In praise of pioglitazone: An economically efficacious therapy for type 2 diabetes and other manifestations of the metabolic syndrome.

Pioglitazone improves glycaemic control, not only by lowering insulin resistance, but also by improving beta cell function. Because of the improved beta cell function the glycaemic control that occurs with pioglitazone is prolonged. Pioglitazone has positive effects not only on cardiac risk factors and surrogate measures of cardiovascular disease, it also lowers the incidence of cardiac events in patients with diabetes. The recurrence of transient ischaemic attack and ischaemic stroke is also reduced in non-diabetic, insulin-resistant subjects. Utilized at preclinical stages (but not later) of heart failure, pioglitazone improves diastolic function and avoids progression to heart failure. Pioglitazone, through suppression of atrial remodelling, also decreases the incidence of atrial fibrillation. The manifestations of diseases associated with insulin resistance (non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and polycystic ovary disease) are also improved with pioglitazone. Pioglitazone may possibly improve psoriasis and other dermopathies. Pioglitazone is therefore an inexpensive and efficacious drug for the insulin-resistant subject with diabetes that is underutilized because of biases that have evolved from the toxicities of other thiazolidinediones.

Analysis of pharmacoeconomic value of sitagliptin in the treatment of diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes mellitus is a chronic metabolic disease which has an adverse impact on the quality of patient's life, so patients often need to receive treatment for a long time. Selection of medications with high therapeutics effects and low cost is very important for patients to take medicine for a longer period of time. Sitagliptin is a drug which is widely used in clinics and can effectively control blood glucose level. This article explores the pharmacoeconomic value of Sitagliptin in the treatment of diabetes mellitus. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 100 patients with diabetes mellitus treated were recruited in this study. The patients were randomly divided into 4 groups with 25 cases in each group. Patients in group A were treated with pioglitazone, group B with Sitagliptin, group C with metformin and group D with glimepiride. The cost of the drugs, the treatment results and adverse effects were compared. RESULTS: Compared with group A, C and D, the cost-effectiveness ratio of group B was low (p<0.05), and the therapeutic effect was high (p<0.05). In addition, the incidence of adverse reactions in group B was lower than that in group A, C and D (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in the levels of FPG, 2hPG and HbAlc in patients among the four groups before treatment (p>0.05). After treatment, the levels of FPG, 2hPG and HbAlc in group B were significantly lower than those in groups A, C and D (p<0.05). Finally, there was no significant difference in waist circumference and BMI among the four groups before treatment (p>0.05). After treatment, the waist circumference and BMI in group B were lower than those in groups A, C and D (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The application of Sitagliptin in the treatment of diabetic patients can effectively enhance the therapeutic effect. The cost effectiveness is satisfactory, and the blood glucose level can be maintained at a stable state.

The risk of sudden cardiac arrest and ventricular arrhythmia with rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone: real-world evidence on thiazolidinedione safety.

BACKGROUND: The low cost of thiazolidinediones makes them a potentially valuable therapeutic option for the > 300 million economically disadvantaged persons worldwide with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Differential selectivity of thiazolidinediones for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors in the myocardium may lead to disparate arrhythmogenic effects. We examined real-world effects of thiazolidinediones on outpatient-originating sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) and ventricular arrhythmia (VA). METHODS: We conducted population-based high-dimensional propensity score-matched cohort studies in five Medicaid programs (California, Florida, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania | 1999-2012) and a commercial health insurance plan (Optum Clinformatics | 2000-2016). We defined exposure based on incident rosiglitazone or pioglitazone dispensings; the latter served as an active comparator. We controlled for confounding by matching exposure groups on propensity score, informed by baseline covariates identified via a data adaptive approach. We ascertained SCA/VA outcomes precipitating hospital presentation using a validated, diagnosis-based algorithm. We generated marginal hazard ratios (HRs) via Cox proportional hazards regression that accounted for clustering within matched pairs. We prespecified Medicaid and Optum findings as primary and secondary, respectively; the latter served as a conceptual replication dataset. RESULTS: The adjusted HR for SCA/VA among rosiglitazone (vs. pioglitazone) users was 0.91 (0.75-1.10) in Medicaid and 0.88 (0.61-1.28) in Optum. Among Medicaid but not Optum enrollees, we found treatment effect heterogeneity by sex (adjusted HRs = 0.71 [0.54-0.93] and 1.16 [0.89-1.52] in men and women respectively, interaction term p-value = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Rosiglitazone and pioglitazone appear to be associated with similar risks of SCA/VA.

