (HR) provided by the studies to illustrate the risk of occurrence of bladder cancer in the experimental group compared to that in the control group. Fourteen studies using RR and 12 studies using HR were included in the analysis. The overall RR was 1.13 with 95% CI (0.96-1.33) with low heterogeneity among the studies using RR, suggesting that no connection exists between use of pioglitazone and the risk of bladder malignancy. The summary HR was 1.07 (0.96-1.18) allowing us to affirm that there is no link between long-term use of pioglitazone and bladder cancer. Our results support the hypothesis of no difference in the incidence of bladder cancer among the pioglitazone group and the nonuser group. Our conclusion is that the explanation of hypothetically increased risk of bladder malignancy should be attributed to other factors.

FUNDING

Tchaikapharma High Quality Medicines Inc.

Effects of pioglitazone therapy on blood parameters, weight and BMI: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is one of the most common diseases worldwide and insulin insufficiency and insulin resistance are two main metabolic issues connected with it. The dyslipidemia associated with insulin resistance and T2DM is characterized by higher triglycerides (TGs), higher very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and lower apo A1. Pioglitazone, a member of the thiazolidinedione class, with a proven antihyperglycemic effect, is known to positively influence insulin sensitivity and β-cell function and to have the potential to alter the lipid profile.

METHODS

The aim of our meta-analysis is to summarize and determine the influence of pioglitazone on the glycemic profile and lipoprotein metabolism as well as on weight and BMI in order to highlight the benefit of pioglitazone therapy in patients with T2DM. A comprehensive literature search was conducted through the electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, PsyInfo, eLIBRARY.ru (from 2000 until February 2016) to identify studies that investigate the effect of pioglitazone on the glycemic and lipid profile and on the weight and BMI. We chose the random-effects method as the primary analysis. Forest plots depict estimated results from the studies included in the analysis and funnel plots are used to evaluate publication bias. Sensitivity analyses were performed in order to evaluate the degree of influence of the consequent elimination of each individual study on the final result.

RESULTS

Of the 1536 identified sources only 15 randomised trials were included in the meta-analysis. Pioglitazone treatment was associated with improvement in the glycemic profile. It reduced FPG levels by a mean of 1.1-2 mmol/l and HbA1c by a mean of 0.9-1.3%. Our results reaffirmed the hypothesis that pioglitazone has a positive influence on the lipid profile of T2DM patients with increase in TC and HDL, no significant changes in LDL and notable decrease in TGs. Results also showed that pioglitazone therapy led to increase in both weight and BMI (WMD 1.755, 95% CI 0.674 to 2.837 and 1.145, 95% CI 0.389 to 1.901 respectively).

CONCLUSION

Our results prove that the PPAR γ agonist pioglitazone has the potential to be beneficial to patients with T2DM.

Cerebrovascular Safety of Sulfonylureas: The Role of KATP Channels in Neuroprotection and the Risk of Stroke in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

Sulfonylureas are ATP-sensitive potassium (KATP) channel blockers commonly used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Activation of KATP channels plays a neuroprotective role in ischemia; thus, whether sulfonylureas affect the outcomes of stroke in patients with T2DM needs to be further studied. In our study, streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetic mice subjected to transient middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) showed larger areas of brain damage and poorer behavioral outcomes. Blocking the KATP channel by tolbutamide increased neuronal injury induced by oxygen-glucose deprivation (OGD) in vitro and permanent MCAO (pMCAO) in vivo. Activating the KATP channel by diazoxide reduced the effects of both the OGD and pMCAO. Western blot analysis in STZ mouse brains indicated an early increase in protein levels of N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor 2B and postsynaptic density protein-95, followed by a decrease in phosphorylation of glycogen synthase kinase 3β. Our systematic meta-analysis indicated that patients with T2DM treated with sulfonylureas had a higher odds ratio for stroke morbidity than those who received comparator drugs. Taken together, these results suggest that sulfonylurea treatment in patients with T2DM may inhibit the neuroprotective effects of KATP channels and increase the risk of stroke.

