3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy and Safety of Pioglitazone Monotherapy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Pioglitazone, the only thiazolidinedione drug in clinical practice is under scrutiny due to reported adverse effects, it’s unique insulin sensitising action provides rationale to remain as a therapeutic option for managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing pioglitazone monotherapy with monotherapies of other oral antidiabetic drugs for assessing its efficacy and safety in T2DM patients. Mean changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), and mean changes in fasting blood sugar (FBS) level, body weight (BW) and homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) were primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Safety outcomes were changes in lipid parameters, blood pressure and incidences of adverse events. Metafor package of R software and RevMan software based on random-effects model were used for analyses. We included 16 randomised controlled trials. Pioglitazone monotherapy showed equivalent efficacy as comparators in reducing HbA1c by 0.05% (95% CI: −0.21 to 0.11) and greater efficacy in reducing FBS level by 0.24 mmol/l (95% CI: −0.48 to −0.01). Pioglitazone showed similar efficacy as comparators in reducing HOMA-IR (WMD: 0.05, 95% CI: −0.49 to 0.59) and increasing high-density lipoprotein level (WMD: 0.02 mmol/l, 95% CI: −0.06 to 0.10). Improved blood pressure (WMD: −1.05 mmHg, 95% CI: −4.29 to 2.19) and triglycerides level (WMD: −0.71 mmol/l, 95% CI: −1.70 to 0.28) were also observed with pioglitazone monotherapy. There was a significant association of pioglitazone with increased BW (WMD: 2.06 kg, 95% CI: 1.11 to 3.01) and risk of oedema (RR: 2.21, 95% CI: 1.48 to 3.31), though the risk of hypoglycaemia was absolutely lower (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.80). Meta-analysis supported pioglitazone as an effective treatment option for T2DM patients to ameliorate hyperglycaemia, adverse lipid metabolism and blood pressure. Pioglitazone is suggested to prescribe following individual patient’s needs. It can be a choice of drug for insulin resistant T2DM patients having dyslipidaemia, hypertension or history of cardiovascular disease.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors on cardiovascular events, death, and major safety outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

          In patients with type 2 diabetes, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are known to reduce glucose concentrations, blood pressure, and weight, but to increase LDL cholesterol and the incidence of urogenital infections. Protection against cardiovascular events has also been reported, as have possible increased risks of adverse outcomes such as ketoacidosis and bone fracture. We aimed to establish the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular events, death, and safety outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes, both overall and separately for individual drugs.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of pioglitazone compared with glimepiride on carotid intima-media thickness in type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial.

            Carotid artery intima-media thickness (CIMT) is a marker of coronary atherosclerosis and independently predicts cardiovascular events, which are increased in type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). While studies of relatively short duration have suggested that thiazolidinediones such as pioglitazone might reduce progression of CIMT in persons with diabetes, the results of longer studies have been less clear. To evaluate the effect of pioglitazone vs glimepiride on changes in CIMT of the common carotid artery in patients with type 2 DM. Randomized, double-blind, comparator-controlled, multicenter trial in patients with type 2 DM conducted at 28 clinical sites in the multiracial/ethnic Chicago metropolitan area between October 2003 and May 2006. The treatment period was 72 weeks (1-week follow-up). CIMT images were captured by a single ultrasonographer at 1 center and read by a single treatment-blinded reader using automated edge-detection technology. Participants were 462 adults (mean age, 60 [SD, 8.1] years; mean body mass index, 32 [SD, 5.1]) with type 2 DM (mean duration, 7.7 [SD, 7.2] years; mean glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c] value, 7.4% [SD, 1.0%]), either newly diagnosed or currently treated with diet and exercise, sulfonylurea, metformin, insulin, or a combination thereof. Pioglitazone hydrochloride (15-45 mg/d) or glimepiride (1-4 mg/d) as an active comparator. Absolute change from baseline to final visit in mean posterior-wall CIMT of the left and right common carotid arteries. Mean change in CIMT was less with pioglitazone vs glimepiride at all time points (weeks 24, 48, 72). At week 72, the primary end point of progression of mean CIMT was less with pioglitazone vs glimepiride (-0.001 mm vs +0.012 mm, respectively; difference, -0.013 mm; 95% confidence interval, -0.024 to -0.002; P = .02). Pioglitazone also slowed progression of maximum CIMT compared with glimepiride (0.002 mm vs 0.026 mm, respectively, at 72 weeks; difference, -0.024 mm; 95% confidence interval, -0.042 to -0.006; P = .008). The beneficial effect of pioglitazone on mean CIMT was similar across prespecified subgroups based on age, sex, systolic blood pressure, duration of DM, body mass index, HbA(1c) value, and statin use. Over an 18-month treatment period in patients with type 2 DM, pioglitazone slowed progression of CIMT compared with glimepiride. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00225264
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

