Effects of pioglitazone on lipid and lipoprotein profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes and dyslipidaemia after treatment conversion from rosiglitazone while continuing stable statin therapy.

The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in lipid profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes after treatment conversion from rosiglitazone to pioglitazone while maintaining stable statin and other lipid-altering therapies. A total of 305 patients were enrolled in this open-label study. Patients had been taking stable dosages of rosiglitazone and statins for > 90 days. At baseline, patients discontinued rosiglitazone and started pioglitazone 30 mg/day, but continued statins and other lipid-altering therapies. The primary end point was change from baseline in fasting triglyceride levels. At 17 weeks after treatment conversion, patients had significant reductions in triglycerides (-15.2%), total cholesterol (-9.0%), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particle concentration (-189 nmol/L), and increases in LDL cholesterol (+2.2%), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (+1.8%), and LDL particle diameter (+0.23 nm). In conclusion, after treatment conversion from rosiglitazone to pioglitazone while maintaining stable statin therapy, patients with type 2 diabetes had marked improvements in lipid profiles along with stable glycaemic control.

A comparison of lipid and glycemic effects of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia.

OBJECTIVE: Published reports suggest that pioglitazone and rosiglitazone have different effects on lipids in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, these previous studies were either retrospective chart reviews or clinical trials not rigorously controlled for concomitant glucose- and lipid-lowering therapies. This study examines the lipid and glycemic effects of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We enrolled subjects with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (treated with diet alone or oral monotherapy) and dyslipidemia (not treated with any lipid-lowering agents). After a 4-week placebo washout period, subjects randomly assigned to the pioglitazone arm (n = 400) were treated with 30 mg once daily for 12 weeks followed by 45 mg once daily for an additional 12 weeks, whereas subjects randomly assigned to rosiglitazone (n = 402) were treated with 4 mg once daily followed by 4 mg twice daily for the same intervals. RESULTS: Triglyceride levels were reduced by 51.9 +/- 7.8 mg/dl with pioglitazone, but were increased by 13.1 +/- 7.8 mg/dl with rosiglitazone (P < 0.001 between treatments). Additionally, the increase in HDL cholesterol was greater (5.2 +/- 0.5 vs. 2.4 +/- 0.5 mg/dl; P < 0.001) and the increase in LDL cholesterol was less (12.3 +/- 1.6 vs. 21.3 +/- 1.6 mg/dl; P < 0.001) for pioglitazone compared with rosiglitazone, respectively. LDL particle concentration was reduced with pioglitazone and increased with rosiglitazone (P < 0.001). LDL particle size increased more with pioglitazone (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Pioglitazone and rosiglitazone have significantly different effects on plasma lipids independent of glycemic control or concomitant lipid-lowering or other antihyperglycemic therapy. Pioglitazone compared with rosiglitazone is associated with significant improvements in triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, LDL particle concentration, and LDL particle size.

A prospective, randomized comparison of the metabolic effects of pioglitazone or rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes who were previously treated with troglitazone.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize potential differences in glycemic control, plasma lipid level, and weight in a cohort of patients previously treated with troglitazone (TROG) who were switched to either pioglitazone or rosiglitazone. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: After a 2-week washout from TROG, 186 patients were randomly assigned to receive either pioglitazone (PIO) or rosiglitazone (ROSI). Weight, HbA(1c), and fasting lipid profile were documented before discontinuing TROG and at 4 months after starting either pioglitazone or rosiglitazone. Secondarily, the effect of concurrent medications on study outcomes was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 127 patients completed follow-up: 67 individuals in the PIO group (32 women, 35 men) and 60 individuals in the ROSI group (33 women, 27 men). There were no significant differences in gender mix, age, weight, fasting lipid profile, or HbA(1c) between the ROSI and PIO groups. After 4 months of randomized treatment, no change in HbA(1c) from baseline between or within groups was noted. Both groups experienced an equal and significant increase in weight from baseline of approximately 2.0 kg. Thiazolidinedione and HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor therapy had significant and independent effects on lipid profile (P < 0.005). Significant improvements in lipid profile were noted in the PIO group (P < 0.01), whereas none were detected with conversion to ROSI. Specifically, the PIO group experienced an average decrease in total cholesterol of approximately 20 mg/dl. CONCLUSIONS: Differing effects on lipid profile were apparent after random conversion from TROG to either PIO or ROSI, despite similar weight increase and glycemic control. The clinical significance of these differences remains to be determined, and further comparative research is warranted.

Pioglitazone and rosiglitazone have different effects on serum lipoprotein particle concentrations and sizes in patients with type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia.

OBJECTIVE: Associated with insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes are increased serum triglycerides, decreased HDL cholesterol, and a predominance of large VLDL, small LDL, and small HDL particles. The comparative effects of thiazolidinedione insulin sensitizers on serum lipoprotein particle concentrations and sizes in type 2 diabetes are not known. We studied the effects of pioglitazone (PIO) and rosiglitazone (ROSI) treatments on serum lipoprotein particle concentrations and sizes in type 2 diabetic patients with dyslipidemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group study. After a 4-week placebo washout period, patients randomized to PIO (n = 369) were treated with 30 mg q.d. for 12 weeks followed by 45 mg q.d. for another 12 weeks, while patients randomized to ROSI (n = 366) were treated with 4 mg q.d. followed by 4 mg b.i.d. for the same intervals. Lipoprotein subclass particle concentrations and sizes were determined by proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy at baseline and end point (PIO [n = 333] and ROSI [n = 325] patients). RESULTS: PIO treatment increased total VLDL particle concentration less than ROSI treatment and decreased VLDL particle size more than ROSI. PIO treatment reduced total LDL particle concentration, whereas ROSI treatment increased it. Both treatments increased LDL particle size, with PIO treatment having a greater effect. Whereas PIO treatment increased total HDL particle concentration and size, ROSI treatment decreased them; both increased HDL cholesterol levels. CONCLUSIONS: PIO and ROSI treatments have different effects on serum lipoprotein subclass particle concentrations and sizes in patients with type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia.