Effects of Lobeglitazone, a Novel Thiazolidinedione, on Bone Mineral Density in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus over 52 Weeks

Lobeglitazone and Its Therapeutic Benefits: A Review

Lobeglitazone is a newer oral hypoglycemic agent that has been tested in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aim to conduct a narrative review to find out the therapeutic benefits of lobeglitazone in patients with T2DM. We scientifically searched the electronic database of PubMed from inception until September 12, 2023, using Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) keywords. Additionally, we searched for pre-clinical trials related to lobeglitazone. We retrieved all available results of phase 1 to phase 3 studies of lobeglitazone in T2DM. Subsequently, we reviewed the results narratively. Three double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies and a phase 3 trial of lobeglitazone showed that 0.5 mg daily dose exhibits effective therapeutic activity in glycemic, lipid, and hepatic control, and is also used as a secondary treatment in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Lobeglitazone exhibits as much antidiabetic activity as other thiazolidinediones such as pioglitazone and rosiglitazone. Side effects of lobeglitazone included peripheral edema, weight gain, and bone mineral density, which did not require hospitalization for these effects. This article highlights the pharmacological, pre-clinical, clinical, and safety pharmacology of novel thiazolidinedione lobeglitazone.

Bone Mineral Density Evaluation Among Type 2 Diabetic Patients in Rural Haryana, India: An Analytical Cross-Sectional Study

Background and objective Diabetes is one of the most prevalent diseases globally, affecting almost all organ systems. The relationship between type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and bone mineral density (BMD) has been a matter of controversy, and data from developing countries in this regard is highly scarce. Early detection of low BMD in diabetic patients will help prevent further bone loss and risk of fragility fracture. In this study, we aimed to assess the effect of T2DM on BMD among the rural population of Haryana, India. Materials and methods This was a cross-sectional study involving 850 patients between 25 and 60 years of age, including 425 diabetic and 425 non-diabetic subjects (as controls). Calcaneus BMD was measured by using quantitative ultrasound (QUS), and the data were compared against matched parameters in both groups. Results The mean age of diabetics was 42.21 ± 10.5 years and that of non-diabetics was 42.18 ± 10.4 years. The mean BMI was 27.8 ± 4.17 kg/m2 in diabetics and 21.6 ± 3.32 kg/m2 in the non-diabetic control group. BMD values significantly differed between the groups: -4.3 ± 1.23 vs. -2.6 ± 0.34 in diabetics and non-diabetics, respectively (p=0.002). Conclusion A significant difference in BMD was observed between the diabetic and non-diabetic groups. Based on our findings, We recommend that all type 2 diabetics be screened for osteoporosis so that this silent bone loss can be detected in the early phase itself and appropriate preventive measures can be promptly initiated.

Comparison of therapeutic efficacy and safety of sitagliptin, dapagliflozin, or lobeglitazone adjunct therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on sulfonylurea and metformin: Third agent study

AIMS

Compare the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin, dapagliflozin, and lobeglitazone in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, despite metformin and sulfonylurea therapy.

METHODS

The study randomized patients into three groups, receiving sitagliptin 100 mg, dapagliflozin 10 mg, or lobeglitazone 0.5 mg daily (n = 26 each) and monitored changes in biochemical parameters and body composition for 24 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was changes in HbA1c at 24 months.

RESULTS

The mean change in HbA1c in the sitagliptin, dapagliflozin, and lobeglitazone groups was -0.81 ± 0.21%, -1.05 ± 0.70%, and -1.08 ± 0.98%, after 24 months. Dapagliflozin treatment significantly lowered systolic blood pressure by 5.5 mmHg and alanine aminotransferase levels. Dapagliflozin and lobeglitazone treatment significantly reduced proteinuria and insulin resistance. Dapagliflozin decreased whole body fat percentage by 1.2%, whereas sitagliptin and lobeglitazone increased it by 1.1% and 1.8%, respectively. Whole body muscle percentage increased in the dapagliflozin group and decreased in the lobeglitazone group. The safety profiles of the three treatments were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

All three drugs displayed good glucose-lowering efficacy and comparable safety profiles. However, dapagliflozin therapy produced favorable changes in body composition. Dapagliflozin may be a suitable adjunct therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes seeking to improve their body composition.

