2012Current Medical Research and OpinionRequires access

Efficacy and tolerability of rosiglitazone and pioglitazone in drug-naïve Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a double-blind, 28 weeks’ treatment, comparative study

Masatoshi Kikuchi, Kohei Kaku, Masato Odawara, Shin‐ichi Momomura, Ryutaro Ishii

Open publisher page 9 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: A 28-week, randomized, placebo-controlled study was performed to evaluate efficacy and tolerability of rosiglitazone in Japanese type 2 diabetes patients. RESEARCH AND DESIGN METHODS: 373 patients were randomized to rosiglitazone (4-8 mg/day), pioglitazone (15-45 mg/day) or placebo. Agents were titrated to maximum doses at fixed time points in a pre-defined manner. Primary endpoints were superiority of each active treatment compared to placebo in HbA(1c) at week 16, and non-inferiority between active agents in HbA(1c) at week 28, based on a -0.45% margin. RESULTS: At week 16, improvements versus placebo were observed with rosiglitazone 4 mg/day (-0.96%, p < 0.001) and pioglitazone 30 mg/day (-1.26%, p < 0.001). At week 28, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone were associated with significant changes from baseline of -0.94% and -1.35%, respectively and rosiglitazone produced statistically and clinically significant improvement versus placebo (-1.29%, CI: -1.62, -0.97). Pioglitazone also showed significant improvement versus placebo (-1.64%, CI: -1.96, -1.31). Non-inferiority of rosiglitazone (4-8 mg/day) to pioglitazone (30-45 mg/day) was not demonstrated (treatment-difference: -0.41%, 95% CI: -0.64, -0.18). More patients treated with pioglitazone were withdrawn from the study by adverse events compared with rosiglitazone (14 vs. 4, p = 0.015). Pioglitazone was associated with higher incidences of adverse events relating to edema and weight gain compared with rosiglitazone (edema: 25.2 vs. 11.3%, weight gain: 9.4 vs. 4.4%). There were no reports of ischemic heart disease or congestive heart failure in any treatment group. CONCLUSION: Although non-inferiority to pioglitazone up to 45 mg in efficacy was not shown, rosiglitazone was confirmed to have clinically meaningful efficacy over placebo and fewer fluid-related events than pioglitazone. The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as protocol NCT00297063.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: A 28-week, randomized, placebo-controlled study was performed to evaluate efficacy and tolerability of rosiglitazone in Japanese type 2 diabetes patients. RESEARCH AND DESIGN METHODS: 373 patients were randomized to rosiglitazone (4-8 mg/day), pioglitazone (15-45 mg/day) or placebo. Agents were titrated to maximum doses at fixed time points in a pre-defined manner. Primary endpoints were superiority of each active treatment compared to placebo in HbA(1c) at week 16, and non-inferiority between active agents in HbA(1c) at week 28, based on a -0.45% margin. RESULTS: At week 16, improvements versus placebo were observed with rosiglitazone 4 mg/day (-0.96%, p < 0.001) and pioglitazone 30 mg/day (-1.26%, p < 0.001). At week 28, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone were associated with significant changes from baseline of -0.94% and -1.35%, respectively and rosiglitazone produced statistically and clinically significant improvement versus placebo (-1.29%, CI: -1.62, -0.97). Pioglitazone also showed significant improvement versus placebo (-1.64%, CI: -1.96, -1.31). Non-inferiority of rosiglitazone (4-8 mg/day) to pioglitazone (30-45 mg/day) was not demonstrated (treatment-difference: -0.41%, 95% CI: -0.64, -0.18). More patients treated with pioglitazone were withdrawn from the study by adverse events compared with rosiglitazone (14 vs. 4, p = 0.015). Pioglitazone was associated with higher incidences of adverse events relating to edema and weight gain compared with rosiglitazone (edema: 25.2 vs. 11.3%, weight gain: 9.4 vs. 4.4%). There were no reports of ischemic heart disease or congestive heart failure in any treatment group. CONCLUSION: Although non-inferiority to pioglitazone up to 45 mg in efficacy was not shown, rosiglitazone was confirmed to have clinically meaningful efficacy over placebo and fewer fluid-related events than pioglitazone. The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as protocol NCT00297063.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 9 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: A 28-week, randomized, placebo-controlled study was performed to evaluate efficacy and tolerability of rosiglitazone in Japanese type 2 diabetes patients. RESEARCH AND DESIGN METHODS: 373 patients were randomized to rosiglitazone (4-8 mg/day), pioglitazone (15-45 mg/day) or placebo. Agents were titrated to maximum doses at fixed time points in a pre-defined manner. Primary endpoints were superiority of each active treatment compared to placebo in HbA(1c) at week 16, and non-inferiority between active agents in HbA(1c) at week 28, based on a -0.45% margin. RESULTS: At week 16, improvements versus placebo were observed with rosiglitazone 4 mg/day (-0.96%, p < 0.001) and pioglitazone 30 mg/day (-1.26%, p < 0.001). At week 28, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone were associated with significant changes from baseline of -0.94% and -1.35%, respectively and rosiglitazone produced statistically and clinically significant improvement versus placebo (-1.29%, CI: -1.62, -0.97). Pioglitazone also showed significant improvement versus placebo (-1.64%, CI: -1.96, -1.31). Non-inferiority of rosiglitazone (4-8 mg/day) to pioglitazone (30-45 mg/day) was not demonstrated (treatment-difference: -0.41%, 95% CI: -0.64, -0.18). More patients treated with pioglitazone were withdrawn from the study by adverse events compared with rosiglitazone (14 vs. 4, p = 0.015). Pioglitazone was associated with higher incidences of adverse events relating to edema and weight gain compared with rosiglitazone (edema: 25.2 vs. 11.3%, weight gain: 9.4 vs. 4.4%). There were no reports of ischemic heart disease or congestive heart failure in any treatment group. CONCLUSION: Although non-inferiority to pioglitazone up to 45 mg in efficacy was not shown, rosiglitazone was confirmed to have clinically meaningful efficacy over placebo and fewer fluid-related events than pioglitazone. The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as protocol NCT00297063.

Key concepts: Pioglitazone, Rosiglitazone, Medicine, Tolerability, Placebo, Type 2 diabetes, Peripheral edema, Adverse effect

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Efficacy and tolerability of rosiglitazone and pioglitazone in drug-naïve Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a double-blind, 28 weeks’ treatment, comparative study — Research Paper | ScholarLens