Clinical trials with thiazolidinediones in subjects with Type 2 diabetes--is pioglitazone any different from rosiglitazone?

The thiazolidinediones, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone are used in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Both have been shown to decrease glycated haemoglobin levels, fasting plasma glucose, insulin, and free fatty acids levels in subjects with T2DM. However, these agents have markedly different effects on lipids. Rosiglitazone increases total, low- and high-density lipoprotein (LDL and HDL) cholesterol, and triglycerides, whereas pioglitazone has no effect on total or LDL cholesterol, increases HDL cholesterol and decreases triglycerides. Both rosiglitazone and pioglitazone decrease inflammatory markers. Furthermore, both rosiglitazone and pioglitazone may cause a small decrease in blood pressure, improve endothelial function and reduce restenosis. Microalbuminuria is also reduced by both rosiglitazone and pioglitazone. Despite the improvements in surrogate end points, there is little clear evidence that either rosiglitazone or pioglitazone cause major improvements in cardiovascular outcomes. Thus, rosiglitazone has no effect or may even increase cardiovascular outcomes, whereas, in high-risk subjects, pioglitazone has a marginal ability to decrease cardiovascular outcomes. Unless the thiazolidinediones are shown to improve cardiovascular or other outcomes (e.g., renal) in the next few years, their continued use in T2DM should be questioned.     

The role of sulphonylureas in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus

The sulphonylureas act by triggering insulin release from the pancreatic beta cell. A specific site on the adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-sensitive potassium channels is occupied by sulphonylureas leading to closure of the potassium channels and subsequent opening of calcium channels. This results in exocytosis of insulin. The meglitinides are not sulphonylureas but also occupy the sulphonylurea receptor unit coupled to the ATP-sensitive potassium channel.Glibenclamide (glyburide), gliclazide, glipizide and glimepiride are the primary sulphonylureas in current clinical use for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Glibenclamide has a higher frequency of hypoglycaemia than the other agents. With long-term use, there is a progressive decrease in the effectiveness of sulphonylureas. This loss of effect is the result of a reduction in insulin-producing capacity by the pancreatic beta cell and is also seen with other antihyperglycaemic agents.The major adverse effect of sulphonylureas is hypoglycaemia. There is a theoretical concern that sulphonylureas may affect cardiac potassium channels resulting in a diminished response to ischaemia.There are now many choices for initial therapy of type 2 diabetes in addition to sulphonylureas. Metformin and thiazolidinediones affect insulin sensitivity by independent mechanisms. Disaccharidase inhibitors reduce rapid carbohydrate absorption. No single agent appears capable of achieving target glucose levels in the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes. Combinations of agents are successful in lowering glycosylated haemoglobin levels more than with a single agent. Sulphonylureas are particularly beneficial when combined with agents such as metformin that decrease insulin resistance. Sulphonylureas can also be given with a basal insulin injection to provide enhanced endogenous insulin secretion after meals. Sulphonylureas will continue to be used both primarily and as part of combined therapy for most patients with type 2 diabetes.     

Antidiabetic drugs present and future: will improving insulin resistance benefit cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus?

Results from the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study showed that intensive treatment of type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus, with sulphonylureas or insulin, significantly reduced microvascular complications but did not have a significant effect on macrovascular complications after 10 years. Insulin resistance plays a key role in type 2 diabetes mellitus and is linked to a cluster of cardiovascular risk factors. Optimal treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus should aim to improve insulin resistance and the associated cardiovascular risk factors in addition to achieving glycaemic control. Treatment with sulphonylureas or exogenous insulin improves glycaemic control by increasing insulin supplies rather than reducing insulin resistance. Metformin and the recently introduced thiazolidinediones have beneficial effects on reducing insulin resistance as well as providing glycaemic control. There is evidence that, like metformin, thiazolidinediones also improve cardiovascular risk factors such as dyslipidaemia and fibrinolysis. Whether these differences will translate into clinical benefit remains to be seen. The thiazolidinediones rosiglitazone and pioglitazone have been available in the US since 1999 (with pioglitazone also being available in Japan). Both products are now available to physicians in Europe.     

Rosiglitazone and pioglitazone: new preparations. Two new oral antidiabetics both poorly assessed

(1) Treatment of type 2 (non insulin-dependent) diabetes is based on lifestyle measures and management of cardiovascular risk. (2) The reference first-line drug therapy for type 2 diabetes, when drug therapy is needed, is single-agent treatment with metformin (a biguanide) for overweight patients, or with glibenclamide (a glucose-lowering sulphonylurea) for other patients. (3) If monotherapy fails to control blood glucose levels adequately, most clinical guidelines then recommend a combination of metformin with a glucose-lowering sulphonylurea, although the few available comparative clinical data raise the possibility of excess mortality with this treatment. (4) Rosiglitazone and pioglitazone (glitazones that reduce insulin resistance) have been authorized in the European Union for combination with a glucose-lowering sulphonylurea (for patients in whom metformin is ineffective or poorly tolerated) or with metformin (for obese patients). (5) None of the available trials of rosiglitazone and pioglitazone include data on mortality or morbidity. (6) There are fewer data on pioglitazone than on rosiglitazone. (7) According to short-term comparative trials, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone are more effective than placebo on blood glucose levels. Combinations of rosiglitazone or pioglitazone with metformin or with glucose-lowering sulphonylureas have not been compared with the metformin + glucose-lowering sulphonylurea combination or with insulin. (8) Rosiglitazone and pioglitazone frequently cause weight gain. (9) Pioglitazone has a slightly favourable effect on lipid profiles, unlike rosiglitazone, which increases LDL-cholesterol levels. (10) The main side effect of rosiglitazone and pioglitazone is sodium and water retention, which can provoke oedema, anaemia (by haemodilution), and even heart failure. Rosiglitazone and pioglitazone are also hepatotoxic. (11) Combining rosiglitazone with insulin is contraindicated, owing to the increased risk of heart failure. The same applies to pioglitazone. (12) In practice, neither rosiglitazone nor pioglitazone has a place in the management of type 2 diabetes, except in the context of strictly controlled long-term comparative clinical trials.     

Effects of Combination of Thiazolidinediones with Melatonin in Dexamethasone-induced Insulin Resistance in Mice

In type 2 Diabetes, oxidative stress plays an important role in development and aggregation of insulin resistance. In the present study, long term administration of the dexamethasone led to the development of insulin resistance in mice. The effect of thiazolidinediones pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, with melatonin on dexamethasone-induced insulin resistance was evaluated in mice. Insulin resistant mice were treated with combination of pioglitazone (10 mg/kg/day, p.o.) or rosiglitazone (5 mg/kg/day, p.o.) with melatonin 10 mg/kg/day p.o. from day 7 to day 22. In the biochemical parameters, the serum glucose, triglyceride levels were significantly lowered (P<0.05) in the combination groups as compared to dexamethasone treated group as well as with individual groups of pioglitazone, rosiglitazone, and melatonin. There was also, significant increased (P<0.05) in the body weight gain in combination treated groups as compared to dexamethasone as well as individual groups. The combination groups proved to be effective in normalizing the levels of superoxide dismutase, catalase, glutathione reductase and lipid peroxidation in liver homogenates may be due to antioxidant effects of melatonin and decreased hyperglycemia induced insulin resistance by thiazolidinediones. The glucose uptake in the isolated hemidiaphragm of mice was significantly increased in combination treated groups (PM and RM) than dexamethasone alone treated mice as well as individual (pioglitazone, rosiglitazone, melatonin) treated groups probably via increased in expression of GLUT-4 by melatonin and thiazolidinediones as well as increased in insulin sensitivity by thiazolidinediones. Hence, it can be concluded that combination of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, thiazolidinediones, with melatonin may reduces the insulin resistance via decreased in oxidative stress and control on hyperglycemia.     