Will lobeglitazone rival pioglitazone? A systematic review and critical appraisal

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lobeglitazone (LGZ), a newly researched thiazolidinedione (TZD) thought to have lesser side effects compared with pioglitazone (PGZ), has been recently approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in India. We aim to conduct an updated systematic review of LGZ to critically appraise its efficacy and safety in the context of PGZ.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was carried out in the electronic database of PubMed until Jan 15, 2023, using specific keywords and MeSH terms. All studies which evaluated LGZ in people with T2D were retrieved and data were synthesized with regard to its efficacy and safety. A comparative critical appraisal was additionally made in the context of PGZ in T2D.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled, one prospective observational, and two real-world studies have evaluated the safety and efficacy of LGZ against placebo or active comparators either as monotherapy or in combination therapy. HbA1c reduction with LGZ 0.5 mg was superior to the placebo but similar to PGZ 15 mg and sitagliptin (SITA) 100 mg. Weight gain with LGZ was significantly higher compared to placebo and SITA but similar to PGZ. Edema was more frequently observed with LGZ compared to placebo, PGZ, and SITA.

CONCLUSION

No substantial evidence is yet available that suggests LGZ could be a better alternative to PGZ both in the context of glycemic or extra-glycemic effects. At least in the short-term, adverse events of LGZ are indifferent from PGZ. More data is additionally needed to claim any advantage of LGZ over PGZ.

Efficacy and safety of lobeglitazone, a new Thiazolidinedione, as compared to the standard of care in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lobeglitazone as compared to the standard of care (SOC) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was the comparison of the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) level after 24 weeks. Pooled mean differences and odds ratios were calculated using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Of 267 studies that were screened, four were included. Treatment with adjunct lobeglitazone showed a reduction in the HbA1C level [mean difference: -0.23% (95% CI: -0.62 to 0.16); p = 0.24; i²: 87%; moderate GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and. Evaluation) of evidence], fasting blood glucose level [mean difference: -7.12 mg/dl (95% CI: -20.09 to 5.85); p = 0.28; i²: 87%; moderate GRADE of evidence], and lipid profile as compared to those following treatment with the SOC; however, the changes were not statistically significant. The risk of hypoglycemia was significantly lower [odds ratio: 0.24 (95% CI: 0.08 to 0.70); p < 0.05; i²: 0%; moderate GRADE of evidence] without any significant difference in the risk of drug-related adverse events [odds ratio: 1.59 (95% CI: 0.87 to 2.93); p = 0.13; i²: 0%; moderate GRADE of evidence] following treatment with lobeglitazone as compared to those following treatment with the SOC.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with adjunct lobeglitazone showed changes in the blood glycemic status and lipid profile similar to SOC in patients with T2DM, and the results were not statistically significant. Lobeglitazone was well tolerated; its safety profile was comparable to SOC.

The benefits of adipocyte metabolism in bone health and regeneration

Patients suffering from musculoskeletal diseases must cope with a diminished quality of life and an increased burden on medical expenses. The interaction of immune cells and mesenchymal stromal cells during bone regeneration is one of the key requirements for the restoration of skeletal integrity. While stromal cells of the osteo-chondral lineage support bone regeneration, an excessive accumulation of cells of the adipogenic lineage is thought to promote low-grade inflammation and impair bone regeneration. Increasing evidence indicates that pro-inflammatory signaling from adipocytes is responsible for various chronic musculoskeletal diseases. This review aims to summarize the features of bone marrow adipocytes by phenotype, function, secretory features, metabolic properties and their impact on bone formation. In detail, the master regulator of adipogenesis and prominent diabetes drug target, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ (PPARG), will be debated as a potential therapeutic approach to enhance bone regeneration. We will explore the possibilities of using clinically established PPARG agonists, the thiazolidinediones (TZDs), as a treatment strategy to guide the induction of a pro-regenerative, metabolically active bone marrow adipose tissue. The impact of this PPARG induced bone marrow adipose tissue type on providing the necessary metabolites to sustain osteogenic-as well as beneficial immune cells during bone fracture healing will be highlighted.

