噻唑烷二酮类药物对氯米芬抵抗型的多囊卵巢综合征不孕患者治疗有效性的Meta分析

目的:系统评价罗格列酮、吡格列酮等噻唑烷二酮类药物(TZD)治疗氯米芬(CC)抵抗型多囊卵巢综合征(PCOS)不孕患者的疗效。方法:计算机检索Pubmed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、CNKI、维普、生物医学文献、万方等数据库,检索时间截止至2015年1月。由两名评价者按照纳入与排除标准独立筛选文献、提取资料并评价纳入研究的方法学质量后,采用Rev Man 5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果:最终纳入4个随机对照研究,222例CC抵抗型PCOS不孕患者。Meta分析结果表明,TZD组在排卵率、妊娠率、成熟卵泡数、改善卵泡刺激素(FSH)、黄体生成素(LH)、睾酮(T)方面均优于对照组,其中提高排卵率[MD=2.14;95%CI(1.16,3.95),P=0.02]、妊娠率[MD=2.02;95%CI(1.14,3.58),P=0.02]、增加成熟卵泡数[MD=0.82;95%CI(0.61,1.04),P<0.01]及降低LH值[MD=-1.18;95%CI(-1.76,-0.60),P<0.01]等4个结局指标的两组间差异具有统计学意义。结论:对于生育要求较强、经济条件好且胰岛素抵抗较严重的CC抵抗型PCOS患者,可首选TZD预治疗。     

罗格列酮对2型糖尿病患者C-反应蛋白的影响

目的探讨罗格列酮对2型糖尿病患者C-反应蛋白水平的影响。方法将40例2型糖尿病患者随机分为研究组26例,对照组14例。两组均在饮食控制、运动疗法的基础上,口服降糖药物治疗。研究组联合罗格列酮治疗。观察12w。于治疗前后测定两组患者的糖化血红蛋白、空腹血糖、空腹胰岛素、甘油三脂、胆固醇、C-反应蛋白,计算胰岛素抵抗指数,对两组测定结果进行对比分析。结果治疗12w末,研究组糖化血红蛋白、空腹血糖、空腹胰岛素、C-反应蛋白及胰岛素抵抗指数均较治疗前有显著下降（P〈0.01）;甘油三脂及胆固醇虽有所下降,但差异无显著性（P〉0.05）。对照组各项生化指标虽较治疗前有所下降,但差异均无显著性（P〉0.05）。两组间比较研究组C-反应蛋白水平较对照组下降显著（P〈0.01）。结论罗格列酮治疗2型糖尿病,不仅能提高患者的胰岛素敏感性,改善胰岛素抵抗显著降低血糖,而且可显著降低血浆C-反应蛋白水平,为预防糖尿病及其并发症提供了新的前景。     

Rosiglitazone may reduce thyroid cancer risk in patients with type 2 diabetes

Abstract

Background. Whether rosiglitazone use in patients with type 2 diabetes may affect thyroid cancer risk has not been investigated.

Methods. The reimbursement databases of all diabetic patients under oral anti-diabetic agents or insulin from 1996 to 2009 were retrieved from the National Health Insurance of Taiwan. An entry date was set at 1 January 2006, and 887,665 patients with type 2 diabetes were followed for thyroid cancer incidence until the end of 2009 for ever-users, never-users, and subgroups of rosiglitazone exposure using tertile cut-offs for time since starting rosiglitazone, duration of therapy, and cumulative dose. Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.

Results. There were 103,224 ever-users and 784,441 never-users, with respective numbers of incident thyroid cancer of 84 (0.08%) and 764 (0.10%), and respective incidence of 23.12 and 28.09 per 100,000 person-years. The overall multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio was not significant. However, in dose-response analyses, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were significant for the third tertile of duration of therapy (≥ 14 months) and cumulative dose (≥ 1,800 mg) for age ≥ 50 years: 0.53 (0.31–0.89) and 0.50 (0.29–0.87), respectively.

Conclusions. This study suggests that rosiglitazone use in patients with type 2 diabetes may reduce the risk of thyroid cancer.     

