Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiac Outcomes and Regulation of Glycaemia in Diabetes (RECORD): study design and protocol

Heterocyclic compounds as a magic bullet for diabetes mellitus: a review

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a major metabolic disorder due to hyperglycemia, which is increasing all over the world. From the last two decades, the use of synthetic agents has risen due to their major involvement in curing of chronic diseases including DM. The core skeleton of drugs has been studied such as thiazolidinone, azole, chalcone, pyrrole and pyrimidine along with their derivatives. Diabetics assays have been performed in consideration of different enzymes such as α-glycosidase, α-amylase, and α-galactosidase against acarbose standard drug. The studied moieties were depicted in both models: in vivo as well as in vitro. Molecular docking of the studied compounds as antidiabetic molecules was performed with the help of Auto Dock and molecular operating environment (MOE) software. Amino acid residues Asp349, Arg312, Arg439, Asn241, Val303, Glu304, Phe158, His103, Lys422 and Thr207 that are present on the active sites of diabetic related enzymes showed interactions with ligand molecules. In this review data were organized for the synthesis of heterocyclic compounds through various routes along with their antidiabetic potential, and further studies such as pharmacokinetic and toxicology studies should be executed before going for clinical trials.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a major metabolic disorder due to hyperglycemia, which is increasing all over the world.

Cardiovascular Outcome Trials with Glucose-Lowering Drugs

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review summarizes recent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) with glucose-lowering drugs.

RECENT FINDINGS

The majority of recent CVOTs with glucose-lowering drugs have tested dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4-i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptors agonists (GLP1-RA), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), but studies have also been performed with other agents including thiazolidinediones and insulin. All CVOTs with DPP4-I, GLP1-RA, and SGLT2-i have demonstrated the cardiovascular (CV) safety of these agents compared to usual care. However, certain GLP1-RAs (liraglutide, subcutaneous semaglutide, albiglutide, dulaglutide) and SGLT2-i (empagliflozin, canagliflozin) have demonstrated a CV benefit, showing significant reductions in composite cardiovascular outcomes. Furthermore, all SGLT2-i also significantly decreased the risk for hospitalization for heart failure. Results from these studies have altered clinical guidelines worldwide and have resulted in new indications for some glucose-lowering drugs. In patients with T2D and high risk for CVD, GLP-1RA or SGLT2-i with proven cardiovascular benefit are recommended, irrespective of glycemic control.

Risk of Skin Cancer Associated with Metformin Use: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies

Previous studies demonstrate mixed evidence regarding the association between metformin and skin cancer risk. To synthesize prior evidence and evaluate the association between metformin and skin cancer risk in patients with diabetes/prediabetes, we conducted a meta-analysis. A systematic literature search was performed up to March 23, 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies of metformin that reported any event of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and melanoma. In a meta-analysis of 6 trials involving 8,541 patients (Peto method), compared with controls, metformin was not significantly associated with decreased risk of melanoma [OR, 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.27-2.43], BCC (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.36-1.57), SCC (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.06-15.60), total nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC; OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.38-1.24), or total skin cancer (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.42-1.20). This nonsignificant association pattern was consistent with the random-effects meta-analysis of 4 cohort studies with 354,746 patients (melanoma: RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.62-1.33; NMSC: RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.35-1.18; total skin cancer: RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.59-1.16). In conclusion, meta-analyses of both RCT and cohort studies showed no statistically significant association between metformin and skin cancer risks, although suggestive evidence of modestly reduced risks of skin cancer among metformin users was observed. Further studies are needed. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Meta-analyses of RCT and cohort studies showed no significant association between metformin and skin cancer, although suggestive evidence of modestly reduced skin cancer risks among metformin users was observed. These findings suggest metformin use should not influence current medical decision making for diabetes patients at risk of developing skin cancer.

Sixty Years of Drug Discovery for Type 2 Diabetes: Where Are We Now?

Today, excluding insulin, there are eight classes of anti-diabetic medicines that have been added to the pharmacy since the introduction of metformin in the mid-1950s; the sulfonylureas, biguanides, thiazolidinediones, α-glucosidase inhibitors, meglitinides, incretins, and sodium glucose transport 2 inhibitors. Does the fact that metformin is still first-line treatment suggest that our drug discovery efforts over the past 60 years have not been good enough? Or does it suggest that diabetes is such a complex disorder that no single treatment, other than gastric bypass surgery, can affect true normalization of not only blood sugar but also the underlying pathologies? Our understanding of the disease has most definitely improved which may bring hope for the future in terms of science, but for it to be beneficial, this science has to be translated into better drug treatments for the disease. In this review, I have examined the eight classes of anti-diabetes drugs from a drug discovery perspective.

Utilizing mobile technologies to improve physical activity and medication adherence in patients with heart failure and diabetes mellitus: Rationale and design of the TARGET-HF-DM Trial

Heart failure (HF) and diabetes mellitus (DM) are major public health issues that place significant burden on patients and health care systems. Patients with both HF and DM are at higher risk of adverse cardiovascular and HF outcomes than those with either disease in isolation. Different antihyperglycemic medications (even within the same medication class) have conflicting results of benefit or harm in patients with established and incident HF. Recent data highlight the importance of a renewed focus on optimal pharmacotherapy for this population with DM and HF (or at risk for HF). Both HF and DM require major lifestyle modification for optimal management, in terms of both optimizing health behaviors (eg, physical activity, diet) and adherence to complex medical and self-care regimens. Mobile health (mHealth) technologies (eg, apps, wearables) are widely available in the community and may play a role in optimizing the health status of patients; however, there is limited and conflicting information on whether such technologies are actually beneficial in at-risk populations. In this article, we summarize current strategies, including mobile health interventions, to improve physical activity levels, drug adherence, and outcomes in patients with DM, HF, or both and describe the design and rationale for the Technologies to improve drug Adherence and Reinforce Guideline based Exercise Targets in patients with heart Failure and Diabetes Mellitus trial, which is designed to test the efficacy of using mHealth technology to improve health behaviors and outcomes in this high-risk population.

Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. The combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (M+S) is a widely used treatment. Whether M+S shows better or worse effects in comparison with other antidiabetic medications for people with T2DM is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin and sulphonylurea (second- or third-generation) combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of a recent systematic review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The updated search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was March 2018. We searched manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomising participants 18 years old or more with T2DM to M+S compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention or metformin monotherapy with a treatment duration of 52 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs randomising 28,746 people. Treatment duration ranged between one to four years. We judged none of these trials as low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most important events per person were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events (SAE), non-fatal stroke (NFS), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and microvascular complications. Most important comparisons were as follows:Five trials compared M+S (N = 1194) with metformin plus a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue (N = 1675): all-cause mortality was 11/1057 (1%) versus 11/1537 (0.7%), risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.67); 3 trials; 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 1/307 (0.3%) versus 1/302 (0.3%), low-certainty evidence; serious adverse events (SAE) 128/1057 (12.1%) versus 194/1537 (12.6%), RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.11); 3 trials; 2594 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) 2/549 (0.4%) versus 6/1026 (0.6%), RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.82); 2 trials; 1575 participants; very low-certainty evidence.Nine trials compared M+S (N = 5414) with metformin plus a dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor (N = 6346): all-cause mortality was 33/5387 (0.6%) versus 26/6307 (0.4%), RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.28); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 11/2989 (0.4%) versus 9/3885 (0.2%), RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.79); 6 trials; 6874 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 735/5387 (13.6%) versus 779/6307 (12.4%), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.18); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 14/2098 (0.7%) versus 8/2995 (0.3%), RR 2.21 (95% CI 0.74 to 6.58); 4 trials; 5093 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 15/2989 (0.5%) versus 13/3885 (0.3%), RR 1.45 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.07); 6 trials; 6874 participants; very low-certainty evidence; one trial in 64 participants reported no microvascular complications were observed (very low-certainty evidence).Eleven trials compared M+S (N = 3626) with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (N = 3685): all-cause mortality was 123/3300 (3.7%) versus 114/3354 (3.4%), RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.40); 6 trials; 6654 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 37/2946 (1.3%) versus 41/2994 (1.4%), RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.67); 4 trials; 5940 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 666/3300 (20.2%) versus 671/3354 (20%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.11); 6 trials; 6654 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 20/1540 (1.3%) versus 16/1583 (1%), RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.47); P = 0.45; 2 trials; 3123 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 25/1841 (1.4%) versus 21/1877 (1.1%), RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.68 to 2.14); P = 0.51; 3 trials; 3718 participants; very low-certainty evidence; three trials (3123 participants) reported no microvascular complications (very low-certainty evidence).Three trials compared M+S (N = 462) with metformin plus a glinide (N = 476): one person died in each intervention group (3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence); no cardiovascular mortality (2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence); SAE 34/424 (8%) versus 27/450 (6%), RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 5.21); P = 0.37; 3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence; no NFS (1 trial; 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence); non-fatal MI 2/215 (0.9%) participants in the M+S group; 2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence; no microvascular complications (1 trial; 233 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four trials compared M+S (N = 2109) with metformin plus a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (N = 3032): all-cause mortality was 13/2107 (0.6%) versus 19/3027 (0.6%), RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.09); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 4/1327 (0.3%) versus 6/2262 (0.3%), RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.33 to 4.41); 3 trials; 3589 participants; very low-certainty evidence; SAE 315/2107 (15.5%) versus 375/3027 (12.4%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.37); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 3/919 (0.3%) versus 7/1856 (0.4%), RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.34); 2 trials; 2775 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 7/890 (0.8%) versus 8/1374 (0.6%), RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.49 to 4.18; 2 trials); 2264 participants; very low-certainty evidence; amputation of lower extremity 1/437 (0.2%) versus 1/888 (0.1%); very low-certainty evidence.Trials reported more hypoglycaemic episodes with M+S combination compared to all other metformin-antidiabetic agent combinations. Results for M+S versus metformin monotherapy were inconclusive. There were no RCTs comparing M+S with metformin plus insulin. We identified nine ongoing trials and two trials are awaiting assessment. Together these trials will include approximately 16,631 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconclusive evidence whether M+S combination therapy compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention results in benefit or harm for most patient-important outcomes (mortality, SAEs, macrovascular and microvascular complications) with the exception of hypoglycaemia (more harm for M+S combination). No RCT reported on health-related quality of life.

Design and synthesis of rosiglitazone-ferulic acid-nitric oxide donor trihybrids for improving glucose tolerance

Glucose intolerance is associated with metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) while some new therapeutic drugs, such as rosiglitazone (Rosi), for T2DM can cause severe cardiovascular side effects. Herein we report the synthesis of Rosi-ferulic acid (FA)-nitric oxide (NO) donor trihybrids to improve glucose tolerance and minimize the side effects. In comparison with Rosi, the most active compound 21 exhibited better effects on improving glucose tolerance, which was associated with its NO production, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities. Furthermore, 21 displayed relatively high stability in the simulated gastrointestinal environments and human liver microsomes, and released Rosi in plasma. More importantly, 21, unlike Rosi, had little stimulatory effect on the membrane translocation of aquaporin-2 (AQP2) in kidney collecting duct epithelial cells. These, together with a better safety profile, suggest that the trihybrids, like 21, may be promising candidates for intervention of glucose intolerance-related metabolic syndrome and T2DM.

Sex and BMI Alter the Benefits and Risks of Sulfonylureas and Thiazolidinediones in Type 2 Diabetes: A Framework for Evaluating Stratification Using Routine Clinical and Individual Trial Data

OBJECTIVE

The choice of therapy for type 2 diabetes after metformin is guided by overall estimates of glycemic response and side effects seen in large cohorts. A stratified approach to therapy would aim to improve on this by identifying subgroups of patients whose glycemic response or risk of side effects differs markedly. We assessed whether simple clinical characteristics could identify patients with differing glycemic response and side effects with sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We studied 22,379 patients starting sulfonylurea or thiazolidinedione therapy in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to identify features associated with increased 1-year HbA_1c fall with one therapy class and reduced fall with the second. We then assessed whether prespecified patient subgroups defined by the differential clinical factors showed differing 5-year glycemic response and side effects with sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones using individual randomized trial data from ADOPT (A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial) (first-line therapy, n = 2,725) and RECORD (Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiovascular Outcomes and Regulation of Glycemia in Diabetes) (second-line therapy, n = 2,222). Further replication was conducted using routine clinical data from GoDARTS (Genetics of Diabetes Audit and Research in Tayside Scotland) (n = 1,977).

RESULTS

In CPRD, male sex and lower BMI were associated with greater glycemic response with sulfonylureas and a lesser response with thiazolidinediones (both P < 0.001). In ADOPT and RECORD, nonobese males had a greater overall HbA_1c reduction with sulfonylureas than with thiazolidinediones (P < 0.001); in contrast, obese females had a greater HbA_1c reduction with thiazolidinediones than with sulfonylureas (P < 0.001). Weight gain and edema risk with thiazolidinediones were greatest in obese females; however, hypoglycemia risk with sulfonylureas was similar across all subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient subgroups defined by sex and BMI have different patterns of benefits and risks on thiazolidinedione and sulfonylurea therapy. Subgroup-specific estimates can inform discussion about the choice of therapy after metformin for an individual patient. Our approach using routine and shared trial data provides a framework for future stratification research in type 2 diabetes.

Thiazolidinedione drugs in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: past, present and future

Thiazolidinedione (TZD) drugs used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have proven effective in improving insulin sensitivity, hyperglycemia, and lipid metabolism. Though well tolerated by some patients, their mechanism of action as ligands of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) results in the activation of several pathways in addition to those responsible for glycemic control and lipid homeostasis. These pathways, which include those related to inflammation, bone formation, and cell proliferation, may lead to adverse health outcomes. As treatment with TZDs has been associated with adverse hepatic, cardiovascular, osteological, and carcinogenic events in some studies, the role of TZDs in the treatment of T2DM continues to be debated. At the same time, new therapeutic roles for TZDs are being investigated, with new forms and isoforms currently in the pre-clinical phase for use in the prevention and treatment of some cancers, inflammatory diseases, and other conditions. The aims of this review are to provide an overview of the mechanism(s) of action of TZDs, a review of their safety for use in the treatment of T2DM, and a perspective on their current and future therapeutic roles.