Potential role of oral thiazolidinedione therapy in preserving beta-cell function in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Worsening glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus relates to a decline in beta-cell function, associated with impaired negative feedback regulation of insulin release. Insulin resistance, the 'traditional' cornerstone defect of type 2 diabetes, leads to an array of adverse effects on beta cells, including hypertrophy, apoptosis and those caused by lipotoxicity and glucotoxicity. In particular, increased levels of free fatty acids and their metabolites are thought to diminish both insulin synthesis and glucose-stimulated insulin secretion. Thiazolidinediones are synthetic peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma agonists that decrease insulin resistance but, as in vitro and in vivo studies suggest, may have direct beneficial effects on pancreatic beta cells. Troglitazone, for example, demonstrated improvements in insulin secretory capacity in isolated pancreatic islets from Wistar rats and a hamster beta-cell line. In vivo studies reveal thiazolidinediones promote beta-cell survival and regranulation as well as maintenance of beta-cell mass and reduction in amyloid deposition. Clinical evidence for thiazolidinediones is largely derived from comparative trials, mainly against sulfonylureas and metformin. Data at 2 years from a number of trials are now available and establish the positive effects of thiazolidinediones on glycaemic control. Empirical evidence showing decreases in fasting plasma insulin levels with pioglitazone and rosiglitazone indicate thiazolidinediones also improve insulin sensitivity. A possible effect of thiazolidinediones on normalising asynchronous insulin secretion, as assessed in a short-term placebo-controlled study, is less established. However, recent and ongoing clinical studies are focusing attention on verifying animal and other data, which support the notion that thiazolidinediones have beneficial effects on beta-cell function. These clinical studies have shown thiazolidinediones capable of preventing or delaying the development of type 2 diabetes in a high-risk population; restoring the first-phase insulin response; and improving secretory responses to oscillations in plasma glucose levels. Many of these effects appear to be independent of improvements in insulin sensitivity. Other research efforts are examining the potential cardiovascular protective effects of thiazolidinediones. Available data imply thiazolidinediones are associated with cardiovascular risk reduction, although results from large, clinical outcome trials, currently in progress, are still needed. Improved understanding of the role that declining beta-cell function has in the development of type 2 diabetes has drawn attention to the need for hypoglycaemic agents that can address this process. Emerging evidence suggests thiazolidinediones offer specific benefits for preventing or delaying the decline in beta-cell function and, thereby, a substrate for early intervention efforts aimed at lowering the worldwide burden of type 2 diabetes.     

Current management strategies for coexisting diabetes mellitus and obesity

Besides genetic predisposition, obesity is the most important risk factor for the development of diabetes mellitus. Weight reduction has been shown to markedly improve blood glucose control and vascular risk factors associated with insulin resistance in obese individuals with type 2 diabetes. Therapeutic strategies for the obese diabetic patient include: (i) promoting weight loss, through lifestyle modifications (low-calorie diet and exercise) and antiobesity drugs (orlistat, sibutramine, etc.); (ii) improving blood glucose control, through agents decreasing insulin resistance (metformin or thiazolidinediones, e.g. pioglitazone and rosiglitazone) or insulin needs (alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, e.g. acarbose) in preference to agents stimulating defective insulin secretion (sulphonylureas, meglitinide analogues); and (iii) treating common associated risk factors, such as arterial hypertension and dyslipidaemias, to improve cardiovascular prognosis. Whenever insulin is required by the obese diabetic patient after failure to respond to oral drugs, it should be preferably prescribed in combination with an oral agent, more particularly metformin or acarbose, or possibly a thiazolidinedione. When morbid obesity is present, both restoring a good glycaemic control and correcting associated risk factors can only be obtained through a marked and sustained weight loss. This objective justifies more aggressive weight reduction programmes, including very-low-calorie diets and bariatric surgery, but only within a multidisciplinary approach and long-term strategy.     

Meglitinide analogues in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a complex heterogenous metabolic disorder in which peripheral insulin resistance and impaired insulin release are the main pathogenetic factors. The rapid response of the pancreatic beta-cells to glucose is already markedly disturbed in the early stages of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The consequence is often postprandial hyperglycaemia, which seems to be extremely important in the development of secondary complications, especially macrovascular disease. Therefore one of the main aims of treatment is to minimise blood glucose oscillations and attain near-normal glycosylated haemoglobin levels. Meglitinide analogues belong to a new family of insulin secretagogues which stimulate insulin release by inhibiting ATP-sensitive potassium channels of the beta-cell membrane via binding to a receptor distinct from that of sulphonylureas (SUR1/KIR 6.2). The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of repaglinide, the first drug of these new antihyperglycaemic agents on the market, and of nateglinide, which will be available soon, differ markedly from the currently used sulphonylureas [mainly glibenclamide (glyburide) and glimepiride]. Repaglinide and nateglinide are absorbed rapidly, stimulate insulin release within a few minutes, are rapidly metabolised in the liver and are mainly excreted in the bile. Therefore, following preprandial administration of these drugs, insulin is more readily available during and just after the meal. This leads to a significant reduction in postprandial hyperglycaemia without the danger of hypoglycaemia between meals. The short action of these compounds and biliary elimination makes repaglinide and nateglinide especially suitable for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who would like to have a more flexible lifestyle, need more flexibility because of unplanned eating behaviour (e.g. geriatric patients) or in whom one of the other first-line antidiabetic drugs, i.e. metformin, is strictly contraindicated (e.g. nephropathy with creatinine clearance < or = 50 ml/min). Meglitinide analogues act synergistically with metformin and thiazolidinediones (pioglitazone and rosiglitazone) and can be also combined with long-acting insulin (NPH insulin at bedtime). Therefore, these drugs enrich the palette of antidiabetic drugs and make the treatment more flexible and better tolerated, which both add to better metabolic control and support the empowerment and compliance of the patient. However, this will only be the case if the patient and the diabetes care team are trained for this new therapeutic schedule and the healthcare system is able to pay for these rather expensive drugs.     