Combinations of ezetimibe with nonstatin drug regimens affecting lipid metabolism

In this article we discuss the available data on the effects of combined therapy of ezetimibe with agents affecting lipid metabolism other than statins. We consider studies evaluating the effects of combined therapy of ezetimibe with bile acid sequestrants, fenofibrate, niacin, n-3 fatty acids, plant sterols, orlistat, metformin, acarbose and glitazones. Combination of ezetimibe with bile acid sequestrants (especially colesevelam) was shown to have additional effects on lipid parameters in patients with hyperlipidemia. Combination of ezetimibe with fenofibrate may be a good approach to improve the overall lipid profile of patients with mixed hyperlipidemia. The addition of ezetimibe to niacin-based therapy can be useful for high-risk patients with dyslipidemia who are not achieving their assigned treatment goals. For patients who cannot tolerate statins there are useful combinations of ezetimibe with other drugs affecting lipid metabolism. These combinations improve many metabolic parameters, but more trials should be carried out to reach more robust conclusions about their effects on cardiovascular disease prevention.     

Initial treatment with fixed-dose combination rosiglitazone/glimepiride in patients with previously untreated type 2 diabetes

Aim: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of two different dosing regimens of fixed‐dose combination (FDC) rosiglitazone (RSG) plus glimepiride (GLIM) compared with RSG or GLIM monotherapy in drug‐naive subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods: Drug‐naive subjects (n = 901) were enrolled into this 28‐week, double‐blind, parallel‐group study if their glycosylated haemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) was >7.5% but ≤12%. Subjects were randomized to receive either GLIM [4 mg once daily (OD) maximal], RSG (8 mg OD maximal) or RSG/GLIM FDC regimen A (4 mg/4 mg OD maximal) or RSG/GLIM FDC regimen B (8 mg/4 mg OD maximal). Patients were assessed for efficacy and safety every 4 weeks for the first 12 weeks of the study, and at weeks 20 and 28. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in HbA_1c from baseline. Key secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients achieving recommended HbA_1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) targets; change from baseline in FPG, insulin, C‐reactive protein (CRP), adiponectin, free fatty acids and lipids; and percentage change in homeostasis model assessment‐estimated insulin sensitivity and β‐cell function. Safety evaluations included adverse‐event (AE) monitoring and clinical laboratory evaluations. Results: At week 28, both RSG/GLIM FDC regimens significantly reduced HbA_1c (mean ± s.d.: ?2.4 ± 1.4% FDC regimen A; ?2.5 ± 1.4% FDC regimen B) to a greater extent than RSG (?1.8 ± 1.5%) or GLIM (?1.7 ± 1.4%) monotherapy (model‐adjusted mean treatment difference, p < 0.0001 vs. both RSG and GLIM). Significantly more subjects achieved HbA_1c target levels of ≤6.5 and <7% with either RSG/GLIM FDC regimen compared with RSG or GLIM alone (model‐adjusted odds ratio, p < 0.0001 for both comparisons). Similarly, a significantly greater reduction in FPG levels was observed in subjects treated with the RSG/GLIM FDC [mean ± s.d. (mg/dl): ?69.5 ± 57.5 FDC regimen A; ?79.9 ± 56.8 FDC regimen B) compared with RSG (?56.6 ± 58.1) or GLIM (?42.2 ± 66.1) monotherapy (model‐adjusted mean treatment difference, p < 0.0001 for both comparisons). Improvement in CRP was also observed in subjects who were treated with a RSG/GLIM FDC or RSG monotherapy compared with GLIM monotherapy. RSG/GLIM FDC was generally well tolerated, with no new safety or tolerability issues identified from its monotherapy components, and a similar AE profile was observed across FDC regimens. The most commonly reported AE was hypoglycaemia, and the incidence of confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia (3.6–5.5%) was comparable among subjects treated with an RSG/GLIM FDC and GLIM monotherapy. Conclusions: Compared with RSG or GLIM monotherapy, the RSG/GLIM FDC improved glycaemic control with no significant increased risk of hypoglycaemia. RSG/GLIM FDC provides an effective and well‐tolerated treatment option for drug‐naive individuals with T2DM.     