Cancer and bone fractures in observational follow-up of the RECORD study

AIMS

The RECORD study evaluated the effects of rosiglitazone on cardiovascular outcomes. A 4-year observational follow-up was added to the study to monitor the occurrence of cancer and bone fractures. We present the cancer and bone fracture data aggregated across the main study and its observational follow-up.

METHODS

RECORD was a multicentre, open-label trial in people with type 2 diabetes on metformin or sulfonylurea monotherapy randomly assigned to addition of rosiglitazone (n = 2,220) or to a combination of metformin and sulfonylurea (n = 2,227). At the end of the main study, patients stopped study drug and were invited to enter the observational follow-up during which glucose-lowering treatment was selected by the patient's physician. Serious adverse events of cancer and serious and non-serious events of bone fracture were recorded. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00379769.

RESULTS

Of the 4,447 patients comprising the intent-to-treat population, 2,546 entered the observational follow-up (1,288 rosiglitazone, 1,258 metformin/sulfonylurea) and added 9,336 patient-years experience to the main RECORD study, making an aggregate of 33,744 patient-years. Based on the totality of follow-up, malignancies were reported in 179 of 2,220 patients (8.1 %) in the group originally randomised to rosiglitazone and in 195 of 2,227 patients (8.8 %) in the group allocated metformin/sulfonylurea [relative risk, RR, 0.92 (95 % CI 0.76-1.12)]. More patients reported bone fractures in the rosiglitazone group (238, 10.7 %) than in the metformin/sulfonylurea control [151, 6.8 %; RR 1.58 (1.30-1.92)]. For women, the corresponding figures were rosiglitazone 156 (14.5 %), metformin/sulfonylurea 91 (8.5 %), RR 1.71 (1.34-2.18), and for men, the corresponding figures were rosiglitazone 82 (7.2 %), metformin/sulfonylurea 60 (5.2 %), RR 1.37 (0.99-1.90). Potentially high-morbidity fractures (hip, pelvis, femur, and spine) occurred in the same number of patients (31, 1.4 %) in the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that data from a 4-year observational follow-up, combined with the main RECORD study data, do not suggest an increased risk of cancer in patients randomised to rosiglitazone combination use compared with those randomised to metformin/sulfonylurea. Consistent with the main study, rosiglitazone is associated with an increased risk of peripheral bone fracture in women, and probably in men, but the combined data do not suggest an increase in potentially high-morbidity (hip, pelvis, femur, and spine) fractures.

Results of a reevaluation of cardiovascular outcomes in the RECORD trial

BACKGROUND

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required a reevaluation of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in the RECORD trial. This provided an opportunity to assess the implications of event adjudication by 2 groups and quantify the differences as well as to use new FDA end point definitions in development.

METHODS

Original data were used to systematically identify all potential deaths, myocardial infarctions (MIs), and strokes. Site investigators were approached for additional source documents and information about participants lost to follow-up. Suspected events were adjudicated using standard procedures, and the results were compared with the original trial outcomes.

RESULTS

Follow-up for mortality was 25,833 person-years, including an additional 328 person-years identified during the reevaluation effort. A total of 184 CV or unknown-cause deaths (88 rosiglitazone, 96 metformin/sulfonylurea), 128 participants with an MI (68 rosiglitazone, 60 metformin/sulfonylurea), and 113 participants with a stroke (50 rosiglitazone, 63 metformin/sulfonylurea) were included. The hazard ratio (HR) for rosiglitazone versus metformin/sulfonylurea for the end point of CV (or unknown cause) death, MI, or stroke was 0.95 (95% CI 0.78-1.17) compared with 0.93 (95% CI 0.74-1.15) for the original RECORD results. Treatment comparisons for MI (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.80-1.59) and mortality (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68-1.08) were also the same compared with the original RECORD results. Sensitivity analyses were also consistent with the original RECORD results. Analyses using the FDA definitions showed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Only a modest number of additional person-years of follow-up were ascertained from this reevaluation of CV end points in RECORD. Observed HRs and CIs from these analyses using the original RECORD or new FDA end point definitions showed similar treatment effects of rosiglitazone compared with the original RECORD results.

Effects of pioglitazone on cardiac ion currents and action potential morphology in canine ventricular myocytes

Despite its widespread therapeutical use there is little information on the cellular cardiac effects of the antidiabetic drug pioglitazone in larger mammals. In the present study, therefore, the concentration-dependent effects of pioglitazone on ion currents and action potential configuration were studied in isolated canine ventricular myocytes using standard microelectrode, conventional whole cell patch clamp, and action potential voltage clamp techniques. Pioglitazone decreased the maximum velocity of depolarization and the amplitude of phase-1 repolarization at concentrations ≥3 μM. Action potentials were shortened by pioglitazone at concentrations ≥10 μM, which effect was accompanied with significant reduction of beat-to-beat variability of action potential duration. Several transmembrane ion currents, including the transient outward K(+) current (Ito), the L-type Ca(2+) current (ICa), the rapid and slow components of the delayed rectifier K(+) current (IKr and IKs, respectively), and the inward rectifier K(+) current (IK1) were inhibited by pioglitazone under conventional voltage clamp conditions. Ito was blocked significantly at concentrations ≥3 μM, ICa, IKr, IKs at concentrations ≥10 μM, while IK1 at concentrations ≥30 μM. Suppression of Ito, ICa, IKr, and IK1 has been confirmed also under action potential voltage clamp conditions. ATP-sensitive K(+) current, when activated by lemakalim, was effectively blocked by pioglitazone. Accordingly, action potentials were prolonged by 10 μM pioglitazone when the drug was applied in the presence of lemakalim. All these effects developed rapidly and were readily reversible upon washout. In conclusion, pioglitazone seems to be a harmless agent at usual therapeutic concentrations.

Immunomodulation using agonists and antagonists: potential clinical applications

INTRODUCTION

Extensive studies have gone into understanding the differential role of the innate and adaptive arms of the immune system in the context of various diseases. Receptor-ligand interactions are responsible for mediating cross-talk between the innate and adaptive arms of the immune system, so as to effectively counter the pathogenic challenge. While TLRs remain the best studied innate immune receptor, many other receptor families are now coming to the fore for their role in various pathologies. Research has focused on the discovery of novel agonists and antagonists for these receptors as potential therapeutics.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we present an overview of the recent advances in the discovery of drugs targeting important receptors such as G-protein coupled receptors, TRAIL-R, IL-1β receptor, PPARs, etc. All these receptors play a critical role in the modulation of the immune response. We focus on the recent paradigms applied for the generation of specific and effective therapeutics for these receptors and their status in clinical trials.

EXPERT OPINION

Non-specific activation by antagonist/agonist is a difficult problem to dodge. This demands innovation in ligand designing with the use of strategies such as allosterism and dual-specific ligands. Rigorous preclinical and clinical studies are required in transforming a compound to a therapeutic.

