Explore the vast range of titles available.

The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety profile of pioglitazone compared with placebo (PBO) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with metformin and dapagliflozin. In this prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, PBO-controlled trial, 366 patients with T2D who did not meet glycemic targets (7.0% ≤ glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c] ≤ 10.5%), despite treatment with metformin ≥1000 mg and dapagliflozin 10 mg, received either a PBO, 15 mg of pioglitazone daily (PIO15), or 30 mg of pioglitazone daily (PIO30). The primary end point was the mean change in HbA1c from baseline at 24 weeks across the groups. For the 366 participants (PBO, n = 124; PIO15, n = 118; PIO30, n = 124), the mean age was 55.6 years and mean duration of diabetes was 8.7 years, with a baseline HbA1c of 7.9%. After 24 weeks, HbA1c reduced significantly in the PIO15 and PIO30 groups from baseline, with intergroup differences of −0.38% and −0.83%, respectively, compared with the PBO group. The proportion of patients with HbA1c levels <7% was significantly higher in the PIO15 and PIO30 groups than in the PBO group. The adverse event rates did not significantly differ across the groups, indicating favorable safety profiles for triple combination therapy using metformin, dapagliflozin, and pioglitazone. The addition of pioglitazone as a third oral antidiabetic medication is an appropriate option for patients with T2D inadequately controlled with metformin and dapagliflozin based on the resulting significant efficacy in glycemic control and favorable safety profile. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04885712.

Precision medicine aims to treat an individual based on their clinical characteristics. A differential drug response, critical to using these features for therapy selection, has never been examined directly in type 2 diabetes. In this study, we tested two hypotheses: (1) individuals with body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m 2 , compared to BMI ≤ 30 kg/m 2 , have greater glucose lowering with thiazolidinediones than with DPP4 inhibitors, and (2) individuals with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 60–90 ml/min/1.73 m 2 , compared to eGFR >90 ml/min/1.73 m 2 , have greater glucose lowering with DPP4 inhibitors than with SGLT2 inhibitors. The primary endpoint for both hypotheses was the achieved HbA1c difference between strata for the two drugs. In total, 525 people with type 2 diabetes participated in this UK-based randomized, double-blind, three-way crossover trial of 16 weeks of treatment with each of sitagliptin 100 mg once daily, canagliflozin 100 mg once daily and pioglitazone 30 mg once daily added to metformin alone or metformin plus sulfonylurea. Overall, the achieved HbA1c was similar for the three drugs: pioglitazone 59.6 mmol/mol, sitagliptin 60.0 mmol/mol and canagliflozin 60.6 mmol/mol ( P  = 0.2). Participants with BMI > 30 kg/m 2 , compared to BMI ≤ 30 kg/m 2 , had a 2.88 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98, 4.79) lower HbA1c on pioglitazone than on sitagliptin ( n  = 356, P  = 0.003). Participants with eGFR 60–90 ml/min/1.73 m 2 , compared to eGFR >90 ml/min/1.73 m 2 , had a 2.90 mmol/mol (95% CI: 1.19, 4.61) lower HbA1c on sitagliptin than on canagliflozin ( n  = 342, P  = 0.001). There were 2,201 adverse events reported, and 447/525 (85%) randomized participants experienced an adverse event on at least one of the study drugs. In this precision medicine trial in type 2 diabetes, our findings support the use of simple, routinely available clinical measures to identify the drug class most likely to deliver the greatest glycemic reduction for a given patient. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02653209 ; ISRCTN registration: 12039221 .) Using a randomized three-way crossover design and stratification approaches based on obesity and renal function in people with type 2 diabetes, the TriMaster study demonstrated that patients with obesity were more likely to have greater glycemic control with pioglitazone (a thiazolidinedione) than with sitagliptin (a DPP4 inhibitor) and that patients with eGFR 60–90 ml/min/1.73 m 2 were more likely to achieve lower HbA1c levels on sitagliptin than on canagliflozin (an SGLT2 inhibitor).

