Comparative Efficacy of Lobeglitazone Versus Pioglitazone on Albuminuria in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus with stem cells and antidiabetic drugs: a dualistic and future-focused approach

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) accounts for more than 90% of total diabetes mellitus cases all over the world. Obesity and lack of balance between energy intake and energy expenditure are closely linked to T2DM. Initial pharmaceutical treatment and lifestyle interventions can at times lead to remission but usually help alleviate it to a certain extent and the condition remains, thus, recurrent with the patient being permanently pharmaco-dependent. Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are multipotent, self-renewing cells with the ability to secrete a variety of biological factors that can help restore and repair injured tissues. MSC-derived exosomes possess these properties of the original stem cells and are potentially able to confer superior effects due to advanced cell-to-cell signaling and the presence of stem cell-specific miRNAs. On the other hand, the repository of antidiabetic agents is constantly updated with novel T2DM disease-modifying drugs, with higher efficacy and increasingly convenient delivery protocols. Delving deeply, this review details the latest progress and ongoing studies related to the amalgamation of stem cells and antidiabetic drugs, establishing how this harmonized approach can exert superior effects in the management and potential reversal of T2DM.

Lobeglitazone and Its Therapeutic Benefits: A Review

Lobeglitazone is a newer oral hypoglycemic agent that has been tested in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aim to conduct a narrative review to find out the therapeutic benefits of lobeglitazone in patients with T2DM. We scientifically searched the electronic database of PubMed from inception until September 12, 2023, using Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) keywords. Additionally, we searched for pre-clinical trials related to lobeglitazone. We retrieved all available results of phase 1 to phase 3 studies of lobeglitazone in T2DM. Subsequently, we reviewed the results narratively. Three double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies and a phase 3 trial of lobeglitazone showed that 0.5 mg daily dose exhibits effective therapeutic activity in glycemic, lipid, and hepatic control, and is also used as a secondary treatment in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Lobeglitazone exhibits as much antidiabetic activity as other thiazolidinediones such as pioglitazone and rosiglitazone. Side effects of lobeglitazone included peripheral edema, weight gain, and bone mineral density, which did not require hospitalization for these effects. This article highlights the pharmacological, pre-clinical, clinical, and safety pharmacology of novel thiazolidinedione lobeglitazone.

Will lobeglitazone rival pioglitazone? A systematic review and critical appraisal

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lobeglitazone (LGZ), a newly researched thiazolidinedione (TZD) thought to have lesser side effects compared with pioglitazone (PGZ), has been recently approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in India. We aim to conduct an updated systematic review of LGZ to critically appraise its efficacy and safety in the context of PGZ.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was carried out in the electronic database of PubMed until Jan 15, 2023, using specific keywords and MeSH terms. All studies which evaluated LGZ in people with T2D were retrieved and data were synthesized with regard to its efficacy and safety. A comparative critical appraisal was additionally made in the context of PGZ in T2D.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled, one prospective observational, and two real-world studies have evaluated the safety and efficacy of LGZ against placebo or active comparators either as monotherapy or in combination therapy. HbA1c reduction with LGZ 0.5 mg was superior to the placebo but similar to PGZ 15 mg and sitagliptin (SITA) 100 mg. Weight gain with LGZ was significantly higher compared to placebo and SITA but similar to PGZ. Edema was more frequently observed with LGZ compared to placebo, PGZ, and SITA.

CONCLUSION

No substantial evidence is yet available that suggests LGZ could be a better alternative to PGZ both in the context of glycemic or extra-glycemic effects. At least in the short-term, adverse events of LGZ are indifferent from PGZ. More data is additionally needed to claim any advantage of LGZ over PGZ.

Efficacy and safety of lobeglitazone, a new Thiazolidinedione, as compared to the standard of care in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lobeglitazone as compared to the standard of care (SOC) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was the comparison of the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) level after 24 weeks. Pooled mean differences and odds ratios were calculated using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Of 267 studies that were screened, four were included. Treatment with adjunct lobeglitazone showed a reduction in the HbA1C level [mean difference: -0.23% (95% CI: -0.62 to 0.16); p = 0.24; i²: 87%; moderate GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and. Evaluation) of evidence], fasting blood glucose level [mean difference: -7.12 mg/dl (95% CI: -20.09 to 5.85); p = 0.28; i²: 87%; moderate GRADE of evidence], and lipid profile as compared to those following treatment with the SOC; however, the changes were not statistically significant. The risk of hypoglycemia was significantly lower [odds ratio: 0.24 (95% CI: 0.08 to 0.70); p < 0.05; i²: 0%; moderate GRADE of evidence] without any significant difference in the risk of drug-related adverse events [odds ratio: 1.59 (95% CI: 0.87 to 2.93); p = 0.13; i²: 0%; moderate GRADE of evidence] following treatment with lobeglitazone as compared to those following treatment with the SOC.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with adjunct lobeglitazone showed changes in the blood glycemic status and lipid profile similar to SOC in patients with T2DM, and the results were not statistically significant. Lobeglitazone was well tolerated; its safety profile was comparable to SOC.