Extended release niacin-laropiprant in patients with hypercholesterolemia or mixed dyslipidemias improves clinical parameters

The progression of atherosclerosis remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Plaque formation is an immunological response driven by a number of risk factors, and reduction of risk is the primary goal of treatment. The role of LDL-C is well established and statins have proved effective drugs, although the relative risk reduction is only around 30%. The importance of other factors-notably low HDL-C and high TGs-has become increasingly clear and the search for alternative strategies continues. Niacin is particularly effective in achieving normalization of HDL-C but is clinically underutilized due to the side effect of cutaneous flushing. The discovery that flushing is mediated by mechanisms distinct from the lipid-lowering effects has led to the development of combination drugs with reduced side effects. This review considers the evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of extended-release niacin and the DP1 antagonist laropiprant in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia and mixed dyslipidemias.

Transcriptional Control of Vascular Smooth Muscle Cell Proliferation by Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor-gamma: Therapeutic Implications for Cardiovascular Diseases

Proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cells (SMCs) is a critical process for the development of atherosclerosis and complications of procedures used to treat atherosclerotic diseases, including postangioplasty restenosis, vein graft failure, and transplant vasculopathy. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) gamma is a member of the nuclear hormone receptor superfamily and the molecular target for the thiazolidinediones (TZD), used clinically to treat insulin resistance in patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition to their efficacy to improve insulin sensitivity, TZD exert a broad spectrum of pleiotropic beneficial effects on vascular gene expression programs. In SMCs, PPARgamma is prominently upregulated during neointima formation and suppresses the proliferative response to injury of the arterial wall. Among the molecular target genes regulated by PPARgamma in SMCs are genes encoding proteins involved in the regulation of cell-cycle progression, cellular senescence, and apoptosis. This inhibition of SMC proliferation is likely to contribute to the prevention of atherosclerosis and postangioplasty restenosis observed in animal models and proof-of-concept clinical studies. This review will summarize the transcriptional target genes regulated by PPARgamma in SMCs and outline the therapeutic implications of PPARgamma activation for the treatment and prevention of atherosclerosis and its complications.

Effects of rosiglitazone on the configuration of action potentials and ion currents in canine ventricular cells

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In spite of its widespread clinical application, there is little information on the cellular cardiac effects of the antidiabetic drug rosiglitazone in larger experimental animals. In the present study therefore concentration-dependent effects of rosiglitazone on action potential morphology and the underlying ion currents were studied in dog hearts.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Standard microelectrode techniques, conventional whole cell patch clamp and action potential voltage clamp techniques were applied in enzymatically dispersed ventricular cells from dog hearts.

KEY RESULTS

At concentrations ≥10 µM rosiglitazone decreased the amplitude of phase-1 repolarization, reduced the maximum velocity of depolarization and caused depression of the plateau potential. These effects developed rapidly and were readily reversible upon washout. Rosiglitazone suppressed several transmembrane ion currents, concentration-dependently, under conventional voltage clamp conditions and altered their kinetic properties. The EC(50) value for this inhibition was 25.2 ± 2.7 µM for the transient outward K(+) current (I(to)), 72.3 ± 9.3 µM for the rapid delayed rectifier K(+) current (I(Kr)) and 82.5 ± 9.4 µM for the L-type Ca(2+) current (I(Ca) ) with Hill coefficients close to unity. The inward rectifier K(+) current (I(K1)) was not affected by rosiglitazone up to concentrations of 100 µM. Suppression of I(to), I(Kr), and I(Ca) was confirmed also under action potential voltage clamp conditions.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Alterations in the densities and kinetic properties of ion currents may carry serious pro-arrhythmic risk in case of overdose with rosiglitazone, especially in patients having multiple cardiovascular risk factors, like elderly diabetic patients.

Incidence and prevalence of unrecognized myocardial infarction in people with diabetes: a substudy of the Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiac Outcomes and Regulation of Glycemia in Diabetes (RECORD) study

OBJECTIVE

To examine the prevalence and incidence of unrecognized myocardial infarction in a contemporary population with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the electrocardiograms (ECGs) recorded at baseline and after 2 years for the first 1,004 type 2 diabetic individuals to be randomized in the Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiac Outcomes and Regulation of Glycemia in Diabetes (RECORD) study.

RESULTS

ECGs suitable for analysis were obtained from 669 participants. The prevalence of unrecognized Q-wave myocardial infarction at baseline was 1.9% (n = 13). The incidence of unrecognized Q-wave myocardial infarction at the end of 2 years of follow-up was 1.5/1,000-person-years (n = 2). One-third (13 of 39) of prevalent and one-quarter (2 of 8) of incident myocardial infarctions were unrecognized.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the prevalence and incidence of myocardial infarction was low, unrecognized Q-wave myocardial infarctions made up a substantial proportion of all events.

Short-term hyperglycaemia causes non-reversible changes in arterial gene expression in a fully 'switchable' in vivo mouse model of diabetes

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Irreversible arterial damage due to early effects of hypo- or hyperglycaemia could account for the limited success of glucose-lowering treatments in preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. We hypothesised that even brief hypo- or hyperglycaemia could adversely affect arterial gene expression and that these changes, moreover, might not be fully reversible.

METHODS

By controlled activation of a 'switchable' c-Myc transgene in beta cells, adult pIns-c-MycER(TAM) mice were rendered transiently hypo- and then hyperglycaemic, after which they were allowed to recover for up to 3 months. Immediate and sequential changes in aortic global gene expression from normal glycaemia through hypo- and hyperglycaemia to recovery were assessed.

RESULTS

Gene expression was compared with that of normoglycaemic transgenic and tamoxifen-treated wild-type controls. Overall, expression of 95 genes was significantly affected by moderate hypoglycaemia (glucose down to 2.5 mmol/l), whereas over 769 genes were affected by hyperglycaemia. Genes and pathways activated included several involved in atherogenic processes, such as inflammation and arterial calcification. Although expression of many genes recovered to initial pre-exposure levels when hyperglycaemia was corrected (74.9%), in one in four genes this did not occur. Quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR and immunohistochemistry verified the gene expression patterns of key molecules, as shown by global gene arrays.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Short-term exposure to hyperglycaemia can cause deleterious and persistent changes in arterial gene expression in vivo. Brief hypoglycaemia also adversely affects gene expression, although less substantially. Together, these results suggest that early correction of hyperglycaemia and avoidance of hypoglycaemia may both be necessary to avoid excess CVD risk in diabetes.

Oral Hypoglycemic Drugs: Pathophysiological Basis of Their Mechanism of ActionOral Hypoglycemic Drugs: Pathophysiological Basis of Their Mechanism of Action

Type 2 diabetes is a syndrome characterized by relative insulin deficiency, insulin resistance and increased hepatic glucose output. Medications used to treat the disease are designed to correct one or more of these metabolic abnormalities. Current recommendations of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) include diet and exercise as first-line therapy plus hypoglycemic drugs. Actually there are seven distinct classes of anti-hyperglicemic agents, each of them displaying unique pharmacologic properties. The aim of this review is to describe the pathophysiological basis of their mechanism of action, a necessary step to individualize treatment of diabetic people, taking into proper consideration potential benefits and secondary effects of drugs.

