OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of pioglitazone with glimepiride on coronary arterial inflammation with serial (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) combined with computed tomography (CT) angiography. BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that FDG-PET combined with CT is a reliable tool to visualize and quantify vascular inflammation. Although pioglitazone significantly prevented the progression of coronary atherosclerosis and reduced the recurrence of myocardial infarction in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), it remains unclear whether pioglitazone could attenuate coronary artery inflammation. METHODS:Fifty atherosclerotic patients with impaired glucose tolerance or type 2 DM underwent determination of blood chemistries, anthropometric and inflammatory variables, and FDG-PET/CT angiography, and then were randomized to receive either pioglitazone or glimepiride for 16 weeks. Effects of the treatments on vascular inflammation of the left main trunk were evaluated by FDG-PET/CT angiography at baseline and end of the study. Vascular inflammation of the left main trunk was measured by blood-normalized standardized uptake value, known as a target-to-background ratio. RESULTS: Three patients dropped out of the study during the assessment or treatment. Finally, 25 pioglitazone-treated patients and 22 glimepiride-treated patients (37 men; mean age: 68.1 ± 8.3 years; glycosylated hemoglobin: 6.72 ± 0.70%) completed the study. After 16-week treatments, fasting plasma glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin values were comparably reduced in both groups. Changes in target-to-background ratio values from baseline were significantly greater in the pioglitazone group than in the glimepiride group (-0.12 ± 0.06 vs. 0.09 ± 0.07, p = 0.032), as well as changes in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (pioglitazone vs. glimepiride group: median: -0.24 [interquartile range (IQR): -1.58 to -0.04] mg/l vs. 0.08 [IQR: -0.07 to 0.79] mg/l, p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicated that pioglitazone attenuated left main trunk inflammation in patients with impaired glucose tolerance or DM in a glucose-lowering independent manner, suggesting that pioglitazone may protect against cardiac events in patients with impaired glucose tolerance or DM by suppressing coronary inflammation. (Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Pioglitazone; NCT00722631).
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of pioglitazone with glimepiride on coronary arterial inflammation with serial (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) combined with computed tomography (CT) angiography. BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that FDG-PET combined with CT is a reliable tool to visualize and quantify vascular inflammation. Although pioglitazone significantly prevented the progression of coronary atherosclerosis and reduced the recurrence of myocardial infarction in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), it remains unclear whether pioglitazone could attenuate coronary artery inflammation. METHODS: Fifty atheroscleroticpatients with impaired glucose tolerance or type 2 DM underwent determination of blood chemistries, anthropometric and inflammatory variables, and FDG-PET/CT angiography, and then were randomized to receive either pioglitazone or glimepiride for 16 weeks. Effects of the treatments on vascular inflammation of the left main trunk were evaluated by FDG-PET/CT angiography at baseline and end of the study. Vascular inflammation of the left main trunk was measured by blood-normalized standardized uptake value, known as a target-to-background ratio. RESULTS: Three patients dropped out of the study during the assessment or treatment. Finally, 25 pioglitazone-treated patients and 22 glimepiride-treated patients (37 men; mean age: 68.1 ± 8.3 years; glycosylated hemoglobin: 6.72 ± 0.70%) completed the study. After 16-week treatments, fasting plasma glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin values were comparably reduced in both groups. Changes in target-to-background ratio values from baseline were significantly greater in the pioglitazone group than in the glimepiride group (-0.12 ± 0.06 vs. 0.09 ± 0.07, p = 0.032), as well as changes in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (pioglitazone vs. glimepiride group: median: -0.24 [interquartile range (IQR): -1.58 to -0.04] mg/l vs. 0.08 [IQR: -0.07 to 0.79] mg/l, p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicated that pioglitazone attenuated left main trunk inflammation in patients with impaired glucose tolerance or DM in a glucose-lowering independent manner, suggesting that pioglitazone may protect against cardiac events in patients with impaired glucose tolerance or DM by suppressing coronary inflammation. (Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Pioglitazone; NCT00722631).
Authors: Lawrence H Young; Catherine M Viscoli; Jeptha P Curtis; Silvio E Inzucchi; Gregory G Schwartz; Anne M Lovejoy; Karen L Furie; Mark J Gorman; Robin Conwit; J Dawn Abbott; Daniel L Jacoby; Daniel M Kolansky; Steven E Pfau; Frederick S Ling; Walter N Kernan Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Parmanand Singh; Hamed Emami; Sharath Subramanian; Pal Maurovich-Horvat; Gergana Marincheva-Savcheva; Hector M Medina; Amr Abdelbaky; Achilles Alon; Sudha S Shankar; James H F Rudd; Zahi A Fayad; Udo Hoffmann; Ahmed Tawakol Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 7.792