Background The close interplay between metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and type 2 diabetes supports the need to identify beneficial combination therapies of antidiabetic medications targeted for the treatment of MASLD. This study aimed to investigate the complementary effects of combination therapy with pioglitazone (PIO) and empagliflozin (EMPA) on MASLD in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Methods In a randomized, open-label trial, 50 participants with type 2 diabetes and MASLD were assigned 1:1:1 to receive PIO 15 mg, EMPA 10 mg, or a combination (PIO 15 mg plus EMPA 10 mg) daily for 24 weeks. Liver fat fraction and stiffness were evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), respectively. Results Combination therapy resulted in the largest reduction in liver fat and stiffness among treatment groups. Participants experiencing a relative reduction ≥ 30% or an absolute reduction ≥ 5% in liver fat were the most prevalent in the combination group (100.0% vs. 57.1% in PIO and 87.5% in EMPA, p  = 0.010). In addition, the combination group showed the highest proportion of individuals with a relative reduction ≥ 30% in liver fat and ≥ 20% in liver stiffness than the monotherapy groups (50.0% vs. 21.4% in PIO and 6.3% in EMPA, p  = 0.029). Combination therapy did not induce the changes in subcutaneous fat deposition observed in the monotherapy groups, but it did show the most substantial reduction in visceral fat, concurrently showing the largest increase in adiponectin level across the three groups ( p  = 0.036). Conclusions Combination therapy of PIO with EMPA showed synergistic benefits for MASLD in individuals with type 2 diabetes, compensating for the inadequate or unfavorable effects of monotherapies; ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT03646292. Trial registration The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (registration number: NCT03646292).

Aims/Introduction Non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is often observed in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and it is known that the presence of type 2 diabetes mellitus leads to the aggravation of NAFLD. The aim of this study was to compare the possible effects of three kinds of oral hypoglycemic agents on NAFLD in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Materials and Methods We carried out a prospective clinical trial (a randomized and open‐label study) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and NAFLD. A total of 98 patients were randomly allocated either to the dapagliflozin (n = 32), pioglitazone (n = 33) or glimepiride (n = 33) group, and the patients took these drugs for 28 weeks. The primary end‐point was the change of the liver‐to‐spleen ratio on abdominal computed tomography. Results There was no difference in baseline clinical characteristics among the three groups. Dapagliflozin, pioglitazone and glimepiride ameliorated hyperglycemia similarly. Bodyweight and visceral fat area were significantly decreased only in the dapagliflozin group. Serum adiponectin levels were markedly increased in the pioglitazone group compared with the other two groups. Dapagliflozin and pioglitazone, but not glimepiride, significantly increased the liver‐to‐spleen ratio, and the effects of dapagliflozin and pioglitazone on the liver‐to‐spleen ratio were comparable. Conclusions The present study showed that the decrease of visceral fat area and the increase of adiponectin level contributed to the improvement of NAFLD in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, dapagliflozin and pioglitazone exerted equivalent beneficial effects on NAFLD in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, although it seemed that these two drugs had different mechanisms of action. Dapagliflozin and pioglitazone exerted equivalent beneficial effects on non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus, although it seemed that these two drugs had different mechanisms of action. Dapagliflozin reduced hepatic fat storage mainly through a decrease of fat quantity, but pioglitazone improved hepatic steatosis through upgrading fat quality. Lowered plasma glucose by glimepiride might inhibit worsening of hepatic steatosis.

Guidelines emphasize screening high-risk patients for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) with a calculated FIB-4 score for therapy to reverse fibrosis. We aimed to determine whether FIB-4 can effectively screen and monitor changes in steatohepatitis (MASH). Data were retrieved from the NIDDK-CR R4R central repository, of the CRN/PIVENS (pioglitazone vs vitamin E vs placebo) trial of adult patients without diabetes mellitus and with MASLD. 220 patients with MASLD had alanine transaminase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and platelet count, to calculate FIB-4, and repeat liver biopsies for histological MASLD activity scores (NAS). Compared to NAS score of 2, Fib-4 was higher at NAS 5) (p = 0.03), and NAS score of 6 (p = 0.02). FIB-4 correlated with cellular ballooning (r = 0.309, p < 0.001). Levels of ALT (ANOVA, p = 0.016) and AST (ANOVA p = 0.0008) were associated with NAS. NAS improved with pioglitazone by 39 %, p < 0.001 and with vitamin E by 36 %, p < 0.001. Pioglitazone and vitamin E both improved histological sub-scores for steatosis, and inflammation, without statistical changes in fibrosis grade. Changes in FIB-4 correlated with changes in NAS (r = 0.237, p < 0.001). In this post hoc analysis, changes in FIB-4 were associated with changes of steatohepatitis. Medication known to treat steatohepatitis, may be considered, before the onset of advanced fibrosis. •FIB-4 is used in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) to screen for fibrosis.•A post hoc review of the NIDDK-CR R4R central repository of CRN/PIVENS trial evaluated FIB-4 in pre-fibrotic steatohepatitis.•Changes in FIB-4 correlated with changes in histological steatohepatitis.•Therapies with pioglitazone and Vitamin E improved inflammation by 37 %–35 % without changes in fibrosis.•Medication known to treat steatohepatitis, may be considered, before the onset of advanced fibrosis