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

              Published reports suggest that pioglitazone and rosiglitazone have different effects on lipids in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, these previous studies were either retrospective chart reviews or clinical trials not rigorously controlled for concomitant glucose- and lipid-lowering therapies. This study examines the lipid and glycemic effects of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone. We enrolled subjects with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (treated with diet alone or oral monotherapy) and dyslipidemia (not treated with any lipid-lowering agents). After a 4-week placebo washout period, subjects randomly assigned to the pioglitazone arm (n = 400) were treated with 30 mg once daily for 12 weeks followed by 45 mg once daily for an additional 12 weeks, whereas subjects randomly assigned to rosiglitazone (n = 402) were treated with 4 mg once daily followed by 4 mg twice daily for the same intervals. Triglyceride levels were reduced by 51.9 +/- 7.8 mg/dl with pioglitazone, but were increased by 13.1 +/- 7.8 mg/dl with rosiglitazone (P < 0.001 between treatments). Additionally, the increase in HDL cholesterol was greater (5.2 +/- 0.5 vs. 2.4 +/- 0.5 mg/dl; P < 0.001) and the increase in LDL cholesterol was less (12.3 +/- 1.6 vs. 21.3 +/- 1.6 mg/dl; P < 0.001) for pioglitazone compared with rosiglitazone, respectively. LDL particle concentration was reduced with pioglitazone and increased with rosiglitazone (P < 0.001). LDL particle size increased more with pioglitazone (P = 0.005). Pioglitazone and rosiglitazone have significantly different effects on plasma lipids independent of glycemic control or concomitant lipid-lowering or other antihyperglycemic therapy. Pioglitazone compared with rosiglitazone is associated with significant improvements in triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, LDL particle concentration, and LDL particle size.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                alam.fahmida@yahoo.com
                gan.siewhua@monash.edu
                Journal
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2045-2322
                29 March 2019
                29 March 2019
                2019
                : 9
                : 5389
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2294 3534, GRID grid.11875.3a, Human Genome Centre, School of Medical Sciences, , Universiti Sains Malaysia, ; 16150 Kubang Kerian, Kelantan Malaysia
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2294 3534, GRID grid.11875.3a, Department of Haematology, School of Medical Sciences, , Universiti Sains Malaysia, ; 16150 Kubang Kerian, Kelantan Malaysia
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2294 3534, GRID grid.11875.3a, Department of Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, , Universiti Sains Malaysia, ; 16150 Kubang Kerian, Kelantan Malaysia
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2294 3534, GRID grid.11875.3a, Department of Family Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, , Universiti Sains Malaysia, ; 16150 Kubang Kerian, Kelantan Malaysia
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0619 1117, GRID grid.412125.1, King Fahd Medical Research Center, , King Abdulaziz University, ; P. O. Box 80216, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
                [6 ]Enzymoics, 7 Peterlee Place, Hebersham, NSW 2770 Australia
                [7 ]Novel Global Community Educational Foundation, NSW, Australia
                [8 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8868, GRID grid.4563.4, Division of Medical Sciences & Graduate Entry Medicine, School of Medicine, , University of Nottingham, Royal Derby Hospital Centre, ; Derby, UK
                [9 ]GRID grid.440425.3, School of Pharmacy, Monash University Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, ; 47500 Bandar Sunway, Selangor Malaysia
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5937-6473
                Article
                41854
                10.1038/s41598-019-41854-2
                6441028
                30926892
                302be2cf-db31-44f8-a486-61c618833c2f
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 8 October 2018
                : 14 March 2019
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article