Thiazolidinedione treatment and constitutive-PPARgamma activation induces ectopic adipogenesis and promotes age-related thymic involution

Age-related thymic involution is characterized by reduction in T cell production together with ectopic adipocyte development within the hematopoietic and thymic niches. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARgamma) is required for adipocyte development, glucose homeostasis and is a target for several insulin-sensitizing drugs. Our prior studies showed that age-related elevation of PPARgamma expression in thymic stromal cells is associated with thymic involution. Here, using clinically relevant pharmacological and genetic manipulations in mouse models, we provide evidence that activation of PPARgamma leads to reduction in thymopoiesis. Treatment of aged mice with antihyperglycemic PPARgamma-ligand class of thiazolidinedione drug, rosiglitazone caused robust thymic expression of classical pro-adipogenic transcripts. Rosiglitazone reduced thymic cellularity, lowered the naïve T cell number and T cell receptor excision circles (TRECs) indicative of compromised thymopoiesis. To directly investigate whether PPARgamma activation induces thymic involution, we created transgenic mice with constitutive-active PPARgamma (CA-PPARg) fusion protein in cells of adipogenic lineage. Importantly, CA-PPARgamma transgene was expressed in thymus and in fibroblast-specific protein-1/S100A4 (FSP1(+)) cells, a marker of secondary mesenchymal cells. The CAPPARgamma fusion protein mimicked the liganded PPARgamma receptor and the transgenic mice displayed increased ectopic thymic adipogenesis and reduced thymopoiesis. Furthermore, the reduction in thymopoiesis in CA-PPARgamma mice was associated with higher bone marrow adiposity and lower hematopoietic stem cell progenitor pool. Consistent with lower thymic output, CAPPARgamma transgenic mice had restricted T cell receptor repertoire diversity. Collectively, our data suggest that activation of PPARgamma accelerates thymic aging and thymus-specific PPARgamma antagonist may forestall age-related decline in T cell diversity.

Searching for the right outcome? A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials using carotid intima-media thickness or pulse wave velocity to infer antiatherogenic properties of thiazolidinediones

INTRODUCTION

Recent meta-analyses cast doubt over purported beneficial effects of Peroxisome Proliferator Activated Receptor-Gamma (PPAR-gamma) receptor agonists. Thiazolidinedione (TZD) trials using surrogate outcomes to postulate an antiatherogenic paradigm have been criticised as misinformative. We conducted an independent systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled TZD studies incorporating carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) or pulse wave velocity (PWV) as primary outcome measures. The aim was to provide an evidence-based overview of TZD intervention studies using markers prospectively linked to vascular outcome in type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Systematic search of known databases for TZD intervention trials using mean thickness CIMT(n = 9) and ankle-brachial PWV(n = 6) as primary outcome measures was performed. CIMT and PWV pooled weighted mean difference was calculated using a random effects model accounting for heterogeneity and publication bias. An indirect meta-analysis provided a comparison of rosiglitazone and pioglitazone effects.

RESULTS

A composite of combined placebo and comparator controlled trials demonstrated a significant weighted mean difference of-0.06 mm for CIMT (95% CI-0.09 to-0.02, p = 0.001) and-0.72 ms(-1) for PWV (95% CI-1.28 to-0.16, p = 0.011) in favour of thiazolidiendione treatment. No TZD intraclass variation in CIMT (p = 0.96) or PWV (p = 0.33) change was observed.

CONCLUSION

TZDs exhibit significant beneficial effects on aorto-carotid atherosclerosis when assessed using prospectively validated non-invasive techniques. Inferring clinical benefit in the absence of confirmatory outcome trials is questionable and caution should be exercised when interpreting intervention data with surrogate endpoints. TZD-induced congestive cardiac failure or other unknown PPAR-gamma adverse effects are plausible explanations for the conflicting results of intervention trials using markers of atherosclerosis and clinical event outcomes.

Does choice of antidiabetes therapy influence macrovascular outcomes?

Despite a clear epidemiologic relationship between hemoglobin A(1c) levels and the risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), prospective studies examining the benefit of intensive glucose lowering in reducing CV events have yielded conflicting results. Controversy over the choice of antidiabetic therapy for lowering macrovascular events has existed for nearly four decades, beginning with the potential risk of increased CV mortality with sulfonylurea use. Although sulfonylureas were subsequently felt to be safe, a more recent controversy was raised as to whether rosiglitazone use was associated with an increased risk of CV events. Additionally, early positive results for metformin in reducing macrovascular events have not been clearly substantiated. Because a typical patient with T2DM may live 20 to 40 years with the disease, long-term prevention of CV events is very important. An evidenced-based review of choice of antidiabetic therapy to reduce CV events in T2DM is discussed below.

Heart failure events with rosiglitazone in type 2 diabetes: data from the RECORD clinical trial

Aims

Thiazolidinediones are insulin sensitizers, and are associated with fluid retention and increased risk of heart failure (HF) in people with type 2 diabetes. We assessed fatal and non-fatal HF events and their outcome, and identified HF predictors in the RECORD (Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiac Outcomes and Regulation of glycaemia in Diabetes) trial population.

Methods and results

In a multicentre, open-label study, we randomized 4447 people with type 2 diabetes on metformin or sulfonylurea monotherapy with a mean HbA_1c of 7.9% to add-on rosiglitazone (n = 2220) or to a combination of metformin and sulfonylurea (n = 2227) and followed them over 5.5 years on average. Heart failure hospitalizations and deaths were adjudicated by a Clinical Endpoint Committee using pre-specified criteria. Independent predictors of HF events were identified out of a group of 30 pre-specified clinical, demographic, and biological variables. In the rosiglitazone group, the risk of HF death or hospitalization was doubled: HR = 2.10 (95% CI, 1.35–3.27): the excess HF event rate was 2.6 (1.1–4.1) per 1000 person-years. An excess in HF deaths was observed (10 vs. two), including four HF deaths as first HF events. By contrast, there was no increase in cardiovascular mortality or hospitalization (HR = 0.99, 95% CI, 0.85–1.16) or in cardiovascular deaths (60 vs. 71). Independent predictors of HF were rosiglitazone assignment, age, urinary albumin : creatinine ratio, body mass index, and systolic blood pressure at baseline. A history of previous cardiovascular disease was not predictive of HF. Duration of HF hospitalization and rate of HF re-hospitalization were similar in the two groups.

Conclusion

These findings confirm the increased risk of HF events in people treated with rosiglitazone and support the recommendation that this agent should not continue to be used in people developing symptomatic HF while using the medication. Close follow-up for the risk of HF should be offered to elderly people, people with markedly increased body mass index, people with microalbuminuria/proteinuria, and people with increased systolic blood pressure.

Antidiabetic agents and cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes

Despite the clear relationship between HbA(1c) levels and risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in epidemiologic studies, prospective data on the role of glucose-lowering therapy in reducing cardiovascular events are equivocal. Initial studies of intensive glycemic control suffered from inadequate statistical power to show reductions in cardiovascular events, as well as a lack of durable glycemic control and relatively poor control of associated cardiovascular risk factors. Subsequently, controversy existed over whether rosiglitazone was associated with an increased risk of myocardial ischemic events. Large, prospective, cardiovascular outcome trials that assessed intensive glycemic control versus standard glycemic control have had disappointing results; however, cardiovascular event rates seem to be declining substantially in patients with T2DM managed with aggressive global cardiovascular risk factor modification, which might have masked the benefits of glycemic control. Individuals with T2DM without a history of cardiovascular disease, as well as younger individuals with more modest elevations of HbA(1c), may benefit from a more intensive glucose-lowering strategy. A comprehensive and multifactorial intervention strategy that includes aggressive glycemic control, blood-pressure-lowering and lipid-lowering therapy, aspirin use and lifestyle modifications is beneficial in reducing both macrovascular and microvascular events in patients with T2DM.