Efficacy and safety of novel thiazolidinedione lobeglitazone for managing type-2 diabetes a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

No meta-analysis has analysed the safety and efficacy of lobeglitazone in type-2 diabetes (T2DM). We undertook this meta-analysis to address this knowledge-gap.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for RCTs involving type-2 diabetes patients receiving lobeglitazone in intervention arm, and placebo/active comparator in control arm. Primary outcome was to evaluate changes in HbA1c. Secondary outcomes were to evaluate alterations in glucose, lipids and adverse events.

RESULTS

From initially screened 65 articles, data from 4 RCTs (828 patients) which fulfilled all criteria was analysed. Over 24 weeks, when compared to sitagliptin 100 mg/d and half maximal pioglitazone dose (15 mg/d), lobeglitazone 0.5 mg/day had comparable impact on HbA1c [MD 0.03% (95%CI: 0.11-0.17); P = 0.65; I2 = 0%], fasting glucose [MD 1.47 mg/dl (95%CI: 4.66-7.60); P = 0.64; I2 = 0%], triglycerides [MD-9.96 mg/dl (95%CI: 43.55-23.62); P = 0.56; I2 = 81%], LDL-cholesterol [MD0.74 mg/dl (95%CI: 4.60-6.09); P = 0.79; I2 = 0%] and HDL-cholesterol [MD1.55 mg/dl (95%CI: 3.72-6.82); P = 0.56]. Occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) [RR 1.07 (95% CI:0.78-1.47); P = 0.67; I2 = 0%] and severe AEs [RR 1.05(95%CI: 0.42-2.65); P = 0.91; I2 = 0%] were similar. Edema and weight gain were significantly higher with lobeglitazone compared to controls [RR 2.58 (95%CI: 1.08-6.17); P = 0.03; I2 = 0%]. Lobeglitazone 0.5 mg/d compared to half-maximal pioglitazone (15 mg/d), had similar edema and weight gain [RR 1.65 95% CI: 0.78-1.47)]. BMD percent changes at neck of femur was comparable in both groups [MD 0.07% (95%CI: 0.19-0.33); P = 0.60; I2 = 91%]. Low dose lobeglitazone (0.25 mg/d) was inferior to high dose lobeglitazone (0.5 mg/d) with regards to glycaemic efficacy with advantage of lower weight gain and edema.

CONCLUSION

The current evidence makes lobeglitazone unlikely to replace pioglitazone as the preferred thiazolidinedione in T2DM.

A Real-World Study of Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Lobeglitazone in Korean Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) have been associated with various safety concerns including weight gain, bladder cancer, and congestive heart failure (CHF). This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of lobeglitazone, a novel TZD in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in real practice.

METHODS

In this non-interventional, multi-center, retrospective, and observational study conducted at 15 tertiary or secondary referral hospitals in Korea, a total of 2,228 patients with T2DM who received lobeglitazone 0.5 mg for more than 1 year were enrolled.

RESULTS

Overall adverse events (AEs) occurred in 381 patients (17.10%) including edema in 1.97% (n=44). Cerebrovascular and cardiovascular diseases were identified in 0.81% (n=18) and 0.81% (n=18), respectively. One case of CHF was reported as an AE. Edema occurred in 1.97% (n=44) of patients. Hypoglycemia occurred in 2.47% (n=55) of patients. Fracture occurred in 1.17% (n=26) of all patients. Lobeglitazone significantly decreased HbA1c level, resulting in a mean treatment difference of -1.05%± 1.35% (P<0.001), and decreased total cholesterol, triglyceride, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. However, it increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, regardless of statin administration. The patients who received lobeglitazone 0.5 mg showed an apparent reduction in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline during the first 6 months of treatment. The HbA1c levels remained stable between months 6 and 42.

CONCLUSION

Lobeglitazone has long-term safety profile, good glycemic-lowering effect and long-term durability of glycemic control in real-world clinical settings.

A double-blind, Randomized controlled trial on glucose-lowering EFfects and safety of adding 0.25 or 0.5 mg lobeglitazone in type 2 diabetes patients with INadequate control on metformin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor therapy: REFIND study

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of adding low-dose lobeglitazone (0.25 mg/day) or standard-dose lobeglitazone (0.5 mg/day) to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with inadequate glucose control on metformin and dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP4) inhibitor therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this phase 4, multicentre, double-blind, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial, patients with T2DM insufficiently controlled by metformin and DPP4 inhibitor combination therapy were randomized to receive either low-dose or standard-dose lobeglitazone. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of low-dose lobeglitazone in terms of glycaemic control, expressed as the difference in mean glycated haemoglobin levels at week 24 relative to baseline values and compared with standard-dose lobeglitazone, using 0.5% non-inferiority margin.