WITHDRAWN: Sulphonylurea monotherapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Group withdrew this review as of Issue 7, 2015 because of the involvement of one author (SS Lund) being employed in a pharmaceutical company. The authors of the review and the Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Group did not find that this was a breach of the rules of the Cochrane Collaboration at the time when it was published. However, after the publication of the review, the Cochrane Collaboration requested withdrawal of the review due to the employment of the author. A new protocol for a review to cover this topic will be published. This will have a new title and a markedly improved protocol fulfilling new and important developments and standards within the Cochrane Collaboration as well as an improved inclusion and search strategy making it necessary to embark on a completely new review project.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Revisiting weight reduction and management in the diabetic patient: Novel therapies provide new strategies

Weight gain has been so synonymous with diabetes care that overweight/obesity is considered an intractable aspect of diabetes and its management. A healthy body mass index (BMI) is paramount, however, in preserving the cardiometabolic profile, slowing the course of the disease and extending the life expectancy of patients. It is also key to fostering a healthy and productive society at large. Two trends in care press us to challenge our assumptions about weight control in this population by reconsidering traditional approaches to the management of diabetes. First, new anti-diabetes drug classes have emerged that are more "weight-friendly" than previously available treatments and "gentler" on the faltering β cell. Second, novel anti-obesity agents are proving efficacious in patients with diabetes. This paper presents the composite of newer and older anti-obesity and anti-diabetic drugs. It makes recommendations for anti-diabetic regimens and processes of care that engender weight loss, or neutralize or minimize weight gain, while getting many patients to their glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) goal. Anti-obesity agents that can be safely and effectively incorporated into these regimens for the patient needing supplemental support are reviewed in detail.

Pioglitazone: an antidiabetic drug with cardiovascular therapeutic effects

The antidiabetic compound pioglitazone, an activator of the intracellular peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma, and decreases metabolic and vascular insulin resistance. The drug is well tolerated, and its metabolic effects include improvements in blood glucose and lipid control. Vascular effects consist of improvements in endothelial function and hypertension, and a reduction in surrogate markers of artherosclerosis. In a large, placebo-controlled, outcome study in secondary prevention, PROactive study, the use of pioglitazone in addition to an existing optimized macrovascular risk management resulted in a significant reduction of macrovascular endpoints within a short observation period that was comparable to the effect of statins and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in other trials. These results underline the value of pioglitazone for managing the increased cardiovascular risk of patients with a metabolic syndrome or Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Cardiovascular safety of sulfonylureas: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

AIM

Cardiovascular safety of sulfonylurea has been questioned by some authors. This article aims at collecting all available data on this issue from randomized trials.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed including all trials with a duration of at least 6 months, comparing a sulfonylurea with a non-sulfonylurea agent in type 2 diabetes. Major cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality were retrieved and combined to calculate Mantel-Haenzel odds ratio (MH-OR).

RESULTS

Of the 115 selected trials, 62 reported information on MACE, and 30 reported at least one event. MH-OR for sulfonylurea was 1.08 [0.86-1.36], p = 0.52 (1.85 [1.20-2.87], p = 0.005, in the five trials vs. DPP4 inhibitors, no significant differences vs. other comparators). The MH-OR for myocardial infarction and stroke was 0.88 [0.75-1.04], p = 0.13 and 1.28 [1.03-1.60], p = 0.026, respectively. Mortality was significantly increased with sulfonylureas (MH-OR: 1.22 [1.01-1.49], p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

In type 2 diabetes, the use of sulfonylureas is associated with increased mortality and a higher risk of stroke, whereas the overall incidence of MACE appears to be unaffected. Significant differences in cardiovascular risk could be present in direct comparisons with specific classes of glucose-lowering agents, such as DPP4 inhibitors, but this hypothesis needs to be confirmed in long-term cardiovascular outcomes trials. The results of this meta-analysis need to be interpreted with caution, mainly because of limitations in trial quality and under-reporting of information on cardiovascular events and mortality. However, the cardiovascular safety of sulfonylureas cannot be considered established unless it is evaluated in long-term cardiovascular outcomes trials.