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists: do they increase cardiovascular risk?

Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) agonists have a significant role on glucose and fat metabolism. Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) are predominantly PPARγ agonists, and their primary benefit appears to be the prevention of diabetic complications by improving glycemic control and lipid profile. Recently, the cardiovascular safety of rosiglitazone was brought to center stage following meta analyses and the interim analysis of the RECORD trial. Current evidence points to rosiglitazone having a greater risk of myocardial ischemic events than placebo, metformin, or sulfonylureas. This review article discusses the mechanism of action of PPAR agonists and correlates it with clinical and laboratory outcomes in the published literature. In addition, this review article attempts to discuss some of the molecular mechanisms regarding the association between TZDs therapy and the nontraditional cardiovascular risks.

Review article: Thiazolidinediones and heart failure

DM is an independent risk factor for the development of HF and its presence confers an adverse prognosis for those already diagnosed with HF.TZDs are potent insulin-sensitisers associated with a number of beneficial cardiovascular effects. However,TZDs increase renal sodium and water reabsorption, leading to fluid retention and overt signs of HF in patients with diabetes. Rosiglitazone has also been associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality. However, pioglitazone may have macrovascular benefits. The majority of data on the cardiovascular safety of TZDs are based on non-cardovascular outcome trials and meta-analyses. Concerns regarding the risk of HF and cardiovascular safety of TZDs have led to restrictions on their use in patients with HF. This review addresses the latest evidence for HF with each of the TZD drugs currently available and reflects on the current guidelines regarding their prescription in at-risk patients.

Rosiglitazone evaluated for cardiovascular outcomes in oral agent combination therapy for type 2 diabetes (RECORD): a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial

BACKGROUND

Rosiglitazone is an insulin sensitiser used in combination with metformin, a sulfonylurea, or both, for lowering blood glucose in people with type 2 diabetes. We assessed cardiovascular outcomes after addition of rosiglitazone to either metformin or sulfonylurea compared with the combination of the two over 5-7 years of follow-up. We also assessed comparative safety.

METHODS

In a multicentre, open-label trial, 4447 patients with type 2 diabetes on metformin or sulfonylurea monotherapy with mean haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) of 7.9% were randomly assigned to addition of rosiglitazone (n=2220) or to a combination of metformin and sulfonylurea (active control group, n=2227). The primary endpoint was cardiovascular hospitalisation or cardiovascular death, with a hazard ratio (HR) non-inferiority margin of 1.20. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00379769.

FINDINGS

321 people in the rosiglitazone group and 323 in the active control group experienced the primary outcome during a mean 5.5-year follow-up, meeting the criterion of non-inferiority (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85-1.16). HR was 0.84 (0.59-1.18) for cardiovascular death, 1.14 (0.80-1.63) for myocardial infarction, and 0.72 (0.49-1.06) for stroke. Heart failure causing admission to hospital or death occurred in 61 people in the rosiglitazone group and 29 in the active control group (HR 2.10, 1.35-3.27, risk difference per 1000 person-years 2.6, 1.1-4.1). Upper and distal lower limb fracture rates were increased mainly in women randomly assigned to rosiglitazone. Mean HbA(1c) was lower in the rosiglitazone group than in the control group at 5 years.

INTERPRETATION

Addition of rosiglitazone to glucose-lowering therapy in people with type 2 diabetes is confirmed to increase the risk of heart failure and of some fractures, mainly in women. Although the data are inconclusive about any possible effect on myocardial infarction, rosiglitazone does not increase the risk of overall cardiovascular morbidity or mortality compared with standard glucose-lowering drugs.

FUNDING

GlaxoSmithKline plc, UK.

Relationship between thiazolidinedione use and cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality among patients with diabetes: a time-updated propensity analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the association of the thiazolidinediones (TZDs), rosiglitazone, and pioglitazone, together and individually on the risk of cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality, using time-updated propensity score adjusted analysis.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a large vertically integrated health system in southeast Michigan. Cohort inclusion criteria included adult patients with diabetes treated with oral medications and followed longitudinally within the health system between 1 January 2000 and 1 December 2006. The primary outcome was fatal and non-fatal acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Secondary outcomes included hospitalizations for congestive heart failure (CHF), fatal, and non-fatal cerebrovascular accidents (CVA) and transient ischemic attacks (TIA), combined coronary heart disease (CHD) events, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

19,171 patients were included in this study. Use of TZDs (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) with propensity adjustment (PA), 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73-1.17), rosiglitazone (aHR with PA, 1.06; 95%CI 0.66-1.70), and pioglitazone (aHR with PA, 0.91; 95%CI 0.69-1.21) was not associated with a higher risk of AMI. However, pioglitazone use was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality (aHR with PA, 0.60; 95%CI 0.42-0.96). Compared with rosiglitazone, pioglitazone use was associated with a lower risk of all outcomes assessed, particularly CHF (p = 0.013) and combined CHD events (p = 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that pioglitazone may have a more favorable risk profile when compared to rosiglitazone, arguing against a singular effect for TZDs on cardiovascular outcomes.

Rosiglitazone is associated with mortality in chronic hemodialysis patients

Recent studies have associated rosiglitazone, a thiazolidinedione drug, with adverse cardiovascular outcomes in the general population with diabetes. Using data from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study in the United States, we examined cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality associated with prescription of rosiglitazone, compared with other oral hypoglycemic agents, among 2393 long-term hemodialysis patients who were followed for a median of 1.1 yr. We assessed mortality risk using Cox models in patient-level and dialysis facility-level analyses that used the facility proportion of patients on rosiglitazone as the predictor (instrumental variable approach) and adjusted the models for demographics, comorbid conditions, laboratory values, and achieved dialysis dosage. Compared with patients prescribed other oral hypoglycemic agents, patients prescribed rosiglitazone had significantly higher all-cause (hazard ratio [HR] 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05 to 1.82) and cardiovascular (HR 1.59; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.22) mortality, and their adjusted HR for hospitalization with myocardial infarction was 3.5-fold higher (P = 0.02). We did not observe similar associations in a secondary analysis evaluating pioglitazone. By the instrumental variable approach, facilities with more than the median adjusted percentage (6.2%) of patients who had diabetes and were prescribed rosiglitazone had significantly higher all-cause mortality (HR 1.36; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.62) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.42; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.88) than facilities with less than the median expected percentage prescribed rosiglitazone. Our practice-based findings suggest significant associations of rosiglitazone use with higher cardiovascular and all-cause mortality among hemodialysis patients with diabetes.

