Explore the vast range of titles available.

A systematic assessment of potential disease-modifying compounds for Parkinson's disease concluded that pioglitazone could hold promise for the treatment of patients with this disease. We assessed the effect of pioglitazone on the progression of Parkinson's disease in a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, futility clinical trial. Participants with the diagnosis of early Parkinson's disease on a stable regimen of 1 mg/day rasagiline or 10 mg/day selegiline were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 15 mg/day pioglitazone, 45 mg/day pioglitazone, or placebo. Investigators were masked to the treatment assignment. Only the statistical centre and the central pharmacy knew the treatment name associated with the randomisation number. The primary outcome was the change in the total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score between the baseline and 44 weeks, analysed by intention to treat. The primary null hypothesis for each dose group was that the mean change in UPDRS was 3 points less than the mean change in the placebo group. The alternative hypothesis (of futility) was that pioglitazone is not meaningfully different from placebo. We rejected the null if there was significant evidence of futility at the one-sided alpha level of 0·10. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01280123. 210 patients from 35 sites in the USA were enrolled between May 10, 2011, and July 31, 2013. The primary analysis included 72 patients in the 15 mg group, 67 in the 45 mg group, and 71 in the placebo group. The mean total UPDRS change at 44 weeks was 4·42 (95% CI 2·55–6·28) for 15 mg pioglitazone, 5·13 (95% CI 3·17–7·08) for 45 mg pioglitazone, and 6·25 (95% CI 4·35–8·15) for placebo (higher change scores are worse). The mean difference between the 15 mg and placebo groups was −1·83 (80% CI −3·56 to −0·10) and the null hypothesis could not be rejected (p=0·19). The mean difference between the 45 mg and placebo groups was −1·12 (80% CI −2·93 to 0·69) and the null hypothesis was rejected in favour of futility (p=0·09). Planned sensitivity analyses of the primary outcome, using last value carried forward (LVCF) to handle missing data and using the completers' only sample, suggested that the 15 mg dose is also futile (p=0·09 for LVCF, p=0·09 for completers) but failed to reject the null hypothesis for the 45 mg dose (p=0·12 for LVCF, p=0·19 for completers). Six serious adverse events occurred in the 15 mg group, nine in the 45 mg group, and three in the placebo group; none were thought to be definitely or probably related to the study interventions. These findings suggest that pioglitazone at the doses studied here is unlikely to modify progression in early Parkinson's disease. Further study of pioglitazone in a larger trial in patients with Parkinson's disease is not recommended. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

This study examined whether pioglitazone can reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults with impaired glucose tolerance. As compared with placebo, pioglitazone reduced the conversion of IGT to diabetes by 72% but was associated with significant weight gain and edema. Type 2 diabetes mellitus affects 21 million Americans, 1 and its prevalence is increasing. 2 Microvascular and macrovascular complications are common in type 2 diabetes mellitus and are related to both the severity and the duration of hyperglycemia. 3 The natural history of type 2 diabetes mellitus has been well defined, 4 starting with a genetic predisposition and progression from normal glucose tolerance with insulin resistance to impaired glucose tolerance and eventually type 2 diabetes mellitus with the superimposition of beta-cell failure. Because hyperglycemia plays a central role in the microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes, 3 , 5 , 6 it is possible that interventions that . . .

In this trial in nondiabetic patients with insulin resistance and a recent ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, pioglitazone was associated with a lower risk of stroke and MI than was placebo but with a higher risk of weight gain, edema, and bone fracture. Ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) affect more than 14 million persons worldwide annually. 1 , 2 Affected patients are at increased risk for future cardiovascular events, 3 , 4 and prevention of these adverse outcomes is a major goal in their care. Treatment of insulin resistance represents a potential new preventive strategy that could be added to standard care after ischemic stroke or TIA. 5 Insulin resistance is nearly universal in patients with type 2 diabetes but is also present in more than 50% of patients without diabetes who have had an ischemic stroke or a TIA. 6 The presence of insulin resistance increases . . .