Metformin-glibenclamide versus metformin plus rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy

AIM: This double-blind study evaluated the efficacy and safety of metformin-glibenclamide tablets vs. metformin plus rosiglitazone therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: After an open-label, metformin lead-in phase, 318 patients were randomly assigned to treatment based on metformin-glibenclamide 500/2.5 mg tablets (initial daily dose 1000/5 mg) or metformin 500 mg plus rosiglitazone 4 mg (initial daily dose 1000-2000 mg + 4 mg, depending on previous treatment) for 24 weeks. Doses were titrated to achieve the therapeutic glycaemic target. The primary efficacy variable was the change in HbA1C. RESULTS: At week 24, metformin-glibenclamide tablets resulted in significantly greater reductions in HbA1C (-1.5%) and fasting plasma glucose [-2.6 mmol/l (-46 mg/dl)] than metformin plus rosiglitazone [-1.1%, p < 0.001; -2 mmol/l (-36 mg/dl), p = 0.03]. More patients receiving metformin-glibenclamide attained HbA1C <7.0% than did those in the metformin plus rosiglitazone group (60 vs. 47%) and had fasting plasma glucose levels <7 mmol/l (<126 mg/dl) by week 24 (34 vs. 25%). Both treatments were well tolerated. Frequency of adverse gastrointestinal events was comparable between groups. Four per cent of patients receiving metformin-glibenclamide withdrew because of symptomatic hypoglycaemia contrasted with 3% of patients receiving metformin plus rosiglitazone who withdrew because of persistent hyperglycaemia. Hypoglycaemic events were mild or moderate in intensity and were easily self-managed. CONCLUSIONS: Metformin-glibenclamide tablets resulted in significantly greater reductions in HbA1C and fasting plasma glucose compared with metformin plus rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.     

miR-335启动子活性鉴定及药物干预

目的:探讨miR-335上游片段是否具有转录活性以及罗格列酮和胰岛素对miR-335启动子区域转录活性的影响。方法:利用PCR技术克隆位于MEST内含子中miR-335上游区域的不同片段,采用双荧光素酶报告基因系统鉴定其转录活性。使用1μmol/L的罗格列酮及不同浓度的胰岛素进行干预并观察转录活性有无变化。结果:不同的miR-335启动子区域转录活性不同,在miR-335上游约600个碱基区域活性最高。未使用药物干预组细胞中,miR-335启动子区域活性的表达与基础值相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);使用1μmol/L罗格列酮干预后,miR-335启动子区域活性显著升高(P<0.01),使用10~12 mol/L的胰岛素干预时,启动子活性升高,但当胰岛素浓度上升后,启动子活性变化并没有统计学差异。结论:miR-335上游约600个碱基为启动子关键区域,同时,miR-335有可能通过自身的转录调控机制参与肥胖与胰岛素抵抗的发生发展。     

罗格列酮对急性心肌梗死大鼠心肌细胞凋亡及其基因表达的影响

目的:观察急性心肌梗死大鼠心肌细胞凋亡率、凋亡调控基因Fas/FasL的表达变化及罗格列酮的干预作用。方法:通过结扎雄性Wistar大鼠左冠状动脉前降支造成心肌梗死模型,心肌梗死后24 h随机分为心肌梗死组(A组,n=18)和罗格列酮干预组(B组,n=18),另设假手术组(C组,n=18)。B组每日给以罗格列酮灌胃(4 mg/kg),持续6周。A、C组每日给以等量生理盐水灌胃。6周后检测心肌非梗死区中细胞凋亡率、细胞凋亡基因Fas mRNA和Fas/FasL蛋白的表达量。结果:给药6周后急性心肌梗死组A、B组心肌细胞中心肌细胞凋亡指数、Fas/FasL及其蛋白表达与C组相比显著升高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);与A组相比,B组中心肌细胞凋亡指数,Fas/FasL基因及其蛋白表达显著下降,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:大鼠心肌梗死后心肌细胞中细胞凋亡率、Fas/FasL基因及蛋白表达显著增高;而罗格列酮可以降低大鼠心肌梗死后心肌细胞中Fas/FasL基因及蛋白表达,减少心肌细胞凋亡。