Potential of glucose-lowering drugs to reduce cardiovascular events

Although a clear relationship exists between glycosylated hemoglobin and cardiovascular (CV) disease in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in epidemiologic studies, data from prospective studies are less clear. Earlier prospective studies examining intensive glucose lowering suffered from a lack of statistical power to show CV event reduction, as well as a lack of durable glycemic control and relatively poor control of associated CV risk factors. Although recent CV outcome trials comparing intensive glycemic compared with standard glycemic control have been disappointing, CV event rates appear to be declining substantially in T2DM individuals in the setting of aggressive global CV risk factor modification. No single hypoglycemic agent or combination of agents was associated with increased CV events or mortality. A comprehensive strategy of multifactorial intervention including aggressive and durable glycemic blood pressure, and lipid lowering, aspirin usage, and lifestyle modifications is beneficial in reducing macrovascular and microvascular events in T2DM individuals.

Thiazolidinediones: effects on the development and progression of type 2 diabetes and associated vascular complications

In addition to reducing hyperglycaemia, the metabolic actions of TZDs (pioglitazone and rosiglitazone) in theory might improve the prognosis of patients with type 2 diabetes. However, it appears from recent data that pioglitazone and rosiglitazone have different cardiovascular risk profiles. The scope of this paper is to examine the benefits and risks of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone. Three large clinical studies (DREAM, and ADOPT with rosiglitazone; PROactive with pioglitazone) have recently been reported. A lower annual rate of decline of ss-cell function observed with rosiglitazone in the ADOPT study, compared with metformin and glyburide (glibenclamide), along with a reduced progression to insulin use seen with pioglitazone in the PROactive study, provides evidence that TZDs are effective in treating progressive hyperglycaemia. In PROactive, although the primary endpoint was not met, pioglitazone was associated with a reduction in a secondary composite endpoint of clinical cardiovascular events in high-risk patients with existing macrovascular disease who were already receiving other glycaemic and cardiovascular medications. Further evidence supporting an anti-atherogenic effect of pioglitazone was gained from the PERISCOPE study of carotid intima-media thickness. Recent controversy concerning a possible increased risk of myocardial infarction associated with rosiglitazone has fuelled uncertainty about the risk-benefit profile of this agent. In 2008, an update of an American Diabetes Association-European Association for the Study of Diabetes consensus statement on initiation and adjustment of therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes advised clinicians against using rosiglitazone. Skeletal fractures have recently emerged as a side effect of both TZDs. Available data suggest that cardiovascular benefits observed with pioglitazone might not be a class effect of TZDs.

Cardiovascular risk of rosiglitazone: another perspective

Rosiglitazone is an effective therapy for type 2 diabetes although concerns have grown about the incidence of oedema and cardiovascular adverse events in patients treated with the drug. The following review was conducted to evaluate further and complement the evidence linking rosiglitazone with an increased risk for cardiovascular adverse events by examining trials and case reports not included in recent meta-analyses. Rosiglitazone-related publications describing case reports and prospective and retrospective cohort analyses were identified using MEDLINE and EMBASE, from July 1999 to July 2007. Relevant reports cited in these publications were also obtained. A recently-published meta-analysis and a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial were also reviewed. This review of 20 case reports and 10 uncontrolled studies supports the need for added vigilance when prescribing rosiglitazone to patients for the treatment of type 2 diabetes who may be at risk for congestive heart failure. Clinical data from numerous case reports and uncontrolled studies suggested that patients receiving rosiglitazone should be monitored for the development of weight gain or oedema. Prudence should be observed in patients with a history or risk factors for congestive heart failure as they may be poor candidates for rosiglitazone therapy.

Reassessing the cardiovascular risks and benefits of thiazolidinediones

This article is designed for the general cardiologist, endocrinologist, and internist caring for patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease. Despite the burden of coronary disease in diabetics, little is known about the impact of commonly used oral hypoglycemic agents on cardiovascular outcomes. As the untoward effects of insulin resistance (IR) are increasingly recognized, there is interest in targeting this defect. Insulin resistance contributes to dyslipidemia, hypertension, inflammation, hypercoagulability, and endothelial dysfunction. The aggregate impact of this process is progression of systemic atherosclerosis and an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. As such, much attention has been paid to the peroxisome-proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARg) agonists rosiglitazone and pioglitazone (thiazolidinediones [TZDs]). Many studies have demonstrated a beneficial effect on the atherosclerotic process; specifically, these agents have been shown to reduce markers of inflammation, retard progression of carotid intimal thickness, prevent restenosis after coronary stenting, and prevent cardiovascular death and myocardial infarction in 1 large trial. Such benefits come at the risk of fluid retention and heart failure (HF) exacerbation, and the net effect on plasma lipids is still poorly understood. Thus, the aggregate risk-benefit ratio is poorly defined. A recent meta-analysis has raised significant concerns regarding the overall cardiovascular safety of 1 particular PPARg agonist (rosiglitazone), prompting international debate and regulatory changes. This review scrutinizes the clinical evidence regarding the cardiovascular risks and benefits of PPARg agonists. Future studies of PPARg agonists, and other emerging drugs that treat IR and diabetes, must be designed to look at cardiovascular outcomes.

Pioglitazone and cardiovascular risk. A comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

AIM

The aim of this meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT) was to assess whether pioglitazone is also associated with increased cardiovascular risk, as recently reported for rosiglitazone.

METHODS

RCT of pioglitazone were retrieved from Medline (any date up to 31 August 2007; English language only). Unpublished RCT were identified through http://www.clinicaltrials.gov or http://www.fda.gov websites, and results on cardiovascular outcomes were retrieved from investigators and/or sponsors, whenever possible. RCT were included in meta-analysis if pioglitazone was compared with other treatments (placebo, active comparators or no treatment) for at least 4 weeks. Ninety-four trials, 10 of which were unpublished, were retrieved; those included in the analysis, which excluded PROspective PioglitAzone Clinical Trial In MacroVascular Events (PROACTIVE), enrolled 11 268 and 9912 patients in the pioglitazone and comparator groups respectively. Data for analysis, extracted independently by two observers, included all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and incidence of non-fatal coronary events and heart failure. Proportions of outcome measures across treatment groups were compared by odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Pioglitazone was associated with reduced all-cause mortality [OR 0.30 (0.14-0.63); p < 0.05], with no relevant effect on non-fatal coronary events. The observed increase in incidence of non-fatal heart failure was not statistically significant [OR 1.38 (0.90-2.12)].

CONCLUSION

The use of pioglitazone does not appear to be harmful in terms of cardiovascular events and all-cause deaths.

A retrospective evaluation of congestive heart failure and myocardial ischemia events in 14,237 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus enrolled in 42 short-term, double-blind, randomized clinical studies with rosiglitazone

PURPOSE

Retrospectively investigate potential associations between rosiglitazone and congestive heart failure (CHF) and, separately, events of myocardial ischemia.

METHODS

Data from 14 237 individuals in 42 short-term, double-blind, randomized studies of rosiglitazone versus placebo or active diabetes medications were analyzed across seven treatment comparisons using an exact logistic regression model, adjusted for number of major cardiovascular risk factors and duration of exposure.