Adherence and Persistence with DPP-4 Inhibitors Versus Pioglitazone in Type 2 Diabetes Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Retrospective Claims Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adherence and persistence with diabetes medication play an important role in glycemic control and may differ by medication class. However, there is a lack of research comparing diabetes medications in patients with renal impairment, despite the challenges and higher burden associated with managing this population. OBJECTIVE: To compare adherence and persistence among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and nondialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD) treated with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors versus pioglitazone. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used Truven MarketScan administrative claims databases from 2009 to 2015. One-year adherence for patients with T2DM and nondialysis CKD who initiated therapy with either a DPP-4 inhibitor or pioglitazone was measured by proportion of days covered (PDC) following an initial dispensing, and PDC ≥ 0.80 was coded as adherent. Persistence was calculated as the days between the index date and last day with the index medication on hand, based on the end of the last days supply or the end of follow-up (i.e., 365 days), whichever occurred first. Multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate confounder-adjusted differences between the groups for adherence and persistence. RESULTS: The final cohort included 9,019 patients (DPP-4 inhibitors: 7,002; pioglitazone: 2,017). In the adjusted analysis, DPP-4 inhibitor users demonstrated a 1.41 (95% CI = 1.25-1.59) higher odds of being adherent compared with pioglitazone users. Overall adjusted HR for persistence was 0.74 (95% CI = 0.69-0.79), which favored DPP-4 inhibitors compared with pioglitazone. Relative to 2010, persistence with pioglitazone decreased in 2011-2012 and then increased in 2013-2014. In the subgroup analysis, DPP-4 inhibitors first had lower (2010: OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.70-0.87; 2011-2012: OR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.54-0.66) and then similar (2013-2014: OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.88-1.19) hazards of nonpersistence compared with pioglitazone. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with T2DM and nondialysis CKD, the use of DPP-4 inhibitors was associated with better adherence compared with pioglitazone. However, following the approval of generic pioglitazone and associated lower cost sharing after 2012, the magnitude of difference in adherence between the medication classes reduced. Similarly, safety warnings in 2011 and approval of generic products in 2012 may have affected pioglitazone persistence, leading to first higher and then similar hazards for nonpersistence with pioglitazone as compared with DPP-4 inhibitors. These shifts in the results for pioglitazone warrant further investigation and close monitoring of the population initiating this medication. DISCLOSURES: No funding was received for this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. An abstract for this study was presented as a podium presentation at the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) 2019 Annual Meeting; May 18-22, 2019; New Orleans, LA.

Pioglitazone: The forgotten, cost-effective cardioprotective drug for type 2 diabetes.

Type 2 diabetes individuals are at high risk for macrovascular complications: myocardial infarction, stroke and cardiovascular mortality. Recent cardiovascular outcome trials have demonstrated that agents in two antidiabetic classes (SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists) reduce major adverse cardiovascular events. However, there is strong evidence that an older and now generically available medication, the thiazolidinedione, pioglitazone, can retard the atherosclerotic process (PERISCOPE and Chicago) and reduce cardiovascular events in large randomized prospective cardiovascular outcome trials (IRIS and PROactive). Pioglitazone is a potent insulin sensitizer, preserves beta-cell function, causes durable reduction in HbA1c, corrects multiple components of metabolic syndrome and improves nonalcoholic fatty liver disease/nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Adverse effects (weight gain, fluid retention, fractures) must be considered, but are diminished with lower doses and are arguably outweighed by these multiple benefits. With healthcare expenses attributable to diabetes increasing rapidly, this cost-effective drug requires reconsideration in the therapeutic armamentarium for the disease.

Successful treatment of prediabetes in clinical practice using physiological assessment (STOP DIABETES).