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.

In this randomized trial comparing vitamin E, pioglitazone, and placebo in adults without diabetes who had nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, vitamin E therapy was associated with a significantly higher rate of improvement in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis than was placebo (43% vs. 19%). Significant benefits of pioglitazone over placebo were shown for some secondary outcomes but not for the primary outcome. In adults who had nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, vitamin E therapy was associated with a significantly higher rate of improvement than was placebo. Significant benefits of pioglitazone over placebo were shown for some secondary outcomes. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is a common liver disease that is characterized histologically by hepatic steatosis, lobular inflammation, and hepatocellular ballooning 1 , 2 ; it can progress to cirrhosis in up to 15% of patients. 3 , 4 There is currently no therapy that is of proven benefit for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The disease is closely associated with insulin resistance and features of the metabolic syndrome such as obesity, hypertriglyceridemia, and type 2 diabetes. 5 , 6 In addition to insulin resistance, oxidative stress has been implicated as a key factor contributing to hepatic injury in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. 6 , 7 Thus, both insulin resistance and oxidative stress . . .

In this study of treatments for recent-onset type 2 diabetes, metformin monotherapy was associated with durable glycemic control in about 50% of patients. The addition of rosiglitazone, but not intensive lifestyle intervention, to metformin was superior to metformin alone. Increases in childhood obesity have been accompanied by an increased incidence of type 2 diabetes in youth. 1 , 2 Because the risk of microvascular and macrovascular complications in adults increases with both the duration of diabetes and lack of glycemic control, 3 , 4 it is imperative to achieve and sustain metabolic control in youth. Addressing the physiological and psychological changes that normally occur during adolescence requires a high level of family involvement and makes the achievement of stringent treatment goals especially difficult in the case of adolescents with diabetes. 5 , 6 These challenges are heightened in disadvantaged populations, which are over-represented among adolescents . . .

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of add-on insulin glargine versus rosiglitazone in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on dual oral therapy with sulfonylurea plus metformin. In this 24-week multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel trial, 217 patients (HbA(1c) [A1C] 7.5-11%, BMI >25 kg/m(2)) on > or =50% of maximal-dose sulfonylurea and metformin received add-on insulin glargine 10 units/day or rosiglitazone 4 mg/day. Insulin glargine was forced-titrated to target fasting plasma glucose (FPG) < or =5.5-6.7 mmol/l (< or =100-120 mg/dl), and rosiglitazone was increased to 8 mg/day any time after 6 weeks if FPG was >5.5 mmol/l. A1C improvements from baseline were similar in both groups (-1.7 vs. -1.5% for insulin glargine vs. rosiglitazone, respectively); however, when baseline A1C was >9.5%, the reduction of A1C with insulin glargine was greater than with rosiglitazone (P < 0.05). Insulin glargine yielded better FPG values than rosiglitazone (-3.6 +/- 0.23 vs. -2.6 +/- 0.22 mmol/l; P = 0.001). Insulin glargine final dose per day was 38 +/- 26 IU vs. 7.1 +/- 2 mg for rosiglitazone. Confirmed hypoglycemic events at plasma glucose <3.9 mmol/l (<70 mg/dl) were slightly greater for the insulin glargine group (n = 57) than for the rosiglitazone group (n = 47) (P = 0.0528). The calculated average rate per patient-year of a confirmed hypoglycemic event (<70 mg/dl), after adjusting for BMI, was 7.7 (95% CI 5.4-10.8) and 3.4 (2.3-5.0) for the insulin glargine and rosiglitazone groups, respectively (P = 0.0073). More patients in the insulin glargine group had confirmed nocturnal hypoglycemia of <3.9 mmol/l (P = 0.02) and <2.8 mmol/l (P < 0.05) than in the rosiglitazone group. Effects on total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglyceride levels from baseline to end point with insulin glargine (-4.4, -1.4, and -19.0%, respectively) contrasted with those of rosiglitazone (+10.1, +13.1, and +4.6%, respectively; P < 0.002). HDL cholesterol was unchanged with insulin glargine but increased with rosiglitazone by 4.4% (P < 0.05). Insulin glargine had less weight gain than rosiglitazone (1.6 +/- 0.4 vs. 3.0 +/- 0.4 kg; P = 0.02), fewer adverse events (7 vs. 29%; P = 0.0001), and no peripheral edema (0 vs. 12.5%). Insulin glargine saved $235/patient over 24 weeks compared with rosiglitazone. Low-dose insulin glargine combined with a sulfonylurea and metformin resulted in similar A1C improvements except for greater reductions in A1C when baseline was > or =9.5% compared with add-on maximum-dose rosiglitazone. Further, insulin glargine was associated with more hypoglycemia but less weight gain, no edema, and salutary lipid changes at a lower cost of therapy.