Drug interactions of clinical importance with antihyperglycaemic agents: an update.

Because management of type 2 diabetes mellitus usually involves combined pharmacological therapy to obtain adequate glucose control and treatment of concurrent pathologies (especially dyslipidaemia and arterial hypertension), drug-drug interactions must be carefully considered with antihyperglycaemic drugs. Additive glucose-lowering effects have been extensively reported when combining sulphonylureas (or the new insulin secretagogues, meglitinide derivatives, i.e. nateglinide and repaglinide) with metformin, sulphonylureas (or meglitinide derivatives) with thiazolidinediones (also called glitazones) and the biguanide compound metformin with thiazolidinediones. Interest in combining alpha-glucosidase inhibitors with either sulphonylureas (or meglitinide derivatives), metformin or thiazolidinediones has also been demonstrated. These combinations result in lower glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), fasting glucose and postprandial glucose levels than with either monotherapy. Even if modest pharmacokinetic interferences have been reported with some combinations, they do not appear to have important clinical consequences. No significant adverse effects, except a higher risk of hypoglycaemic episodes that may be attributed to better glycaemic control, occur with any combination. Challenging the classical dual therapy with sulphonylurea plus metformin, there is a recent trend to use alternative dual combinations (sulphonylurea plus thiazolidinedione or metformin plus thiazolidinedione). In addition, triple therapy with the addition of a thiazolidinedione to the metformin-sulphonylurea combination has been recently evaluated and allows glucose targets to be reached before insulin therapy is considered. This triple therapy appears to be safe, with no deleterious drug-drug interactions being reported so far.Potential interferences may also occur between glucose-lowering agents and other drugs, and such drug-drug interactions may have important clinical implications. Relevant pharmacological agents are those that are widely coadministered in diabetic patients (e.g. lipid-lowering agents, antihypertensive agents); those that have a narrow efficacy/toxicity ratio (e.g. digoxin, warfarin); or those that are known to induce (rifampicin [rifampin]) or inhibit (fluconazole) the cytochrome P450 (CYP) system. Metformin is currently a key compound in the pharmacological management of type 2 diabetes, used either alone or in combination with other antihyperglycaemics. There are no clinically relevant metabolic interactions with metformin, because this compound is not metabolised and does not inhibit the metabolism of other drugs. In contrast, sulphonylureas, meglitinide derivatives and thiazolidinediones are extensively metabolised in the liver via the CYP system and thus, may be subject to drug-drug metabolic interactions. Many HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are also metabolised via the CYP system. Even if modest pharmacokinetic interactions may occur, it is not clear whether drug-drug interactions between oral antihyperglycaemic agents and statins may have clinical consequences regarding both efficacy and safety. In contrast, a marked pharmacokinetic interference has been reported between gemfibrozil and repaglinide and, to a lesser extent, between gemfibrozil and rosiglitazone. This leads to a drastic increase in plasma concentrations of each antihyperglycaemic agent when they are coadministered with the fibric acid derivative, and an increased risk of adverse effects.Some antihypertensive agents may favour hypoglycaemic episodes when co-prescribed with sulphonylureas or meglitinide derivatives, especially ACE inhibitors, but this effect seems to result from a pharmacodynamic drug-drug interaction rather than from a pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction. No, or only modest, interferences have been described with glucose-lowering agents and other pharmacological compounds such as digoxin or warfarin. The effects of inducers or inhibitors of CYP isoenzymes on the metabolism and pharmacokinetics of the glucose-lowering agents of each pharmacological class has been tested. Significantly increased (with CYP inhibitors) or decreased (with CYP inducers) plasma levels of sulphonylureas, meglitinide derivatives and thiazolidinediones have been reported in healthy volunteers, and these pharmacokinetic changes may lead to enhanced or reduced glucose-lowering action, and thus hypoglycaemia or worsening of metabolic control, respectively. In addition, some case reports have evidenced potential drug-drug interactions with various antihyperglycaemic agents that are usually associated with a higher risk of hypoglycaemia.     