Pioglitazone and risk of bladder cancer: a meta-analysis of controlled studies

AIMS

Pioglitazone, a thiazolidinedione, was approved for treatment of Type 2 diabetes. However, several observational studies suggest an association of pioglitazone with an increased risk of bladder cancer in patients with diabetes. Therefore, we sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the magnitude of this association and the quality of the supporting evidence.

METHODS

Electronic databases were queried to identify controlled studies of pioglitazone that measured the risk of bladder cancer.

RESULTS

Six studies involving 215 142 patients using pioglitazone were included, with a median period of follow-up of 44 months. The hazard of developing bladder cancer was significantly higher in patients using pioglitazone (hazard ratio 1.23; 95% CI 1.09-1.39; I² = 0%) compared with control groups. The risk of bias was moderate across the six studies. Considering an incidence rate of 20.8 per 100 000 person years, the number needed to harm was five additional cases of bladder cancer per 100 000 person years.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with pioglitazone have a slight increased risk of bladder cancer compared to general population. Patient involvement and weighing treatment benefits versus risks should be discussed with patient toward shared decision. Patients with type 2 diabetes with risk factors, such as family history, smoking, or exposure to certain forms of chemotherapy may need to consider other anti-hyperglycemic agents. Also, pioglitazone should be discontinued in type 2 diabetes patients with newly diagnosed bladder cancer.