RESULTS

At week 24, the mean glycated haemoglobin levels were 6.87 ± 0.54% and 6.68 ± 0.46% in low-dose and standard-dose lobeglitazone groups, respectively (p = .031). The between-group difference was 0.18% (95% confidence interval 0.017-0.345), showing non-inferiority of the low-dose lobeglitazone. Mean body weight changes were significantly greater in the standard-dose group (1.36 ± 2.23 kg) than in the low-dose group (0.50 ± 1.85 kg) at week 24. The changes in HOMA-IR, lipid profile and liver enzyme levels showed no significant difference between the groups. Overall treatment-emergent adverse events (including weight gain, oedema and hypoglycaemia) occurred more frequently in the standard-dose group.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding low-dose lobeglitazone to metformin and DPP4 inhibitor combination resulted in a non-inferior glucose-lowering outcome and fewer adverse events compared with standard-dose lobeglitazone. Therefore, low-dose lobeglitazone might be one option for individualized strategy in patients with T2DM.

Effect of lobeglitazone on motor function in rat model of Parkinson's disease with diabetes co-morbidity

Parkinson's disease (PD) and diabetes mellitus share similar pathophysiological characteristics, genetic and environmental factors. It has been reported that people with diabetes mellitus appear to have a remarkable higher incidence of PD than age matched non diabetic individuals. Evidences suggest that use of antidiabetic glitazone is associated with a diminished risk of PD incidence in patients with diabetes. This study examined the effect of lobeglitazone, a member of thiazolidinedione class, in rat model of Parkinson's disease with diabetes co-morbidity. Rats received either rotenone and/or a combination of streptozocin and a high calorie diet for disease induction and they were treated with different doses of lobeglitazone or its vehicle. Behavioral tests comprising rotarod, bar test and rearing test were conducted to evaluate the motor function. Changes in the level tyrosine hydroxylase, TNF-α and NF-κB were analyzed using ELISA. In the same brain regions the possible changes in PPAR-γ receptor level were evaluated. Findings showed that although lobeglitazone tends to reverse the effect of rotenone in animals with diabetes, it was just able to prevent partly the motor defect in rearing test. Furthermore, lobeglitazone (1 mg/kg) reversed, in substantia nigra and striatum, the changes in tyrosine hydroxylase, TNF-α, NF-κB and PPAR-γ receptor content induced by rotenone in rats with diabetic condition. Although other preclinical studies are needed, these findings suggest that lobeglitazone is a promising neuroprotective candidate for clinical trials for PD patients with diabetes co-morbidity.

Lobeglitazone: A Novel Thiazolidinedione for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is characterized by insulin resistance and β-cell dysfunction. Among available oral antidiabetic agents, only the thiazolidinediones (TZDs) primarily target insulin resistance. TZDs improve insulin sensitivity by activating peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ. Rosiglitazone and pioglitazone have been used widely for T2DM treatment due to their potent glycemic efficacy and low risk of hypoglycemia. However, their use has decreased because of side effects and safety issues, such as cardiovascular concerns and bladder cancer. Lobeglitazone (Chong Kun Dang Pharmaceutical Corporation), a novel TZD, was developed to meet the demands for an effective and safe TZD. Lobeglitazone shows similar glycemic efficacy to pioglitazone, with a lower effective dose, and favorable safety results. It also showed pleiotropic effects in preclinical and clinical studies. In this article, we summarize the pharmacologic, pharmacokinetic, and clinical characteristics of lobeglitazone.

Comparative Efficacy of Lobeglitazone Versus Pioglitazone on Albuminuria in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of lobeglitazone on albuminuria at 24 weeks of follow-up in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) compared with pioglitazone using data from a randomized, double-blinded phase III trial.