Rosiglitazone does not alter the pharmacokinetics of metformin

Rosiglitazone is a potent oral antidiabetic agent of the thiazolidinedione class that works through activation of the peroxisome proliferator-activated nuclear receptor. It improves insulin sensitivity in peripheral tissues and effectively lowers blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes. Metformin is a dimethyl-biguanide, also used in type 2 diabetes, that lowers fasting blood glucose primarily by decreasing hepatic glucose output. Rosiglitazone and metformin reduce plasma glucose concentrations via different mechanisms and thus could potentially be used in combination to optimize glycemic control. This study evaluated the effects of the coadministration of these two agents on the pharmacokinetics of both rosiglitazone and metformin. Sixteen male volunteers (22-55 years old) received oral metformin (500 mg every 12 hours), rosiglitazone (2 mg every 12 hours), or the combination each for 4 days. Plasma collected on day 4 of each regimen was assayed for rosiglitazone and metformin concentrations. Oral doses of rosiglitazone and metformin were safe and well tolerated when administered alone or in combination. There were no clinically significant episodes of hypoglycemia or increased blood lactic acid levels following treatment with any regimen. Coadministration of rosiglitazone and metformin had no significant effects on the steady-state pharmacokinetics (AUC(0-12 h), Cmax, tmax, or t1/2) of either drug. The authors conclude that rosiglitazone can be safely administered with metformin and, due to the different mechanisms of action of these agents, may offer a therapeutic advantage in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.     

Rosiglitazone : a review of its use in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Rosiglitazone (Avandia) is an antihyperglycaemic agent of the thiazolidinedione class that improves glycaemic control (as indicated by glycosylated haemoglobin [HbA1c] and fasting plasma glucose [FPG] levels) primarily by increasing hepatic and peripheral insulin sensitivity, and in addition may help to preserve pancreatic beta-cell function. In general, rosiglitazone as monotherapy or in combination with other antihyperglycaemic agents, including metformin or sulfonylureas, improves glycaemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus and may slow disease progression associated with pancreatic beta-cell function decline. Rosiglitazone is generally well tolerated; however, additional long-term and comparative studies are required to further evaluate the effects of rosiglitazone on bone and the potential cardiovascular risk of the drug, including the risk relative to pioglitazone. Thus, in light of recent cardiovascular safety concerns and the need for further long-term data to clarify the potential risk of rosiglitazone in this regard, it would be prudent to use rosiglitazone in the treatment of type 2 diabetes on a case-by-case basis, taking into account individual patient cardiovascular risk factors.     

Thiazolidinediones for treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome

Objective: To review the pathophysiology and treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and the evidence for use of thiazolidinediones in the treatment of this syndrome. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a MEDLINE database search for English-language literature published from January 1966-July 2004. Key terms used were thiazolidinediones, troglitazone, rosiglitazone, pioglitazone, polycystic ovary syndrome, and PCOS. Bibliographies in the relevant articles were reviewed for additional references. SELECTION: All clinical trials were reviewed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Troglitazone has been evaluated in numerous clinical trials of women with PCOS. These trials provided a body of evidence supporting the efficacy of troglitazone for management of PCOS complications, such as insulin resistance, hyperandrogenism, and anovulation. Due to safety concerns, however, troglitazone is no longer marketed in the United States. Clinical data are emerging regarding the utility of newer, safer thiazolidinediones, such as pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, for this patient population. The available literature provides evidence that these newer agents improve insulin sensitivity, glycemic control, hormone responsiveness, menstrual regularity, and ovulation rates. Pioglitazone and rosiglitazone have been well tolerated in clinical studies and have an improved safety profile in terms of liver toxicity. CONCLUSION: Pioglitazone and rosiglitazone should be considered a second-line treatment alternative to metformin for management of women with PCOS who are resistant to insulin or who are obese.     