Sulphonylurea monotherapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a growing health problem worldwide. Whether sulphonylureas show better, equal or worse therapeutic effects in comparison with other antidiabetic interventions for patients with T2DM remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of sulphonylurea monotherapy versus placebo, no intervention or other antidiabetic interventions for patients with T2DM.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched publications in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS and CINAHL (all until August 2011) to obtain trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria for our review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included clinical trials that randomised patients 18 years old or more with T2DM to sulphonylurea monotherapy with a duration of 24 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were other patient-important outcomes and metabolic variables. Where possible, we used risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) to analyse the treatment effect of dichotomous outcomes. We used mean differences with 95% CI to analyse the treatment effect of continuous outcomes. We evaluated the risk of bias. We conducted trial sequential analyses to assess whether firm evidence could be established for a 10% relative risk reduction (RRR) between intervention groups.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 72 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 22,589 participants; 9707 participants randomised to sulphonylureas versus 12,805 participants randomised to control interventions. The duration of the interventions varied from 24 weeks to 10.7 years. We judged none of the included trials as low risk of bias for all bias domains. Patient-important outcomes were seldom reported.First-generation sulphonylureas (FGS) versus placebo or insulin did not show statistical significance for all-cause mortality (versus placebo: RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.45; P = 0.15; 2 trials; 553 participants; high risk of bias (HRB); versus insulin: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.59; P = 0.26; 2 trials; 1944 participants; HRB). FGS versus placebo showed statistical significance for cardiovascular mortality in favour of placebo (RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.32 to 5.22; P = 0.006; 2 trials; 553 participants; HRB). FGS versus insulin did not show statistical significance for cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.71; P = 0.39; 2 trials; 1944 participants; HRB). FGS versus alpha-glucosidase inhibitors showed statistical significance in favour of FGS for adverse events (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.76; P = 0.01; 2 trials; 246 participants; HRB) and for drop-outs due to adverse events (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.67; P = 0.004; 2 trials; 246 participants; HRB).Second-generation sulphonylureas (SGS) versus metformin (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.58; P = 0.68; 6 trials; 3528 participants; HRB), thiazolidinediones (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.41; P = 0.70; 7 trials; 4955 participants; HRB), insulin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.18; P = 0.72; 4 trials; 1642 participants; HRB), meglitinides (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.47 to 4.42; P = 0.52; 7 trials; 2038 participants; HRB), or incretin-based interventions (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.68; P = 0.51; 2 trials; 1503 participants; HRB) showed no statistically significant effects regarding all-cause mortality in a random-effects model. SGS versus metformin (RR 1.47; 95% CI 0.54 to 4.01; P = 0.45; 6 trials; 3528 participants; HRB), thiazolidinediones (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; P = 0.55; 7 trials; 4955 participants; HRB), insulin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.28; P = 0.80; 4 trials; 1642 participants; HRB) or meglitinide (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.53; P = 0.97; 7 trials, 2038 participants, HRB) showed no statistically significant effects regarding cardiovascular mortality. Mortality data for the SGS versus placebo were sparse. SGS versus thiazolidinediones and meglitinides did not show statistically significant differences for a composite of non-fatal macrovascular outcomes. SGS versus metformin showed statistical significance in favour of SGS for a composite of non-fatal macrovascular outcomes (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.93; P = 0.02; 3018 participants; 3 trials; HRB). The definition of non-fatal macrovascular outcomes varied among the trials. SGS versus metformin, thiazolidinediones and meglitinides showed no statistical significance for non-fatal myocardial infarction. No meta-analyses could be performed for microvascular outcomes. SGS versus placebo, metformin, thiazolidinediones, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors or meglitinides showed no statistical significance for adverse events. SGS versus alpha-glucosidase inhibitors showed statistical significance in favour of SGS for drop-outs due to adverse events (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.96; P = 0.04; 9 trials; 870 participants; HRB). SGS versus meglitinides showed no statistical significance for the risk of severe hypoglycaemia. SGS versus metformin and thiazolidinediones showed statistical significance in favour of metformin (RR 5.64, 95% CI 1.22 to 26.00; P = 0.03; 4 trials; 3637 participants; HRB) and thiazolidinediones (RR 6.11, 95% CI 1.57 to 23.79; P = 0.009; 6 trials; 5660 participants; HRB) for severe hypoglycaemia.Third-generation sulphonylureas (TGS) could not be included in any meta-analysis of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality or non-fatal macro- or microvascular outcomes. TGS versus thiazolidinediones showed statistical significance regarding adverse events in favour of TGS (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; P = 0.03; 3 trials; 510 participants; HRB). TGS versus thiazolidinediones did not show any statistical significance for drop-outs due to adverse events. TGS versus other comparators could not be performed due to lack of data.For the comparison of SGS versus FGS no meta-analyses of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal macro- or microvascular outcomes, or adverse events could be performed.Health-related quality of life and costs of intervention could not be meta-analysed due to lack of data.In trial sequential analysis, none of the analyses of mortality outcomes, vascular outcomes or severe hypoglycaemia met the criteria for firm evidence of a RRR of 10% between interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence from RCTs to support the decision as to whether to initiate sulphonylurea monotherapy. Data on patient-important outcomes are lacking. Therefore, large-scale and long-term randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias, focusing on patient-important outcomes are required.

The backbone of oral glucose-lowering therapy: time for a paradigm shift?

The complex array of metabolic abnormalities associated with type 2 diabetes provides a number of new targets for therapeutic intervention. Although the established oral glucose-lowering therapies, metformin and the sulfonylureas, continue to provide the backbone of therapeutic approaches, the thiazolidinediones (TZDs) also play an important role. Further, a new class of oral agents, the dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-IV) inhibitors, has recently become available with apparent utility in decreasing postprandial glucose excursions. This review examines how the TZDs and the DPP-IV inhibitors might integrate into current treatment strategies, considering not only glycemic goals, but also longer-term benefits such as durability of glycemic control, effect on metabolic parameters and cardiovascular outcomes. A practical approach is taken, reflecting potential clinical situations in which therapeutic intervention is required.