METHODS

In the phase III trial, patients who were inadequately controlled with metformin received 0.5 mg of lobeglitazone or 15 mg of pioglitazone for 24 weeks. Post hoc, exploratory analysis was used to investigate mean changes from baseline in the urine albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) between the lobeglitazone (N = 104) and pioglitazone (N = 101) treatment groups.

RESULTS

After 24 weeks of treatment, UACR was slightly decreased in the lobeglitazone group (- 4.3 mg/g creatinine [Cr]) compared to baseline and slightly increased in the pioglitazone group (5.2 mg/g Cr), with no change in the estimated glomerular filtration rate in either group; this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.476). The incidence of new-onset microalbuminuria (2.4%) and the progression of albuminuria by > 1 stage (2.9%) in the lobeglitazone group were lower than the respective values in the pioglitazone group (6.8 and 6.1%, respectively). Of the patients in the lobeglitazone group, 50% exhibited regression to normoalbuminuria, compared to 39.3% of the patients in the pioglitazone. In subjects in the lobeglitazone group with micro- and macroalbuminuria, UACR tended to be more decreased and HbA1c was more reduced compared to those with normoalbuminuria (P = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

Lobeglitazone had a tendency to improve albuminuria in patients with T2DM and had comparable effects on albuminuria as pioglitazone which has demonstrated beneficial effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01106131.

Update on: effects of anti-diabetic drugs on bone metabolism

INTRODUCTION

Preclinical, clinical, and population-based studies have provided evidence that anti-diabetic drugs affect bone metabolism and may affect the risk of fracture in diabetic patients.

AREAS COVERED

An overview of the skeletal effects of anti-diabetic drugs used in type 2 diabetes is provided. Searches on AdisInsight, PubMed, and Medline databases were conducted up to 1^st July 2020. The latest evidence from randomized clinical trials and population-based studies on the skeletal safety of the most recent drugs (DPP-4i, GLP-1RA, and SGLT-2i) is provided.

EXPERT OPINION

Diabetic patients present with a higher risk of fracture for a given bone mineral density suggesting a role of bone quality in the etiology of diabetic fracture. Bone quality is difficult to assess in human clinical practice and the use of preclinical models provides valuable information on diabetic bone alterations. As several links have been established between bone and energy homeostasis, it is interesting to study the safety of anti-diabetic drugs on the skeleton. So far, evidence for the newest molecules suggests a neutral fracture risk, but further studies, especially in different types of patient populations (patients at risk or with history of cardiovascular disease, renal impairment, neuropathy) are required to fully appreciate this matter.

Use of in vitro bone models to screen for altered bone metabolism, osteopathies, and fracture healing: challenges of complex models

Approx. every third hospitalized patient in Europe suffers from musculoskeletal injuries or diseases. Up to 20% of these patients need costly surgical revisions after delayed or impaired fracture healing. Reasons for this are the severity of the trauma, individual factors, e.g, the patients’ age, individual lifestyle, chronic diseases, medication, and, over 70 diseases that negatively affect the bone quality. To investigate the various disease constellations and/or develop new treatment strategies, many in vivo, ex vivo, and in vitro models can be applied. Analyzing these various models more closely, it is obvious that many of them have limits and/or restrictions. Undoubtedly, in vivo models most completely represent the biological situation. Besides possible species-specific differences, ethical concerns may question the use of in vivo models especially for large screening approaches. Challenging whether ex vivo or in vitro bone models can be used as an adequate replacement for such screenings, we here summarize the advantages and challenges of frequently used ex vivo and in vitro bone models to study disturbed bone metabolism and fracture healing. Using own examples, we discuss the common challenge of cell-specific normalization of data obtained from more complex in vitro models as one example of the analytical limits which lower the full potential of these complex model systems.