Pioglitazone and rosiglitazone for diabetes

Pioglitazone (Actos-Takeda) and rosiglitazone (Avandia-GlaxoSmithKline) belong to a new class of oral antidiabetic medicines (the glitazones or thiazolidinediones). Both are licensed in the UK for "oral combination treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in [narrowly defined groups of] patients with insufficient glycaemic control despite maximal tolerated dose of oral monotherapy with either metformin or a sulphonylurea". They are not licensed for use as monotherapy, in combination with insulin, or as part of triple therapy with metformin or a sulphonylurea. What can pioglitazone and rosiglitazone offer in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes?     

The differential effects of thiazolidindiones on atherogenic dyslipidemia in type 2 diabetes: what is the clinical significance?

Background: Diabetic dyslipidemia is typically characterized by an increase in plasma triglycerides, a decrease in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and a concomitant increase in atherogenic small dense low-density lipoproteins. Thiazolidindiones are able to lower the levels of fasting glucose and glycated hemoglobin significantly by improving insulin sensitivity, as well as improving some aspects of diabetic dyslipidemia: total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol tend to increase while triglycerides are generally decreased. Objective: This paper reviewed the effects of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone on atherogenic diabetic dyslipidemia, in particular on small dense low-density lipoprotein particles. Methods: A literature search (by Medline and Scopus) was performed up to 15 March 2008. The authors also manually reviewed the references of selected articles for any pertinent material. Results: Pioglitazone showed an additional beneficial effect on triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and the levels of small dense low-density lipoprotein compared to rosiglitazone. Conclusions: Since recent studies have suggested that these agents may also have a differential effect on long-term cardiovascular end-points despite similar improvements in glycated hemoglobin and insulin sensitivity, the different impact on atherogenic diabetic dyslipidemia may help to explain these findings.     

Metabolic effects of various antidiabetic and hypolipidaemic agents on a high-fat diet and multiple low-dose streptozocin (MLDS) mouse model of diabetes

Insulin resistance and subsequent insulin secretory defect are two main features of type 2 diabetes and associated metabolic disorders. The animal models of type 2 diabetes are very complex and are as heterogeneous as the disease. We have evaluated the effect of various antidiabetic and lipid lowering agents (fenofibrate, rosiglitazone, glimepiride, metformin and simvastatin) on the metabolic abnormalities induced by combining a high-fat diet and multiple low-dose streptozocin (MLDS) in mice. Male Swiss albino mice were orally treated with the above agents and fed with a diet containing high fat for 28 days. On day 15 the animals were injected intraperitoneally with low-dose streptozocin (40 mg kg(-1)), which was administered for five consecutive days. At the end of the 28-day treatment plasma metabolic parameters (glucose, triglyceride and immunoreactive insulin) were estimated. The antidiabetic and hypolipidaemic agents exhibited differential effects on these metabolic parameters. With the exception of fenofibrate all these agents reduced the plasma glucose levels, and the effects of metformin and rosiglitazone on glucose were found to be statistically significant. Although the effect of the test drugs on cholesterol was modest, a significant decrease in triglyceride levels was observed with sub-chronic treatment with these agents. Interestingly, glimepiride mildly elevated the insulin levels while the other antidiabetics and hypolipidaemics reduced the insulin levels, with metformin and rosiglitazone exhibiting statistically significant effects on insulin. To our knowledge this is the first report on the effect of various peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor modulators and newer antidiabetics on the metabolic effects induced by the combined high-fat diet and MLDS model of type 2 diabetes in Swiss albino mice. The results suggested the complexity of the hyperglycaemia, hyperinsulinaemia and hypertriglyceridaemia induced by the high-fat diet and MLDS mouse model, and their correction by various antidiabetics and antihyperlipidaemics may have involved diverse mechanisms.     

