CONTEXT: High-density lipoproteins (HDLs) from type 2 diabetic patients are unable to counteract the inhibitory effect of oxidized low-density lipoproteins (ox-LDLs) on vasorelaxation. We hypothesized that glitazones, which improve glycemic control and dyslipidemia, could correct this abnormality. OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN: We compared the ability of HDL from controls (n = 12) and from type 2 diabetic patients before and after 6 months of treatment with either rosiglitazone (n = 11) or pioglitazone (n = 8) to counteract the inhibitory effect of ox-LDL on vasodilatation of rabbit aorta rings. RESULTS:Rosiglitazone induced a decrease in hemoglobin A1c (7.7% ± 1.1% vs 9.8% ± 1.0%, P = .003) and an increase in HDL cholesterol (1.14 ± 0.32 vs 0.98 ± 0.24 mmol/L, P = .033). Pioglitazone induced a decrease in hemoglobin A1c (8.3% ± 2.5% vs 9.5% ± 3.2%, P = .068) and serum triglycerides (1.58 ± 0.89 vs 2.03 ± 0.70 mmol/L, P = .069) and an increase in HDL cholesterol (1.39 ± 0.22 vs 1.14 ± 0.22 mmol/L, P = .018). The triglyceride content of HDL was unchanged by rosiglitazone and was decreased by 25% (P = .068) by pioglitazone. HDL from controls counteracted the inhibitory effect of ox-LDL on vasodilatation (maximal relaxation [Emax] = 74.4% ± 3.5% vs 51.9% ± 3.3%, P = .0029), whereas HDL from type 2 diabetic patients did not (Emax = 51.7% ± 5.8% vs 52.3% ± 4.6% [P = .66] and 52.7% ± 5.5% vs 51.9% ± 4.5% [P = .78] for the rosiglitazone and pioglitazone group, respectively). Rosiglitazone or pioglitazone did not improve Emax (58.6% ± 5.9% vs 52.3% ± 4.6% [P = .15] and 49.3% ± 6.5% vs 51.9% ± 4.5% [P = .48], respectively). CONCLUSION: Glitazones increased the concentration of HDL cholesterol without restoring the ability of HDL particles to protect the endothelium from oxidative stress-induced dysfunction, meaning that HDL remained dysfunctional with impaired antiatherogenic properties.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: High-density lipoproteins (HDLs) from type 2 diabeticpatients are unable to counteract the inhibitory effect of oxidized low-density lipoproteins (ox-LDLs) on vasorelaxation. We hypothesized that glitazones, which improve glycemic control and dyslipidemia, could correct this abnormality. OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN: We compared the ability of HDL from controls (n = 12) and from type 2 diabeticpatients before and after 6 months of treatment with either rosiglitazone (n = 11) or pioglitazone (n = 8) to counteract the inhibitory effect of ox-LDL on vasodilatation of rabbit aorta rings. RESULTS:Rosiglitazone induced a decrease in hemoglobin A1c (7.7% ± 1.1% vs 9.8% ± 1.0%, P = .003) and an increase in HDL cholesterol (1.14 ± 0.32 vs 0.98 ± 0.24 mmol/L, P = .033). Pioglitazone induced a decrease in hemoglobin A1c (8.3% ± 2.5% vs 9.5% ± 3.2%, P = .068) and serum triglycerides (1.58 ± 0.89 vs 2.03 ± 0.70 mmol/L, P = .069) and an increase in HDL cholesterol (1.39 ± 0.22 vs 1.14 ± 0.22 mmol/L, P = .018). The triglyceride content of HDL was unchanged by rosiglitazone and was decreased by 25% (P = .068) by pioglitazone. HDL from controls counteracted the inhibitory effect of ox-LDL on vasodilatation (maximal relaxation [Emax] = 74.4% ± 3.5% vs 51.9% ± 3.3%, P = .0029), whereas HDL from type 2 diabeticpatients did not (Emax = 51.7% ± 5.8% vs 52.3% ± 4.6% [P = .66] and 52.7% ± 5.5% vs 51.9% ± 4.5% [P = .78] for the rosiglitazone and pioglitazone group, respectively). Rosiglitazone or pioglitazone did not improve Emax (58.6% ± 5.9% vs 52.3% ± 4.6% [P = .15] and 49.3% ± 6.5% vs 51.9% ± 4.5% [P = .48], respectively). CONCLUSION:Glitazones increased the concentration of HDL cholesterol without restoring the ability of HDL particles to protect the endothelium from oxidative stress-induced dysfunction, meaning that HDL remained dysfunctional with impaired antiatherogenic properties.