BACKGROUND: Of the 84 million American adults with prediabetes, over 5 to 7 years, about 28 million progress to type 2 diabetes. We aimed to assess whether a real-world, pathophysiology-based, therapeutic approach could prevent development of type 2 diabetes in high-risk individuals. METHODS: We did a retrospective observational study of people at increased risk of type 2 diabetes from a community practice in southern California, USA. Participants had an oral glucose tolerance test and were assigned a risk stratification on the basis of presence and severity of insulin resistance, impaired ß-cell function, and glycaemia (ie, 1-h plasma glucose concentration of more than 8·6 mmol/L during an oral glucose tolerance test). Treatment was recommended on the basis of risk: metformin, pioglitazone, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and lifestyle therapy for participants at high risk of diabetes, and metformin, pioglitazone, and lifestyle therapy for those at intermediate risk. Individuals who refused pharmacological therapy were assigned to lifestyle therapy only. Participants were followed up every 6 months and oral glucose tolerance tests were repeated at 6 months and subsequently every 2 years or sooner. The primary outcome of our analysis was incidence of type 2 diabetes according to the American Diabetes Association criteria, within the study period (2009-16). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03308773. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2009 and Dec 31, 2016, we assessed 1769 people at increased risk of diabetes, of which 747 (42%) were identified at high or intermediate risk and were recommended pharmacological treatment. Of 422 participants analysed, 28 (7%) progressed to type 2 diabetes (seven [5%] of 141 participants who received metformin, pioglitazone, and lifestyle therapy, none [0%] of 81 who received metformin, pioglitazone, GLP-1 receptor agonist, and lifestyle therapy, and 21 [11%] of 200 who received lifestyle therapy only) after mean follow-up of 32·09 months (SEM 1·24). Compared with participants who received lifestyle therapy only, the adjusted hazard ratio for progression to type 2 diabetes was 0·29 (95% CI 0·11-0·78, p=0·0009) in participants who received metformin and pioglitazone, and 0·12 (95% CI 0·02-0·94, p=0·04) in participants who received metformin, pioglitazone, and GLP-1 receptor agonist. Improved ß-cell function was the strongest predictor of type 2 diabetes prevention. INTERPRETATION: Progression to type 2 diabetes in people at high risk of diabetes can be markedly reduced with interventions designed to correct underlying pathophysiological disturbances (ie, impaired insulin secretion and resistance) in a real-world setting. FUNDING: None.

Assessment of pioglitazone and proinflammatory cytokines during buprenorphine taper in patients with opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary evidence suggested that the PPARγ agonist pioglitazone reduces opioid-withdrawal symptoms, possibly by inhibiting increases in proinflammatory cytokines. METHODS: A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted utilizing two different study designs (entirely outpatient, and a combination of inpatient and outpatient) to evaluate the safety and efficacy of pioglitazone as an adjunct medication for people with opioid physical dependence undergoing a buprenorphine taper. Participants were stabilized on buprenorphine/naloxone (sublingual, up to 16/4 mg/day), then randomized to receive oral pioglitazone (up to 45 mg/day) or placebo before, during, and after buprenorphine taper. Outcome measures included the Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale (SOWS) and Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale, use of rescue medications to alleviate opioid withdrawal symptoms, and opioid-positive urine specimens. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma were collected during the taper in a subset of participants for measurement of proinflammatory cytokines. RESULTS: The clinical trial was prematurely terminated due to slow enrollment; 40 participants per group were required for adequate statistical power to test study hypotheses. Twenty-four participants enrolled; 17 received at least one dose of study medication (6 pioglitazone, 11 placebo). SOWS scores were higher in the pioglitazone arm than in the placebo arm after adjusting for use of rescue medications; participants in the pioglitazone arm needed more rescue medications than the placebo arm during the post-taper phase. SOWS scores were positively correlated with monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) in CSF (r = 0.70, p = 0.038) and plasma (r = 0.77, p = 0.015). Participants having higher levels of plasma MCP-1 reported higher SOWS, most notably after the buprenorphine taper ended. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study provide no evidence that pioglitazone reduces opioid withdrawal symptoms during buprenorphine taper. High correlations between MCP-1 and opioid withdrawal symptoms support a role of proinflammatory processes in opioid withdrawal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01517165.