Efficacy and safety of novel thiazolidinedione lobeglitazone for managing type-2 diabetes a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

No meta-analysis has analysed the safety and efficacy of lobeglitazone in type-2 diabetes (T2DM). We undertook this meta-analysis to address this knowledge-gap.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for RCTs involving type-2 diabetes patients receiving lobeglitazone in intervention arm, and placebo/active comparator in control arm. Primary outcome was to evaluate changes in HbA1c. Secondary outcomes were to evaluate alterations in glucose, lipids and adverse events.

RESULTS

From initially screened 65 articles, data from 4 RCTs (828 patients) which fulfilled all criteria was analysed. Over 24 weeks, when compared to sitagliptin 100 mg/d and half maximal pioglitazone dose (15 mg/d), lobeglitazone 0.5 mg/day had comparable impact on HbA1c [MD 0.03% (95%CI: 0.11-0.17); P = 0.65; I2 = 0%], fasting glucose [MD 1.47 mg/dl (95%CI: 4.66-7.60); P = 0.64; I2 = 0%], triglycerides [MD-9.96 mg/dl (95%CI: 43.55-23.62); P = 0.56; I2 = 81%], LDL-cholesterol [MD0.74 mg/dl (95%CI: 4.60-6.09); P = 0.79; I2 = 0%] and HDL-cholesterol [MD1.55 mg/dl (95%CI: 3.72-6.82); P = 0.56]. Occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) [RR 1.07 (95% CI:0.78-1.47); P = 0.67; I2 = 0%] and severe AEs [RR 1.05(95%CI: 0.42-2.65); P = 0.91; I2 = 0%] were similar. Edema and weight gain were significantly higher with lobeglitazone compared to controls [RR 2.58 (95%CI: 1.08-6.17); P = 0.03; I2 = 0%]. Lobeglitazone 0.5 mg/d compared to half-maximal pioglitazone (15 mg/d), had similar edema and weight gain [RR 1.65 95% CI: 0.78-1.47)]. BMD percent changes at neck of femur was comparable in both groups [MD 0.07% (95%CI: 0.19-0.33); P = 0.60; I2 = 91%]. Low dose lobeglitazone (0.25 mg/d) was inferior to high dose lobeglitazone (0.5 mg/d) with regards to glycaemic efficacy with advantage of lower weight gain and edema.

CONCLUSION

The current evidence makes lobeglitazone unlikely to replace pioglitazone as the preferred thiazolidinedione in T2DM.

A double-blind, Randomized controlled trial on glucose-lowering EFfects and safety of adding 0.25 or 0.5 mg lobeglitazone in type 2 diabetes patients with INadequate control on metformin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor therapy: REFIND study

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of adding low-dose lobeglitazone (0.25 mg/day) or standard-dose lobeglitazone (0.5 mg/day) to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with inadequate glucose control on metformin and dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP4) inhibitor therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this phase 4, multicentre, double-blind, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial, patients with T2DM insufficiently controlled by metformin and DPP4 inhibitor combination therapy were randomized to receive either low-dose or standard-dose lobeglitazone. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of low-dose lobeglitazone in terms of glycaemic control, expressed as the difference in mean glycated haemoglobin levels at week 24 relative to baseline values and compared with standard-dose lobeglitazone, using 0.5% non-inferiority margin.

RESULTS

At week 24, the mean glycated haemoglobin levels were 6.87 ± 0.54% and 6.68 ± 0.46% in low-dose and standard-dose lobeglitazone groups, respectively (p = .031). The between-group difference was 0.18% (95% confidence interval 0.017-0.345), showing non-inferiority of the low-dose lobeglitazone. Mean body weight changes were significantly greater in the standard-dose group (1.36 ± 2.23 kg) than in the low-dose group (0.50 ± 1.85 kg) at week 24. The changes in HOMA-IR, lipid profile and liver enzyme levels showed no significant difference between the groups. Overall treatment-emergent adverse events (including weight gain, oedema and hypoglycaemia) occurred more frequently in the standard-dose group.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding low-dose lobeglitazone to metformin and DPP4 inhibitor combination resulted in a non-inferior glucose-lowering outcome and fewer adverse events compared with standard-dose lobeglitazone. Therefore, low-dose lobeglitazone might be one option for individualized strategy in patients with T2DM.

Treatment of type 2 diabetes: challenges, hopes, and anticipated successes

Despite the successful development of new therapies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, such as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, the search for novel treatment options that can provide better glycaemic control and at reduce complications is a continuous effort. The present Review aims to present an overview of novel targets and mechanisms and focuses on glucose-lowering effects guiding this search and developments. We discuss not only novel developments of insulin therapy (eg, so-called smart insulin preparation with a glucose-dependent mode of action), but also a group of drug classes for which extensive research efforts have not been rewarded with obvious clinical impact. We discuss the potential clinical use of the salutary adipokine adiponectin and the hepatokine fibroblast growth factor (FGF) 21, among others. A GLP-1 peptide receptor agonist (semaglutide) is now available for oral absorption, and small molecules activating GLP-1 receptors appear on the horizon. Bariatric surgery and its accompanying changes in the gut hormonal milieu offer a background for unimolecular peptides interacting with two or more receptors (for GLP-1, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, glucagon, and peptide YY) and provide more substantial glycaemic control and bodyweight reduction compared with selective GLP-1 receptor agonists. These and additional approaches will help expand the toolbox of effective medications needed for optimising the treatment of well delineated subgroups of type 2 diabetes or help develop personalised approaches for glucose-lowering drugs based on individual characteristics of our patients.