RESULTS

CHF incidence ranged 0-1.27% (SAEs) and 0.12-2.42% (all AEs) with rosiglitazone versus 0.07-0.75% (SAEs) and 0.25-1.36% (all AEs) with control. Higher odds ratios (95%CI) were observed for CHF SAEs with sulfonylurea- and insulin-containing combinations: rosiglitazone monotherapy versus placebo, 0.25 (<0.01-4.75); rosiglitazone monotherapy versus sulfonylurea/metformin monotherapy, 0.23 (<0.01-2.14); sulfonylurea + rosiglitazone versus sulfonylurea monotherapy, 0.95 (0.01-75.20); metformin + rosiglitazone versus metformin monotherapy, 0.60 (0.00-8.28); metformin + rosiglitazone versus metformin + sulfonylurea, 1.04 (0.39-2.86); sulfonylurea + metformin + rosiglitazone versus sulfonylurea + metformin, 3.15 (0.35-150.52); insulin + rosiglitazone versus insulin monotherapy, 1.63 (0.52-6.01). Myocardial ischemia incidence ranged 0.75-1.40% (SAEs) and 1.49-2.77% (all AEs) with rosiglitazone versus 0.21-2.04% (SAEs) and 0.56-2.38% (all AEs) with control. Each comparison had an OR >1, with wide confidence intervals generally including unity. With data pooling, more events of myocardial ischemia were observed with rosiglitazone (2.00%) versus control (1.53%) (HR 1.30, 95%CI 1.004-1.69).

CONCLUSIONS

CHF incidence may be greater when rosiglitazone is combined with sulfonylureas or insulin. When data were pooled, more events of myocardial ischemia were observed with rosiglitazone versus control. Final results from RECORD will allow a more rigorous evaluation of the cardiovascular safety profile.

Thiazolidinediones in type 2 diabetes: a cardiology perspective

OBJECTIVE

To examine the cardiovascular effects of thiazolidinediones (TZDs), discuss concerns regarding this drug class and its relation to heart failure (HF) and myocardial infarction (MI), and address the clinical implications of HF and MI.

DATA SOURCES

Literature was accessed through MEDLINE (1979-April 2008) using the search terms type 2 diabetes mellitus, thiazolidinediones, cardiovascular events, heart failure, myocardial infarction, and edema. Reviews, meta-analyses, clinical trials, observational studies (case-control, cohort), and descriptive studies (case reports, case series) were included.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All articles that were written in English and identified from the data sources were reviewed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The American Diabetes Association recommends metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes, with the subsequent addition of a TZD, sulfonylurea, or insulin if the target is not met. Beyond glucose lowering, TZDs improve various factors associated with cardiovascular risk. Whether the effects translate into beneficial cardiovascular outcomes is controversial. In PROactive (Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial in Macrovascular Events), pioglitazone did not produce a significant reduction in the primary endpoint that included a composite of coronary and vascular deaths, but the secondary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, MI, or stroke was significantly reduced. Concerns related to HF have led to warnings in the labeling of TZDs. The drugs are contraindicated in patients with New York Heart Association Class III or IV HF. Rosiglitazone, but not pioglitazone, is associated with an increased risk of myocardial ischemic events, although the absolute magnitude is extremely small.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the glycemic efficacy of TZDs is comparable to that of metformin, adverse effects and higher costs make TZDs less appealing for initial therapy. Among the TZDs, pioglitazone should be considered based on cardiovascular safety data. In combination with metformin, pioglitazone may be particularly beneficial for patients with diabetes and metabolic syndrome. For patients on rosiglitazone who are achieving glycemic goals and tolerating the therapy without apparent complications, rosiglitazone may be continued.

Effects of insulin resistance on endothelial function: possible mechanisms and clinical implications

Insulin resistance (IR) is defined as a reduced responsiveness of peripheral tissues to the effects of the hormone, referring to abated ability of insulin in stimulating glucose uptake in peripheral tissues and in inhibiting hepatic glucose output. Insulin has both a vasodilatory effect, which is largely endothelium dependent through the release of nitric oxide, and a vasoconstrictory effect through the stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system and the release of endothelin-1. IR and endothelial dysfunction (ED) are not only linked by common pathogenetic mechanisms, involving deranged insulin signalling pathways, but also by other, indirect to the hormone's actions, mechanisms. Different treatment modalities have been proposed to affect positively both the metabolic effects of insulin and ED. Weight loss has been shown to improve sensitivity to insulin as a result of either altered diet or exercise. Exercise has favourable effects on endothelial function in normal states and in states of disease, in men and women, and throughout the age spectrum and, hence, in IR states. Metformin improves sensitivity to insulin and most likely affects positively ED. Studies have shown that inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system alter IR favourably, while Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and Angiotensin receptor type II (ATII) inhibitors improve ED. Ongoing studies are expected to shed more light on the issue of whether treatment with the thiazolidinediones results in improvement of endothelial function, along with the accepted function of improving insulin sensitivity. Finally, improved endothelial function by such treatments is not in itself proof of reduced risk for atherosclerosis; this remains to be directly tested in clinical trials.

The effect of PPAR ligands to modulate glucose metabolism alters the incorporation of metabolic precursors into proteoglycans synthesized by human vascular smooth muscle cells

PPAR ligands are important effectors of energy metabolism and can modify proteoglycan synthesis by vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMCs). Describing the cell biology of these important clinical agents is important for understanding their full clinical potential, including toxicity. Troglitazone (10 microM) and fenofibrate (30 microM) treatment of VSMCs reduces ((35)S)-sulphate incorporation into proteoglycans due to a reduction of glycosaminoglycan (GAG) chain length. Conversely, under physiological glucose conditions (5.5 mM), the same treatment increases ((3)H)-glucosamine incorporation into GAGs. This apparent paradox is the consequence of an increase in the intracellular ((3)H)-galactosamine specific activity from 48.2 +/- 3.2 microCi/ micromol to 90.7 +/- 11.0 microCi/ micromol (P < 0.001) and 57.1 +/- 2.6 microCi/ micromol (P < 0.05) when VSMCs were treated with troglitazone and fenofibrate, respectively. The increased specific activity observed with troglitazone (10 microM) treatment correlates with a two-fold increase in glucose consumption, while fenofibrate (50 microM) treatment showed a modest (14.6%) increase in glucose consumption. We conclude that the sole use of glucosamine precursors to assess GAG biosynthesis results in misleading conclusions when assessing the effect of PPAR ligands on VSMC proteoglycan biosynthesis.

Third-line agent selection for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus uncontrolled with sulfonylureas and metformin

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus often begin treatment by taking oral agents, usually metformin or a sulfonylurea, and then progress to the combination of these two agents. Most patients often require three or more agents or a change to an insulin regimen. However, no guidelines are available to aid the clinician in the decision-making process for selecting the third agent. Many options are available for additional therapy, including thiazolidinediones, intermediate- and long-acting insulins, exenatide, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. Although the American Diabetes Association recommends metformin as first-line therapy, it does not give exact specifications for second- and third-line agents but only summarizes clinical data and options about each therapeutic drug class. Guidelines from the American College of Endocrinology and American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists recommend several options depending on the patient's hemoglobin A(1c) level. Therefore, a standard of care cannot be provided; rather, clinicians must evaluate each patient to ascertain that patient's optimum therapy. In doing so, clinicians need to be familiar with the efficacy, safety, and cost of each agent.