© 2005 by the American Diabetes Association, Inc.
ThiazolidinedionesZachary T. Bloomgarden, MD, is a practicing endocrinologist in New York, New York, and is affiliated with the Diabetes Center, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York
Abbreviations: CHF, congestive heart failure CVD, cardiovascular disease FFA, free fatty acid IAPP, islet amyloid polypeptide PGZ, pioglitazone PPAR, peroxisome proliferatoractivated receptor RGZ, rosiglitazone TGZ, troglitazone TZD, thiazolidinedione UKPDS, U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study This is the fifth in a series of articles on presentations at the American Diabetes Association Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, 48 June 2004. At a debate at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) meeting on the use of thiazolidinediones (TZDs) in type 2 diabetes, David M. Kendall (Minneapolis, MN) discussed their advantages. He presented evidence that the agents improve glycemic control, target the metabolic defects of insulin resistance and insulin deficiency, and potentially preserve ß-cell function and, therefore, prevent diabetes. Furthermore, he discussed the role of insulin resistance in increasing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, the safety and tolerability of the drugs, and aspects of their cost. All oral hypoglycemic agents lower plasma glucose by 3080 mg/dl and HbA1c by up to 22.5%. However, Kendall stated, only 2530% of patients achieve adequate glycemic control with metformin or secretagogue monotherapy and only 1520% with TZDs. "It is how we get there that is important," he stated, and because hyperglycemia is caused by paired defects of both insulin resistance and deficiency, its treatment requires addressing both pathogenic defects. The U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) showed that type 2 diabetes is a progressive disease with declining ß-cell function but may have been flawed due to a lack of sufficiently high doses of insulin and not having TZDs or insulin analogs available. Kendall noted that the HbA1c goal for individuals with type 2 diabetes should be <7%, and perhaps should be <6%, although he noted that, on a population basis, glycemic treatment has not improved particularly over the past decade. Although insulin secretion is apparently increased in the setting of compensation to insulin resistance, subsequent progressive ß-cell dysfunction occurs that is associated with adverse effects of hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, fatty acids, and adipocytokines. TZDs decrease insulin resistance and prevent the decline in ß-cell mass, with Kendall noting the effect of troglitazone (TGZ) on the insulin secretory response to glucose, further suggesting an improvement in ß-cell function (1). Although the TZDs "are still new agents," he referred to open-label studies suggesting that these agents sustain glycemic improvement for >2 years. Addressing their role in the prevention of type 2 diabetes, Kendall discussed the DPP (Diabetes Prevention Project), in which there was a 30% reduction in diabetes development among individuals with impaired glucose tolerance during metformin treatment, although this appeared in part to be a "masking," as withdrawal of the treatment led to the development of diabetes (2). In contrast, Kendall stated that of the 500 patients treated for a median of 10 months with TGZ in the DPP, there was a 75% reduction in risk of progression, and a 25% decrease in risk was seen 3 years later, suggesting sustained benefit. In the TRIPOD (Troglitazone in Prevention of Diabetes) study, TGZ decreased the risk of developing diabetes by 56%, again with the suggestion of sustained prevention after withdrawal of the treatment (3). A number of additional studies are being performed regarding the effects of TZDs on diabetes development. The metabolic syndrome causes abnormal vascular function with inflammation and increased thrombotic risk, as well as dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia, and hypertension. There may be benefits of TZD treatment extending beyond diabetes prevention to the prevention of cardiovascular complications of the metabolic syndrome. TZDs have many effects on all atherogenic aspects of the metabolic syndrome: lowering blood pressure, decreasing lipid abnormalities, reducing inflammatory mediators (including C-reactive protein, matrix matalloproteinase-9, and leukocyte count), and improving procoagulant abnormalities. In the TRIPOD study, serial carotid intima-media thickness measurement showed benefit of TGZ. Although it is crucial to target each abnormality, the multiple favorable effects of TZDs are attractive and are not seen to the same extent with other glycemic treatments. However, Kendall acknowledged that metformin does improve insulin resistance and lower plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1, that metformin was associated with lower CVD risk in the UKPDS (4), and that insulin was associated with decreased mortality in the DIGAMI (Diabetes Mellitus, Insulin Glucose Infusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction) (5) and other acute studies. The adverse side effects of TZDs have been a question, but Kendall stated that there is no evidence of hepatotoxicity and that there is evidence of improvement in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Addressing