Repaglinide: a review of its therapeutic use in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Repaglinide, a carbamoylmethyl benzoic acid derivative, is the first of a new class of oral antidiabetic agents designed to normalise postprandial glucose excursions in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Like the sulphonylureas, repaglinide reduces blood glucose by stimulating insulin release from pancreatic beta-cells, but differs from these and other antidiabetic agents in its structure, binding profile, duration of action and mode of excretion. In clinical trials of up to 1-year's duration, repaglinide maintained or improved glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In comparative, 1-year, double-blind, randomised trials (n = 256 to 544), patients receiving repaglinide (0.5 to 4mg before 3 daily meals) achieved similar glycaemic control to that in patients receiving glibenclamide (glyburide) < or = 15 mg/day and greater control than patients receiving glipizide < or = 15 mg/day. Changes from baseline in glycosylated haemoglobin and fasting blood glucose levels were similar between patients receiving repaglinide and glibenclamide in all studies; however, repaglinide was slightly better than glibenclamide in reducing postprandial blood glucose in I short term study (n = 192). Patients can vary their meal timetable with repaglinide: the glucose-lowering efficacy of repaglinide was similar for patients consuming 2, 3 or 4 meals a day. Repaglinide showed additive effects when used in combination with other oral antidiabetic agents including metformin, troglitazone, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone, and intermediate-acting insulin (NPH) given at bedtime. In 1-year trials, the most common adverse events reported in repaglinide recipients (n = 1,228) were hypoglycaemia (16%), upper respiratory tract infection (10%), rhinitis (7%), bronchitis (6%) and headache (9%). The overall incidence of hypoglycaemia was similar to that recorded in patients receiving glibenclamide, glipizide or gliclazide (n = 597) [18%]; however, the incidence of serious hypoglycaemia appears to be slightly higher in sulphonylurea recipients. Unlike glibenclamide, the risk of hypoglycaemia in patients receiving repaglinide was not increased when a meal was missed in 1 trial. In conclusion, repaglinide is a useful addition to the other currently available treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Preprandial repaglinide has displayed antihyperglycaemic efficacy at least equal to that of various sulphonylureas and is associated with a reduced risk of serious hypoglycaemia. It is well tolerated in a wide range of patients, including the elderly, even if a meal is missed. Furthermore, glycaemic control is improved when repaglinide is used in combination with metformin. Thus, repaglinide should be considered for use in any patient with type 2 diabetes mellitus whose blood glucose cannot be controlled by diet or exercise alone, or as an adjunct in patients whose glucose levels are inadequately controlled on metformin alone.     

Hepatotoxicity with thiazolidinediones: is it a class effect?

Decreased insulin sensitivity plays a major role in various human diseases. particularly type 2 diabetes mellitus, and is associated with a higher risk of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular complications. Thiazolidinediones, more commonly termed glitazones, are the first drugs to specifically target muscular insulin resistance. They have proven efficacy for reducing plasma glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with diet alone, sulphonylureas, metformin or insulin. In addition, they are associated with some improvement of the cardiovascular risk profile. However, troglitazone, the first compound approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the US, proved to be hepatotoxic and was withdrawn from the market after the report of several dozen deaths or cases of severe hepatic failure requiring liver transplantation. It remains unclear whether or not hepatotoxicity is a class effect or is related to unique properties of troglitazone. Rosiglitazone and pioglitazone, two other glitazones, appear to have similar efficacy with regard to blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus as compared with troglitazone. In controlled clinical trials, the incidence of significant (> or =3 x upper limit of normal) increases in liver enzyme levels (ALT in particular) was similar with rosiglitazone or pioglitazone as compared with placebo, whereas troglitazone was associated with a 3-fold greater incidence. In contrast to the numerous case reports of acute liver failure in patients receiving troglitzone, only a few case reports of hepatotoxicity have been reported in patients treated with rosiglitazone until now, with a causal relationship remaining uncertain. Furthermore, no single case of severe hepatotoxicity has been reported yet with pioglitazone. It should be mentioned that troglitazone, unlike pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, induces the cytochrome P450 isoform 3A4, which is partly responsible for its metabolism, and may be prone to drug interactions. Importantly enough, obesity, insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes mellitus are associated with liver abnormalities, especially non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, independent of any pharmacological treatment. This association obviously complicates the selection of patients who are good candidates for a treatment with glitazones as well as the monitoring of liver tests after initiation of therapy with any thiazolidinedione compound. While regular monitoring of liver enzymes is still recommended and more long term data are desirable, current evidence from clinical trials and postmarketing experience in the US supports the conclusion that rosiglitazone and pioglitazone do not share the hepatotoxic profile of troglitazone.     

