BACKGROUND:Pioglitazone and glimepiride improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus by different mechanisms. Pioglitazone is a thiazolidinedione that reduces insulin resistance, and glimepiride is a sulfonylurea insulin secretagogue. OBJECTIVE: The goals of this study were to compare changes in measures of glycemic control and insulin sensitivity in Mexican patients with type 2 diabetes who receivedpioglitazone or glimepiridefor 1 year. METHODS: This was a multicenter, 52-week, double-blind, parallel-group trial. Patients were randomized to receive monotherapy with either glimepiride (2 mg QD initially) or pioglitazone (15 mg QD initially). Doses were titrated (maximal doses: pioglitazone 45 mg, glimepiride 8 mg) to achieve glycemic targets (fasting blood glucose < or =7 mmol/L and 1-hour postprandial blood glucose < or =10 mmol/L). Insulin sensitivity (primary end point) was evaluated in terms of the Homeostasis Model Assessment for Insulin Sensitivity (HOMA-S), the Quantitative Insulin Sensitivity Check Index (QUICKI), and fasting serum insulin (FSI) concentrations. Glycemic control was evaluated in terms of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) values and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentrations. Patients were encouraged to maintain their individual diet and exercise regimens throughout the study. RESULTS:Two hundred forty-four patients (125 women, 119 men; all but 1 Hispanic) were randomized to receive pioglitazone (n = 121) or glimepiride (n = 123). In the intent-to-treat sample, pioglitazone and glimepirede produced comparable reductions in HbA(1c) from baseline to the end of the study (-0.78% and -0.68%, respectively). The pioglitazone group had significantly higher HbA(1c) values compared with the glimepiride group after 12 weeks of therapy (8.66% vs 7.80%; P = 0.007) but had significantly lower values after 52 weeks (7.46% vs 7.77%; P = 0.027). Pioglitazone significantly reduced FPG compared with glimepiride (-0.6 vs 0.6 mmol/L; P = 0.01). Pioglitazone therapy was associated with significant increases in insulin sensitivity (reduced insulin resistance), whereas glimepiride had no effect. HOMA-S values changed 18.0% for pioglitazone and -7.9% for glimepiride (P < 0.001), QUICKI values changed a respective 0.013 and -0.007 (P < 0.001), and FSI values were -21.1 and 15.1 pmol/L (P< 0.001). Both drugs were well tolerated, with pioglitazone associated with more peripheral edema (number of treatment-emergent cases: 35/121[28.9%] vs 17/123 [13.8%]; P = 0.005) and fewer hypoglycemic episodes (19 [15.7%] vs 38 [30.9%]; P = 0.024). The incidence of weight gain was not significantly different between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that long-term treatment with pioglitazone enhances insulin sensitivity relative to glimepiride in Mexican patients with type 2 diabetes and that pioglitazone may have a more sustained antihyperglycemic effect.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Pioglitazone and glimepiride improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus by different mechanisms. Pioglitazone is a thiazolidinedione that reduces insulin resistance, and glimepiride is a sulfonylurea insulin secretagogue. OBJECTIVE: The goals of this study were to compare changes in measures of glycemic control and insulin sensitivity in Mexican patients with type 2 diabetes who received pioglitazone or glimepiride for 1 year. METHODS: This was a multicenter, 52-week, double-blind, parallel-group trial. Patients were randomized to receive monotherapy with either glimepiride (2 mg QD initially) or pioglitazone (15 mg QD initially). Doses were titrated (maximal doses: pioglitazone 45 mg, glimepiride 8 mg) to achieve glycemic targets (fasting blood glucose < or =7 mmol/L and 1-hour postprandial blood glucose < or =10 mmol/L). Insulin sensitivity (primary end point) was evaluated in terms of the Homeostasis Model Assessment for Insulin Sensitivity (HOMA-S), the Quantitative Insulin Sensitivity Check Index (QUICKI), and fasting serum insulin (FSI) concentrations. Glycemic control was evaluated in terms of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) values and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentrations. Patients were encouraged to maintain their individual diet and exercise regimens throughout the study. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-four patients (125 women, 119 men; all but 1 Hispanic) were randomized to receive pioglitazone (n = 121) or glimepiride (n = 123). In the intent-to-treat sample, pioglitazone and glimepirede produced comparable reductions in HbA(1c) from baseline to the end of the study (-0.78% and -0.68%, respectively). The pioglitazone group had significantly higher HbA(1c) values compared with the glimepiride group after 12 weeks of therapy (8.66% vs 7.80%; P = 0.007) but had significantly lower values after 52 weeks (7.46% vs 7.77%; P = 0.027). Pioglitazone significantly reduced FPG compared with glimepiride (-0.6 vs 0.6 mmol/L; P = 0.01). Pioglitazone therapy was associated with significant increases in insulin sensitivity (reduced insulin resistance), whereas glimepiride had no effect. HOMA-S values changed 18.0% for pioglitazone and -7.9% for glimepiride (P < 0.001), QUICKI values changed a respective 0.013 and -0.007 (P < 0.001), and FSI values were -21.1 and 15.1 pmol/L (P< 0.001). Both drugs were well tolerated, with pioglitazone associated with more peripheral edema (number of treatment-emergent cases: 35/121[28.9%] vs 17/123 [13.8%]; P = 0.005) and fewer hypoglycemic episodes (19 [15.7%] vs 38 [30.9%]; P = 0.024). The incidence of weight gain was not significantly different between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that long-term treatment with pioglitazone enhances insulin sensitivity relative to glimepiride in Mexican patients with type 2 diabetes and that pioglitazone may have a more sustained antihyperglycemic effect.
Authors: Z Punthakee; J Bosch; G Dagenais; R Diaz; R Holman; J L Probstfield; A Ramachandran; M C Riddle; L E Rydén; B Zinman; R Afzal; S Yusuf; H C Gerstein Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2011-10-29 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: A Avogaro; M Federici; J Betteridge; R Bonadonna; I W Campbell; G H Schernthaner; B Staels; E Farinaro; G Crepaldi Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 4.256