the risk of weight gain, he characterized this as "simply a concern that patients express," stating that weight gain occurs with any intensive therapy of diabetes and is in general associated with improved outcome. Although peripheral edema occurs in up to 15% of treated individuals, he noted that it is less common at low doses, that edema must be distinguished from congestive heart failure (CHF), and, most importantly, that type 2 diabetes is associated with high CHF rates and that TZDs may simply unmask unrecognized heart failure. Kendall suggested that the ADAAmerican Heart Association CHF consensus statement (6) exaggerates in ascribing adverse consequences to these agents and that CHF "is exceedingly uncommon" in TZD-treated patients. Finally, Kendall stated that "the cost of diabetes is not about drug acquisition cost." He argued that the cost of TZDs is similar to that of insulin and that, although more expensive than metformin and sulfonylureas, their cost is dwarfed by all the truly expensive health care costs experienced by individuals with diabetes. Diabetes care accounts for 10% of health care spending, totaling some $132 billion in the U.S., of which 30% is related to outpatient treatment and 44% to hospital inpatient costs, few of which would be related to drug charges. Philip Home (Newcastle, U.K.) discussed a number of disadvantages, which lead to his belief that caution is necessary before the widespread therapeutic use of TZDs. He noted that although the drugs lower blood glucose in some individuals with diabetes to approximately the same extent as other classes of oral glucose-lowering drugs, it is important that physicians practice evidence-based medicine. Thus, although they do improve putative procoagulant and proinflammatory risk factors, substantiation of this being beneficial is "thin, with no outcome evidence" that such therapeutic intervention improves health outcomes, as has been well documented for the lowering of glucose, blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol. He suggested that TZDs may lead to "too many genes" being activated for safety, with agents in this class withdrawn because of tumors, that there is fluid retention causing major CHF risk, and that they do cause weight gain, which may have adverse consequences. He noted that the insulin resistance caused by glucose toxicity is highly consequential and is addressed by all glucose-lowering agents. He further suggested that insulin deficiency is the critical difference between insulin-resistant individuals who do and do not develop diabetes, suggesting that insulin secretagogues should not be considered inappropriate agents for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. He stated that in the UKPDS, metformin appeared to be associated with optimal improvement in risk, that sulfonylureas are somewhat more potent than either TZDs or metformin, at least in initial glucose-lowering efficacy, and that sulfonylurea-treated individuals in the UKPDS showed a sustained glucose-lowering benefit over >6 years; therefore, these should be considered "useful drugs, cheap drugs, effective drugs with outcomes proven by that study." If, he said, the use of TZDs delays the introduction of metformin "with its proven advantage," then they may actually result in worse outcome. He suggested that insulin treatment typically lowers HbA1c by 11.5%, maintains glucose control in the long term, and has both proven efficacy and long-term safety.
Home referred to cost, and stated he "was horrified by [Kendalls] economic analysis," stating that if a months supply of insulin costs $83, sulfonylureas $119, metformin $113, and a TZD $227, then the excess cost is "fixed money." Furthermore, he suggested that it would be approximately five times more expensive to use TZDs than metformin given the UKPDS evidence of benefit and assuming that TZDs are as effective in decreasing risk as sulfonylureas and insulin. He also suggested that TZDs reduce fasting blood glucose by >30 mg/dl in only 3848% of patients, although noting that "it is disguised in many of the studies" by presenting mean falls in glucose in an overall treated population. Based on the reported SDs of the decrease in blood glucose, Home suggested that Home then focused on cardiovascular concerns. He noted that CHF is often difficult to detect until symptomatic and that the product labels state that one must "observe for cardiac failure" and that TZDs "may also increase risk of cardiac events." CHF is, he said, "a life-threatening condition that cant be taken lightly." He discussed a study comparing 104 insulin-treated patients receiving placebo, 106 receiving a half-maximal TZD dose, and 103 receiving a maximal TZD dose for 26 weeks. Weight increased 0.9, 4.0, and 5.3 kg; HbA1c decreased 0, 0.5, and 1.0%; and edema was observed in 5, 13, and 16%, respectively. Also CHF was seen in twice as many patients treated with TZD than with placebo (7). Thus, edema, although occurring in 34% of patients receiving sulfonylureas and metformin, is a more important issue with TZD administration. CHF, Home stated, is extremely important in individuals with diabetes (8), who demonstrate increased postmyocardial infarction mortality due to pump failure (9), impaired left ventricular relaxation on Doppler, early reduction in diastolic function, and a variety of related abnormalities.