Pioglitazone treatment increases whole body fat but not total body water in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis (NASH) is a chronic liver disease frequently associated with insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Pioglitazone reverses the metabolic and histological abnormalities of patients with impaired glucose tolerance or T2DM and NASH, but also leads to weight gain. To understand the nature of weight gain associated with pioglitazone treatment in NASH we analyzed 35 patients who completed tests for determination of whole body fat (WBF) and total body water (TBW).

METHODS

Twenty-one patients received pioglitazone and 14 placebo in a double-blind, randomized fashion for a period of 6 months. WBF and TBW were measured before and after treatment using DXA, a water dilution technique and bioimpedance.

RESULTS

Pioglitazone increased body weight (from 93.6+/-4.2 to 96.1+/-4.5 kg, p<0.003) and WBF measured with DXA (from 32.9+/-2.1 to 35.4+/-2.5 kg, p<0.002) while no changes were seen with placebo. Total body water was not altered significantly either after pioglitazone (from 45.4+/-2.3 to 45.6+/-2.7 l, p=NS) or placebo. Muscle hydration and extracellular water were unchanged both by pioglitazone and placebo treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Six months of pioglitazone treatment in patients with NASH is associated with weight gain that is attributable to an increase in adipose tissue mass and not to water retention.

Gliclazide protects human islet beta-cells from apoptosis induced by intermittent high glucose

BACKGROUND

Decreased beta-cell mass, mainly due to apoptosis, is crucial for the development and progression of type 2 diabetes. Chronic exposure to high glucose levels is a probable underlying mechanism, whereas the role of oral anti-diabetic agents (sulphonylureas in particular) is still unsettled.

METHODS

To directly investigate more on such issues, we prepared isolated human islets, which were then cultured for 5 days in continuous normal glucose concentration (NG, 5.5 mmol/L) or normal and high (HG, 16.7 mmol/L) glucose levels (alternating every 24 h), with or without the addition of therapeutical concentration (10 micromol L) of gliclazide or glibenclamide.

RESULTS

Intermittent high glucose caused a significant decrease of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion, which was not further affected by either sulphonylurea. Apoptosis, as assessed by electron microscopy, was also significantly increased by alternating high glucose exposure, which was accompanied by altered mitochondria morphology and density volume, and increased concentrations of nitrotyrosine, a marker of oxidative stress. Gliclazide, but not glibenclamide, was able to significantly reduce high glucose induced apoptosis, mitochondrial alterations, and nitrotyrosine concentration increase.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, gliclazide protected human beta-cells from apoptosis induced by intermittent high glucose, and this effect was likely to be due, at least in part, to the anti-oxidant properties of the molecule.

Traitement médicamenteux du diabète de type 2 (première partie)

Drug treatment of 2 diabetes is intended to normalize glycosylated hemoglobin levels (HbA(1c)<6.5%) and thereby prevent the development of micro- and macrovascular complications. Oral antidiabetic agents target the metabolic abnormalities that cause diabetes. The two principal families of oral antidiabetic agents - insulin sensitizers and insulin secretagogues - can be taken together. Thiazolidinediones or glitazones (insulin sensitizers) improve peripheral tissue sensitivity to insulin. Metformin (an insulin sensitizer) reduces hepatic glucose production. Sulfonylureas and meglitinides (insulin secretagogues) stimulate insulin secretion and can cause hypoglycemia. GLP-1 (Glucagon-Like Peptide-1) analogs and DPP-IV (dipeptidyl-peptidase-IV) inhibitors are new drug classes currently under development.