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination (FDC) of pioglitazone and metformin supplemented with dapagliflozin (test group) with those of basal insulin supplemented with metformin (control group) in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This 16-week, prospective, randomized, open-label study enrolled patients aged 18-75 years with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels between ≥ 8% and ≤ 11%. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved HbA1c < 7% at week 16 without hypoglycemia or weight gain. The secondary endpoints included blood glucose, lipid profile, body weight, body mass index, inflammatory markers, bone Gla-protein, liver enzymes, and patient satisfaction. Among the full analysis set of 147 participants, no significant difference was observed in the primary endpoint between the test group and the control group. However, the test group had a higher percentage of patients who achieved HbA1c <7% at week 16 without hypoglycemia and experienced a weight loss of ≥3% (31.51% vs 13.51%, =0.009). Patients in the test group whose BMI≥24 kg/m also achieved a substantial achievement rate (36.73% vs 15.79%, =0.014). The test group also exhibited a greater reduction in body weight and improvements in 2-hour postprandial glucose level, systolic blood pressure, and lipid profile. Notably, combination therapy did not increase the risk of hypoglycemia or weight gain. Patients in the test group were more satisfied than those in the control group with continuing to accept pioglitazone/metformin FDC combined with dapagliflozin. In the absence of contraindications, pioglitazone/metformin FDC supplemented with dapagliflozin may serve as a safe and effective alternative to basal insulin combined with metformin for rectifying inadequate glucose control, as the former enables metabolic improvements without compromising safety. CHiCTR2000036076. https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=58825.

Patient preference is very important for medication selection in chronic medical conditions, like type 2 diabetes, where there are many different drugs available. Patient preference balances potential efficacy with potential side effects. As both aspects of drug response can vary markedly between individuals, this decision could be informed by the patient personally experiencing the alternative medications, as occurs in a crossover trial. In the TriMaster (NCT02653209, ISRCTN12039221), randomized double-blind, three-way crossover trial patients received three different second- or third-line once-daily type 2 diabetes glucose-lowering drugs (pioglitazone 30 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and canagliflozin 100 mg). As part of a prespecified secondary endpoint, we examined patients’ drug preference after they had tried all three drugs. In total, 448 participants were treated with all three drugs which overall showed similar glycemic control (HbA1c on pioglitazone 59.5 sitagliptin 59.9, canagliflozin 60.5 mmol mol −1 , P  = 0.19). In total, 115 patients (25%) preferred pioglitazone, 158 patients (35%) sitagliptin and 175 patients (38%) canagliflozin. The drug preferred by individual patients was associated with a lower HbA1c (mean: 4.6; 95% CI: 3.9, 5.3) mmol mol −1 lower versus nonpreferred) and fewer side effects (mean: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.35, 0.64) fewer side effects versus nonpreferred). Allocating therapy based on the individually preferred drugs, rather than allocating all patients the overall most preferred drug (canagliflozin), would result in more patients achieving the lowest HbA1c for them (70% versus 30%) and the fewest side effects (67% versus 50%). When precision approaches do not predict a clear optimal therapy for an individual, allowing patients to try potential suitable medications before they choose long-term therapy could be a practical alternative to optimizing treatment for type 2 diabetes. A prespecified secondary endpoint from the TriMaster study demonstrates that after trying three different classes of diabetes medications most patients preferentially selected the drug that was associated with the best glycemic control on an individual level.