The use of metformin, insulin, sulphonylureas, and thiazolidinediones and the risk of fracture: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Certain glucose-lowering medications have been implicated in the risk of fracture. While there is convincing evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that thiazolidinedione use is associated with a higher risk of fracture, the effects of metformin, insulin, and sulphonylureas on the risk of fracture remain equivocal because these medications are not generally investigated in RCTs. A meta-analysis of observational studies to provide further insights into the association between the use of metformin, insulin, sulphonylureas, or thiazolidinediones and the risk of fracture was performed. PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched to identify relevant observational studies. A random effects model was used to estimate the summary relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The use of insulin (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.29, 1.73; n = 23 studies), sulphonylureas (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.18, 1.43; n = 10), and thiazolidinediones (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.13, 1.35; n = 14) was associated with an increased risk of fracture, whereas the use of metformin was associated with a reduced risk of fracture (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75, 0.99; n = 12). Regarding types of thiazolidinediones, both pioglitazone (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.23, 1.54; n = 5) and rosiglitazone (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.14, 1.58; n = 5) were positively associated with the risk of fracture. In summary, there is compelling evidence to discourage the use of thiazolidinediones in individuals with an increased risk of fracture, whereas metformin appears to have a good safety profile for the risk of fracture. The reduced risk of fracture with metformin could possibly be due to the reduced overall risk of fracture among metformin users, as this medication is typically prescribed in the early stages of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The use of insulin or sulphonylureas may increase fracture risk; this risk is most likely attributed to an increased risk of hypoglycaemia-induced falls. Further confirmation by additional RCTs is required to determine whether the observed association between the use of metformin, insulin, or sulphonylureas and the risk of fracture is due to treatment with these medications or confounding factors.

Diabetes pharmacotherapy and effects on the musculoskeletal system

Persons with type 1 or type 2 diabetes have a significantly higher fracture risk than age-matched persons without diabetes, attributed to disease-specific deficits in the microarchitecture and material properties of bone tissue. Therefore, independent effects of diabetes drugs on skeletal integrity are vitally important. Studies of incretin-based therapies have shown divergent effects of different agents on fracture risk, including detrimental, beneficial, and neutral effects. The sulfonylurea class of drugs, owing to its hypoglycemic potential, is thought to amplify the risk of fall-related fractures, particularly in the elderly. Other agents such as the biguanides may, in fact, be osteo-anabolic. In contrast, despite similarly expected anabolic properties of insulin, data suggests that insulin pharmacotherapy itself, particularly in type 2 diabetes, may be a risk factor for fracture, negatively associated with determinants of bone quality and bone strength. Finally, sodium-dependent glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors have been associated with an increased risk of atypical fractures in select populations, and possibly with an increase in lower extremity amputation with specific SGLT2I drugs. The role of skeletal muscle, as a potential mediator and determinant of bone quality, is also a relevant area of exploration. Currently, data regarding the impact of glucose lowering medications on diabetes-related muscle atrophy is more limited, although preclinical studies suggest that various hypoglycemic agents may have either aggravating (sulfonylureas, glinides) or repairing (thiazolidinediones, biguanides, incretins) effects on skeletal muscle atrophy, thereby influencing bone quality. Hence, the therapeutic efficacy of each hypoglycemic agent must also be evaluated in light of its impact, alone or in combination, on musculoskeletal health, when determining an individualized treatment approach. Moreover, the effect of newer medications (potentially seeking expanded clinical indication into the pediatric age range) on the growing skeleton is largely unknown. Herein, we review the available literature regarding effects of diabetes pharmacotherapy, by drug class and/or by clinical indication, on the musculoskeletal health of persons with diabetes.

The effects of diabetes therapy on bone: A clinical perspective

The effects of diabetes and diabetes therapy on bone are less known among clinicians. Traditionally, the emphasis of diabetes therapy has been on reducing cardiovascular risk by facilitating reductions in weight, blood pressure, blood sugar, systemic inflammation, and lipid levels. Now, with ample research demonstrating that patients with diabetes are more susceptible to bone fractures relative to controls, there has been a greater or renewed interest in studying the effects of diabetes therapy on bone. Interestingly, the majority of antidiabetic agents positively affect bone, but a few have detrimental effects. Specifically, although insulin has been demonstrated to be anabolic to bone, the rate of hypoglycemic episodes are increased with exogenous infusion; consequently, there is an increased fall and fracture frequency. Other agents such as thiazolidinediones have more direct negative effects on bone through transcriptional regulation. Even metabolic surgery, to a varying operation-dependent extent, exacerbates bone strength and may heighten fracture rate. The remaining diabetes agents seem to have neutral or positive effects on bone. With the increasing incidence of diabetes, it is more pertinent than ever to fully comprehend the effects of diabetes-related therapeutic modalities.