Pioglitazone for type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Diabetes has long been recognised as a strong, independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, a problem which accounts for approximately 70% of all mortality in people with diabetes. Prospective studies show that compared to their non-diabetic counterparts, the relative risk of cardiovascular mortality for men with diabetes is two to three and for women with diabetes is three to four. The two biggest trials in type 2 diabetes, the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) and the University Group Diabetes Program (UGDP) study did not reveal a reduction of cardiovascular endpoints through improved metabolic control. Theoretical benefits of the newer peroxisome proliferator activated receptor gamma (PPAR-gamma) activators like pioglitazone on endothelial function and cardiovascular risk factors might result in fewer macrovascular disease events in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pioglitazone in the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Studies were obtained from computerised searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. The last search was conducted in August 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials in adult people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and had a trial duration of at least 24 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Pooling of studies by means of random-effects meta-analysis could be performed for adverse events only.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two trials which randomised approximately 6200 people to pioglitazone treatment were identified. Longest duration of therapy was 34.5 months. Published studies of at least 24 weeks pioglitazone treatment in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus did not provide convincing evidence that patient-oriented outcomes like mortality, morbidity, adverse effects, costs and health-related quality of life are positively influenced by this compound. Metabolic control measured by glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) as a surrogate endpoint did not demonstrate clinically relevant differences to other oral antidiabetic drugs. Occurrence of oedema was significantly raised. The results of the single trial with relevant clinical endpoints (Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial In Macrovascular Events--PROactive study) have to be regarded as hypothesis-generating and need confirmation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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.

Can thiazolidinediones delay disease progression in type 2 diabetes?

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes results from increasing insulin resistance coupled with progressive loss of beta-cell function. Further deterioration of beta-cell function is associated with progression of diabetes and the potential development of microvascular and macrovascular complications.

SCOPE

This review examines current knowledge of beta-cell function and uses this information to assess how the results of ongoing trials could increase our understanding of disease progression and potential interventions. Data were derived from a Medline search using the search terms 'beta-cell dysfunction', 'IGT', 'thiazolidinediones', 'metformin', and 'sulfonylurea'.

RESULTS

The mechanisms that underlie beta-cell dysfunction are complex and most likely involve the interplay of a range of factors that reduce both beta-cell mass and secretory function. These include detrimental effects associated with hyperglycemia itself, elevated free fatty acids, and inflammatory responses linked to adipocyte-derived cytokines, with apoptosis a key underlying mechanism. Early intervention with treatments that address these defects, and preserve beta-cell function while improving insulin sensitivity, may delay disease progression in patients with type 2 diabetes and also prevent the development of diabetes in 'at-risk' individuals. Two of the studies examining the effects of interventions on development and progression of diabetes that are due to report shortly are ADOPT (A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial), comparing a thiazolidinedione, metformin and a sulfonylurea in patients with type 2 diabetes not previously treated with oral hypoglycemic agents, and DREAM (Diabetes REduction Assessment with ramipril and rosiglitazone Medication), assessing the effects of a thiazolidinedione and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance and/or impaired fasting glucose.

CONCLUSIONS

Although we do not have a full understanding of the mechanisms driving progression of type 2 diabetes, there is growing evidence that we may be able to modulate them and thereby improve patient outcomes.

Pioglitazone: an antidiabetic drug with the potency to reduce cardiovascular mortality

Pioglitazone is an antidiabetic drug known to decrease peripheral, hepatic and vascular insulin resistance by the stimulation of PPARgamma. In clinical trials, pioglitazone as monotherapy or in combination with other oral antidiabetic drugs or insulin has demonstrated to effectively improve blood glucose levels, long-term glucose control and the lipid profile. The vascular effects of pioglitazone include improvement of endothelial function and microcirculation, reduction of blood pressure and inflammatory surrogate markers of atherosclerosis, and a reduction of a composite measure of macrovascular events (death, stroke and myocardial infarctions). The drug is well tolerated and has an acceptable side effect profile. Because of its additional microvascular and macrovascular effects, pioglitazone is an attractive and effective treatment option for the management of Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

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

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

FINDINGS

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.

INTERPRETATION

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.