Background: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of triple therapy with pioglitazone 15 mg add-on versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled with metformin and dapagliflozin.Methods: In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, phase 3 study, patients with T2DM with an inadequate response to treatment with metformin (≥1,000 mg/day) plus dapagliflozin (10 mg/day) were randomized to receive additional pioglitazone 15 mg/day (n=125) or placebo (n=125) for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels from baseline to week 24 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05101135).Results: At week 24, the adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c level compared with placebo was significantly greater with pioglitazone treatment (–0.47%; 95% confidence interval, –0.61 to –0.33; P<0.0001). A greater proportion of patients achieved HbA1c <7% or <6.5% at week 24 with pioglitazone compared to placebo as add-on to 10 mg dapagliflozin and metformin (56.8% vs. 28% for HbA1c <7%, and 23.2% vs. 9.6% for HbA1c <6.5%; P<0.0001 for all). The addition of pioglitazone also significantly improved triglyceride, highdensity lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance levels, while placebo did not. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between the groups, and the incidence of fluid retention-related side effects by pioglitazone was low (1.5%).Conclusion: Triple therapy with the addition of 15 mg/day of pioglitazone to dapagliflozin plus metformin was well tolerated and produced significant improvements in HbA1c in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with dapagliflozin plus metformin.

RationaleProinflammatory processes have been implicated in alcohol addiction, craving, and relapse, while studies in experimental animals have suggested that activation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) inhibits proinflammatory signaling. Accordingly, it is hypothesized that medications with PPARγ activity may have therapeutic potential in alcohol dependence.ObjectivesWe conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled mechanistic proof of principle study in alcohol-dependent inpatients to investigate the effect of pioglitazone on alcohol craving.MethodsParticipants were treated for withdrawal, if needed, and then randomized to pioglitazone (target dose 45 mg/day) or placebo. Once at target dose, they completed two experimental manipulations: guided imagery, which used personalized auditory scripts to induce alcohol cravings, and a low-dose challenge with i.v. lipopolysaccharide (LPS; 0.8 ng/kg) or placebo, on two separate sessions, in counterbalanced order. Behavioral and endocrine responses as well as CSF levels of proinflammatory cytokines were evaluated.ResultsThe study was prematurely terminated after randomization of 16 subjects, following an independent review that established a high risk of myopathy in the active treatment group. Analysis of those who completed the study indicated that pioglitazone was associated with elevated, rather than suppressed alcohol cravings in response to alcohol-associated stimuli. LPS did not induce cravings for alcohol and thus did not lend itself to evaluating pioglitazone effects; however, pioglitazone increased the neuroendocrine stress response to LPS. CSF levels of IL-6, TNF-α, or MCP-1 were unaffected by pioglitazone treatment.ConclusionsBoth safety and efficacy biomarker data suggest that pioglitazone lacks potential as a medication for the treatment of alcohol dependence.Clinical trial registrationNCT01631630

Choices of hypoglycemic agents for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are limited. Available data among patients with CKD suggest that pioglitazone was effective and safe, with no increase in serious adverse effects. However, weight gain and fluid retention are major clinical problems for pioglitazone among patients with CKD. We conducted this study to compare the efficacy and side effects of low dose pioglitazone with standard dose pioglitazone among patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD. A total of 75 patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD and inadequate glycemic control receiving any pharmacological antidiabetic treatment were randomly assigned to 2 groups. One group consisted of 37 patients treated with standard dose pioglitazone (15 mg/day) and another group consisted of 38 patients treated with low dose pioglitazone (7.5 mg/day). Glycosylated hemoglobinA1c (HbA1c) and metabolic profiles were monitored every 8 weeks for 24 weeks. Body composition was assessed using bio-electrical impedance analysis (BIA). After 6 months of therapy, HbA1c levels decreased in both standard and low dose pioglitazone groups. The mean changes in HbA1c for standard and low dose pioglitazone were 1.1±1.6 and -1.4±1.5 (P = 0.543), respectively. Compared with low dose pioglitazone, standard dose pioglitazone treatment led to a greater increase in body weight, fat mass, total body water and extracellular water composition. No major adverse effects including hypoglycemia, congestive heart failure and abnormal liver function were identified. Pioglitazone 7.5 mg once daily treatments presented similar glycemic control to standard dose pioglitazone and exhibited beneficial effects on weight gain and fluid retention among patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD.