HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Basu, A. Articles by Rizza, R. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Basu, A. Articles by Rizza, R. A. Social Bookmarking                What's this?

Effects of Pioglitazone Versus Glipizide on Body Fat Distribution, Body Water Content, and Hemodynamics in Type 2 Diabetes

¹ Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota
² Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota
³ Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Ananda Basu, MD, Consultant, Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 200 First St., SW, Rochester, MN 55905. E-mail: basu.ananda{at}mayo.edu

OBJECTIVE—Pioglitazone, a peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor agonist and glipizide, an insulin secretagogue, are commonly used to treat type 2 diabetes. Our study was designed to examine the effects of pioglitazone versus glipizide on body water, body composition, and hemodynamic parameters in the presence of comparable glycemic control between groups.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We studied 19 diabetic subjects randomly assigned to either 45 mg pioglitazone (n = 8) or 10 mg (median dose) glipizide (n = 11) for 12 weeks. Body water content was measured with deuterated water, body composition by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and computed tomography, and cardiac output and systemic vascular resistance by acetylene rebreathing technique both before and after therapy.

RESULTS—Pioglitazone increased (P < 0.001 from baseline) total body water (+2.4 ± 0.5 l) accounting for 75% of the total weight gain (+3.1 ± 2.0 kg) but did not alter vascular endothelial growth factor concentrations. Total abdominal (–32.2 ± 19 cm²) and visceral fat area (–16.1 ± 8 cm²) tended to decrease with pioglitazone but increased (P < 0.02 for differences between groups) with glipizide (+38.4 ± 17 cm² abdominal; +19.1 ± 9 cm² visceral). Pioglitazone tended to reduce (P = 0.05) diastolic (–8.4 ± 4 mmHg) and mean (–9.5 ± 5 mmHg; P = 0.08) blood pressure and reduced (P < 0.001) systemic vascular resistance (2,785 ± 336 vs. 2,227 ± 136 dynes/s per m²), while there were no differences in these parameters with glipizide. Neither therapy altered circulating catecholamine concentrations.

CONCLUSIONS—When pioglitazone and glipizide are given in doses sufficient to achieve equivalent glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes, pioglitazone increases total body water, thereby accounting for the majority of weight gain, tended to decrease visceral and abdominal fat content and blood pressure, and reduces systemic vascular resistance.

Abbreviations: PPAR, peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor • VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor

CiteULike    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. Erdmann and R. G. Wilcox Weighing up the cardiovascular benefits of thiazolidinedione therapy: the impact of increased risk of heart failure Eur. Heart J., January 1, 2008; 29(1): 12 - 20. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]