Leriglitazone is a unique peroxisome proliferator‐activated receptor‐gamma (PPARγ) agonist that crosses the blood–brain barrier in humans and clinical trials have shown evidence of efficacy in neurodegenerative diseases. At clinical doses which are well‐tolerated, leriglitazone reaches the target central nervous system (CNS) concentrations that are needed for PPARγ engagement and efficacy; PPARγ engagement is also supported by clinical and anti‐inflammatory biomarker changes in the Cerebrospinal fluid in the CNS. Plasma pharmacokinetics (PK) of leriglitazone were determined in a phase 1 study in male healthy volunteers comprising a single ascending dose (SAD) and a multiple ascending dose (MAD) at oral doses of 30, 90, and 270 mg and 135 and 270 mg, respectively. Leriglitazone was rapidly absorbed with no food effect on overall exposure and showed a linear PK profile with dose‐exposure correlation. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model was developed for leriglitazone based on phase 1 data (SAD part) and incorporated CYP3A4 (fmCYP3A4 = 24%) and CYP2C8‐mediated (fmCYP2C8 = 45%) metabolism, as well as biliary clearance (feBIL = 19.5%) derived from in vitro data, and was verified by comparing the observed versus predicted concentration‐time profiles from the MAD part. The PBPK model was prospectively applied to predict the starting pediatric doses and was preliminarily verified with data from five pediatric patients.

The aim of this study was to assess the glucose-lowering and lipid-modifying effects, and safety profile of lobeglitazone, a novel peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor- γ agonist, compared to placebo as a monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. In this 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo controlled study, 173 patients were randomly assigned (a 2∶1 ratio) to lobeglitazone 0.5 mg (n=115) or matching placebo (n=58) orally once daily. The primary endpoint was the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to the end of treatment. The secondary endpoints included various glycemic parameters, lipid parameters and safety profile (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01001611). At 24 weeks, a significant reduction in HbA1c was observed with lobeglitazone versus placebo (-0.44% vs 0.16%, mean difference -0.6%, p<0.0001). The goal of HbA1c <7% was achieved significantly more in the lobeglitazone group compared to the placebo group (44% vs 12%, p<0.0001). Markers of insulin resistance were also improved in the lobeglitazone group. In addition, lobeglitazone treatment significantly improved triglycerides, high density lipoprotein cholesterol, small dense low density lipoprotein cholesterol, free fatty acid, and apolipoprotein-B/CIII compared to placebo (p<0.01, respectively). More weight gain was observed in the lobeglitazone group than the placebo group (0.89 kg vs - 0.63 kg, mean difference 1.52 kg, p<0.0001). The safety profile was comparable between the two groups and lobeglitazone was well tolerated. Lobeglitazone 0.5 mg showed a favorable balance in the efficacy and safety profile. The results support a potential role of lobeglitazone in treating type 2 diabetes. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01001611.

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).