Finally, Home addressed what he termed "the gene transcription concerns." Fully 10% of genes transcribed in adipose tissue are differentially expressed with the use of a peroxisome proliferatoractivated receptor (PPAR)-
Given these diametrically opposed presentations, it is fascinating to review the many research studies at the ADA meetings addressing the use of PPAR- New PPAR agonists
Satoh et al. (abstract 1722) described studies comparing a non-TZD halobenzyltyrosine derivative, TY-12780, which has PPAR-
There has been considerable interest in the development of mixed PPAR agonists. Park et al. (abstract 1719) noted that the PPAR-
Nevertheless, new agents are being developed that act at both PPAR-
Ortmeyer et al. (abstract 666) studied the effects of PPARpan, a combination PPAR- Nonglycemic TZD effects
Konrad et al. (abstract 658) reported that of 3,140 type 2 diabetic individuals with stage I and stage II hypertension, blood pressure decreased from 145/85 to 138/82 mmHg and from 166/94 to 147/85 mmHg, respectively, in an open-label study of the effects of administration of 30 mg PGZ daily for 16 weeks. Koro et al. (abstract 1009) analyzed a managed care registry of 229 individuals with type 2 diabetes hospitalized for myocardial infarction and compared them with 1,374 control subjects. They showed that TZD, sulfonylurea, metformin, and metformin combined with sulfonylurea were associated with 49, 38, 39, and 44% lower CVD event risk, respectively, than insulin monotherapy, adjusting for age, sex, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension, as well as use of nitrates, ACE inhibitors, ß-blockers, and diuretics. Blonde et al. (abstract 506) analyzed 7,922 patients with newly diagnosed diabetes from an electronic medical record database. At 6 months, comparing 3,837, 540, and 3,555 subjects started on sulfonylureas, TZDs, and metformin, respectively, HbA1c decreased 1.6, 1.4, and 1.6%; weight increased 1.8 and 1.9 and decreased 3.9 lb; and systolic blood pressure decreased 3, 5, and 3 mmHg. Masoudi et al. (abstract 124) studied 16,156 diabetic Medicare beneficiaries Regensteiner et al. (abstract 35) treated 17 type 2 diabetic individuals with 4 mg RGZ daily versus placebo for 4 months, showing a 6% improvement versus an 8% worsening in maximal oxygen consumption that correlated with an improvement in endothelial function. Lee et al. (abstract 562) administered 4 mg RGZ daily to 11 individuals with type 2 diabetes, showing a tripling of the rate of hairy skin sweating using a hygrometry system, in association with increased cutaneous blood flow. The degree of body temperature increase after a 30-min heat exposure lessened with treatment, suggesting an improvement in thermoregulation. Pfützner et al. (abstract 669) and Forst et al. (abstract 1270) treated 87 type 2 diabetic individuals with 45 mg PGZ daily versus 16 mg glimiperide daily fox 6 months and showed expected improvements with the former agent in insulin sensitivity, insulin levels, adiponectin, resistin, and FFAs. Microvascular skin blood flow measured by laser Doppler fluxmetry in response to local heat improved in both groups, whereas the endothelial response to acetylcholine improved only with PGZ. Viljanen et al. (abstract 1316) treated 38 type 2 diabetic individuals with RGZ, metformin, or placebo for 26 weeks. Femoral subcutaneous adipose tissue glucose uptake and blood flow increased 56 and 57%, respectively, with RGZ and 24% with metformin, suggesting an enhanced perfusion that partially explained the increase in adipose tissue insulin sensitivity with RGZ. Bweir et al. (abstract 369) evaluated the effect of RGZ on the fall in blood pressure with 45° tilt in 14 type 2 diabetic individuals. Systolic blood pressure decreased 11, 5, and 1 mmHg at 0, 2, and 4 weeks, with a 27% decrease in mean toe blood flow from 0 to 4 weeks, suggesting improvement in autonomic function.
Chen et al. (abstract 1431) studied the effect of GI2570X, a PPAR-
Lin et al. (abstract 137), noting the association of type 2 diabetes with increased ß-cell apoptosis and the presence of islet amyloid derived from islet amyloid polypeptide (IAPP), showed that IAPP induces apoptosis in cultured human pancreatic islets and that the addition of RGZ to the incubation prevented the IAPP-induced apoptosis. Zhou et al. (abstract 140) treated 17 apparent type 2 diabetic individuals with latent autoimmune diabetes, based on the presence of GAD antibody, with insulin alone versus insulin plus RGZ for 12 months. They showed a >50% decline in fasting and postload C-peptide in the insulin alone group, while endogenous insulin secretion was preserved with RGZ, suggesting a new potential benefit of the ß-cellsparing effect. This particular benefit may not be relevant to treatment of individuals with established type 1 diabetes, as Strowig and Raskin (abstract 617) administered 4 mg RGZ twice daily versus placebo to 50 overweight individuals with type 1 diabetes for 8 months, showing a similar Metabolic TZD effects
Monotherapy Combination therapy