Cardiovascular Risk Factors Associated with Insulin Resistance

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus have a greater risk of cardiovascular disease than nondiabetic individuals. These patients are often insulin resistant and have an associated clustering of risk factors that contribute to cardiovascular disease. The risk factors include dyslipidemia, hypertension, altered hemostasis, and chronic inflammation. A primary objective in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus is normalization of blood glucose levels; however, some of the oral drugs used to control blood glucose levels have significant effects on these risk factors. In this article, we review the current data involving the modification of these cardiovascular risk factors by the biguanide (metformin), the thiazolidinediones (troglitazone, rosiglitazone, and pioglitazone), the alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (miglitol, acarbose), and the insulin secretagogs (glyburide [glibenclamide], glipizide, chlorpropamide, tolbutamide, tolazamide, glimepiride, repaglinide, and nateglinide). Generally, the thiazolidinediones improve hemostasis and endothelial function and reduce blood pressure, while having variable effects on dyslipidemia. Metformin improves dyslipidemia and altered hemostasis and decreases plasma C-reactive protein levels with little or no effect on blood pressure. Data on the effects of the alpha-glucosidase inhibitors and insulin secretagogs are sparse; however, these drugs appear to have little or no effect on cardiovascular risk factors.     

Insulin-sensitizing agents--thiazolidinediones (glitazones)

Insulin resistance is a fundamental feature of type 2 diabetes and is also associated with increased cardiovascular risk. The thiazolidinediones are insulin sensitizing agents which improve insulin resistance by combining with an intranuclear hormone receptor. They have been shown in human studies to both reduce insulin resistance and improve pancreatic beta-cell function. They are effective both as monotherapy and in combination with sulphonylureas or metformin in improving glycaemia, with evidence of improvement in other features of metabolic syndrome. They are generally well tolerated, do not cause hypoglycaemia and have the potential to provide sustained diabetic control and reduce cardiovascular risk. They appear to be an important advance in diabetes management but further work is still required to determine their true potential.     

Defining the Role of Repaglinide in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is characterized by hyperglycemia due to a combination of insulin resistance and impaired insulin secretion. The hyperglycemia is associated with an increased risk for micro- and macrovascular complications, and lowering fasting and postprandial hyperglycemia may be protective against these complications. Repaglinide is an insulin secretagogue that lowers blood glucose levels in patients with T2DM. We review the effects of repaglinide in patients with T2DM, its impact on glycemia and its non-glycemic effects, and its effects when used in special situations or patient populations. Results from randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and safety reports involving humans and published in the English-language through 1 May 2007 identified by a search in PubMed/MEDLINE were evaluated. Present knowledge indicates that repaglinide reduces fasting and postprandial hyperglycemia and the level of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with T2DM. It is at least as effective in reducing HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose as sulphonylureas, metformin, or the glitazones and in combination therapy with other drugs, repaglinide is as effective as any other combination. Some studies show a better effect of repaglinide on postprandial glycemia than the comparators. Its propensity to induce hypoglycemia is similar to or a little less than that of sulphonylureas. Repaglinide is associated with less weight gain than sulphonylureas and the glitazones. Repaglinide has primarily a role in the treatment of T2DM when metformin cannot be used due to adverse effects, when metformin fails to adequately control blood glucose levels, when there is a need for flexible dosing (i.e. the elderly or during Ramadan fasting), or when there is a specific wish to lower postprandial glucose. Repaglinide may also have an advantage when an oral agent is needed in diabetic patients with renal impairment. Because of its short duration of action, repaglinide should be taken before each meal, usually at least three times a day. Although no study has investigated whether repaglinide lowers total mortality or cardiovascular endpoints, several studies indicate beneficial effects on cardiovascular surrogate endpoints, such as carotid intima-media thickening, markers of inflammation, platelet activation, lipid parameters, endothelial function, adiponectin, and oxidative stress. In conclusion, repaglinide is a compound that can be used in both mono- and combination therapy for the treatment of both fasting and postprandial hyperglycemia in patients with T2DM. It can be used in patients at different stages of the disease, from uncomplicated to severe renal impairment. Although the drug has been tested in a large number of clinical trials and observational studies, its world-wide use is far less than, for example, sulphonylureas. Repaglinide may offer an additional potential for lowering blood glucose levels in T2DM that until now has not been fully realized by many clinicians.