Sulfonylurea plus TZD Moules et al. (abstract 584) added maximal tolerated daily doses of PGZ (1545 mg) and metformin (8502550 mg) to 319 vs. 320 type 2 diabetic individuals with HbA1c 7.511% on sulfonylurea treatment. They showed a similar 2-year reduction in HbA1c of 1 and 1.2%, a weight gain of 3.7 kg versus a weight loss of 1.7 kg, and more edema versus more gastrointestinal adverse effects. The authors suggested that the two approaches offer comparable overall benefit and maintenance of glycemic control over the study period. Mariz et al. (abstract 578) reported lipid changes in the study, with triglycerides decreasing 17 vs. 9% and HDL cholesterol increasing 21 vs. 15%, favoring the use of PGZ, while LDL cholesterol decreased 5 vs. 11%, favoring the addition of metformin. Metformin combinations Rosenstock et al. (abstract 608) studied 358 vs. 351 type 2 diabetic individuals treated with 1 g metformin daily, comparing strategies of increasing metformin to 2 g daily versus adding 8 mg RGZ daily. Over 24 weeks, there was no significant difference in the fall in HbA1c of 0.6 vs. 0.8%, although greater decreases were found in fasting blood glucose and insulin with the combination, and 55 vs. 45% achieved HbA1c <7%. Weissman et al. (abstract 121) studied the effects on cardiovascular risk markers of increasing metformin versus adding RGZ in 41 vs. 49 patients, reporting an increase in matrix metalloproteinase of 22% vs. a decrease of 14%, a decrease in plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 of 0 vs. 33%, and a decrease in C-reactive protein of 10 vs. 27%. Umpierrez et al. (abstract 627) treated 96 vs. 107 type 2 diabetic individuals with HbA1c 7.510% on metformin, adding 28 mg glimepiride vs. 3045 mg PGZ daily for 26 weeks. HbA1c fell from 8.4 to 7.1% vs. 8.3 to 7.1%, with similar changes in triglycerides and no change in HDL or LDL cholesterol with the addition of glimepiride versus an increase in HDL cholesterol from 43 to 48 mg/dl and an increase in LDL cholesterol from 108 to 117 mg/dl with the addition of PGZ. Seven of the latter patients reported edema. Thompson et al. (abstract 623) compared metformin-treated patients 20 months after the addition of RGZ or sulfonylurea. They showed a baseline BMI of 34 kg/m2 and weight gain of 2.4 vs. 2.2 kg; 22 vs. 20% gained >5% of body weight. Koro et al. (abstract 1010) identified 143 individuals treated with RGZ plus metformin and 1999 treated with metformin plus sulfonylureas in the Mediplus U.K. database. Despite greater age and longer diabetes duration, the former had a 78% lower rate of progression to insulin treatment. Triple oral combinations and insulin-oral combinations
Roberts et al. (abstract 605) randomized patients receiving metformin plus either RGZ or PGZ with HbA1c >7% to 28 mg glimepiride daily versus placebo for 26 weeks, showing a fall in HbA1c from 8.1 to 6.8% vs. from 8.2 to 7.7.8% and a decrease in fasting glucose from 170 to 133 mg/dl vs. from 171 to 167 mg/dl. There was an increase in fasting insulin and C-peptide with the former agent. The authors suggested that this is a useful triple oral agent approach, although they noted that one severe hypoglycemic episode occurred with glimepiride. In another analysis of approaches to triple combination treatment, Rosenstock et al. (abstract 609) randomized 217 type 2 diabetic individuals with HbA1c 7.511% on metformin plus sulfonylurea treatment to the addition of 48 mg RGZ versus insulin glargine at bedtime, showing a similar 1.5 vs. 1.7% decrease in HbA1c over 24 weeks. There were reductions in fasting glucose of 46 vs. 65 mg/dl, weight gain of 3 vs. 1.6 kg, and peripheral edma developed in 12.5 vs. 0% of patients. Insulin led to a $397/patient saving in projected drug cost, although less symptomatic nocturnal hypoglycemia occurred with RGZ. In a mechanistic study of changes in hepatic glucose production and peripheral glucose output among 13 patients randomized in this protocol, Triplitt et al. (abstract 625) found a similar decrease in basal glucose production and insulin-stimulated glucose disposal with the addition of either RGZ or insulin glargine. Perez et al. (abstracts 522 and 593) studied 112 vs. 110 type 2 diabetic patients with fasting blood glucose <140 mg/dl on either insulin alone or insulin plus metformin and randomized to the addition of placebo or 30 mg PGZ daily. They showed a similar fall in HbA1c of 1.4 vs. 1.6% over 20 weeks, although with a 1-unit/day increase vs. a 12-unit/day decrease in insulin dosage, and with a 3% increase vs. a 11% decrease in small LDL particles. Luetke et al. (abstract 660) reported an observational analysis from 51 outpatient diabetic centers of 299 individuals started on 30 mg PGZ daily as a second oral agent and 102 and 116 subjects switched to insulin alone, either twice or multiple times daily, respectively. HbA1c decreases were similar, and the cost of diabetes management (including that of home glucose monitoring) was similar for PGZ and the twice-daily insulin regimens and References
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||