Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Rosiglitazone”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Pioglitazone, rosiglitazone, and rosiglitazone + metformin: new drugs. Glitazone + oral antidiabetic combination: inadequately evaluated.

(1) When single-agent therapy provides inadequate glycaemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes, most guidelines recommend metformin in combination with a glucose-lowering sulphonylurea as standard treatment, despite the lack of any proven impact on morbidity or mortality. Other options include switching to insulin or abandoning the target of strict glycaemic control. (2) Pioglitazone and rosiglitazone are approved for use in combination with a glucose-lowering sulphonylurea when metformin is poorly tolerated or contraindicated, and in combination with metformin in overweight patients. (3) A fixed-dose combination containing 1 or 2 mg of rosiglitazone plus 500 mg of metformin (hydrochloride) was launched onto the French market in October 2004. (4) The indication for rosiglitazone was extended to include its use as triple-agent therapy in combination with metformin and a glucose-lowering sulphonylurea. (5) No clinical trials assessing effects on mortality or morbidity have evaluated rosiglitazone or pioglitazone in combination with other oral antidiabetic drugs. (6) Several trials have compared the glucose-lowering effects of dual-agent therapy using rosiglitazone or pioglitazone plus a glucose-lowering sulphonylurea or metformin versus dual-agent therapy with metformin and a glucose-lowering sulphonylurea. (7) These clinical trials indicate that in terms of HbA1c level, dual-agent therapy based on rosiglitazone or pioglitazone is about as effective as combination therapy with metformin plus a glucose-lowering sulphonylurea. (8) The main known adverse effect of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone is water-sodium retention, which can provoke oedema and haemodilution anaemia, and can aggravate or reveal heart failure. (9) Pioglitazone has a positive effect on the lipid profile, whereas rosiglitazone increases the LDL-cholesterol level. (10) Dual-agent therapy with pioglitazone and a sulphonylurea causes more weight gain than metformin plus a sulphonylurea. (11) Several trials have assessed triple-agent regimens containing a glitazone. Three placebo-controlled double-blind trials have tested pioglitazone (one trial, nearly 300 patients) or rosiglitazone (two trials, about 1200 patients) for 12 to 26 weeks in patients whose glycaemia was poorly controlled by dual-agent therapy with a sulphonylurea plus metformin. The glycated haemoglobin level fell by 0.3% to 1.1% (in absolute values), depending on the trial and the dosage, but at a cost of the usual adverse effects such as weight gain, anaemia and oedema. Three unblinded trials have compared oral triple-agent regimens containing glitazone versus insulin plus metformin, alone or in combination with a glucose-lowering sulphonylurea; the treatment including glitazone was no more effective in terms of the glycated haemoglobin level, but was associated with an increase in adverse effects and dropouts. (12) Given the limited clinical data available in early 2005, pioglitazone and rosiglitazone have no place in the management of type 2 diabetes.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2006

Open channel block of Kv1.3 by rosiglitazone and troglitazone: Kv1.3 as the pharmacological target for rosiglitazone.

The effects of rosiglitazone and troglitazone were examined on cloned Kv1.3 channels stably expressed in Chinese hamster ovary cells using the whole-cell configuration of the patch-clamp technique. Rosiglitazone decreased the Kv1.3 currents and accelerated the decay rate of current inactivation in a concentration-dependent manner with an IC(50) of 18.6 microM. These effects were reversible after washout of the drug. Troglitazone caused the block of Kv1.3 with a similar pattern but was five times more potent than rosiglitazone with an IC(50) of 3.5 microM. The block of Kv1.3 by rosiglitazone and troglitazone was voltage-dependent at a membrane potential coinciding with the activation of the channels. Both drugs decreased the tail current amplitude and slowed the deactivation process of Kv1.3, resulting in a tail crossover phenomenon. These results indicate that rosiglitazone and troglitazone block the open state of Kv1.3 channels, suggesting that it is an important pharmacological target for rosiglitazone as a potent blocker of Kv1.3 channels.

Animals↗
PubMed2005

Reduction in use of healthcare services with combination sulfonylurea and rosiglitazone: findings from the Rosiglitazone Early vs SULfonylurea Titration (RESULT) study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare healthcare utilization and costs over a 2-year period in older patients (> or = 60 years) with type 2 diabetes receiving combination therapy with rosiglitazone plus a sulfonylurea (glipizide) or progressive up-titration of glipizide monotherapy. STUDY DESIGN: Two-year, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Older type 2 diabetic patients initially receiving submaximal doses of a sulfonylurea were randomized to receive rosiglitazone plus glipizide (n = 115) or up-titrated glipizide monotherapy (n = 110). Information on patient self-reported healthcare utilization (hospitalizations, emergency department [ED] visits, physician office visits) was collected prospectively for the duration of the trial. National average healthcare costs per unit were applied to calculate direct medical costs. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics of the 2 groups were similar. At the study's end, glycemic values were better in the rosiglitazone-plus-glipizide group. Compared with the glipizide group, patients receiving rosiglitazone plus glipizide had significantly fewer ED visits (P = .0006) and hospitalizations (P = .0263). Although the glipizide group had more unscheduled physician office visits, the difference was not statistically significant. Estimated treatment costs per patient per month were significantly lower for the rosiglitazone-plus-glipizide group than for the glipizide group (480 dollars vs 645 dollars; P < .05). CONCLUSION: Addition of rosiglitazone to sulfonylurea therapy was associated with decreased use of medical resources, in particular hospitalizations and ED visits, compared with progressive sulfonylurea up-titration. Although causality could not be established, this therapeutic approach could improve clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and reduce healthcare utilization and costs.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Influence of cholestyramine on the pharmacokinetics of rosiglitazone and its metabolite, desmethylrosiglitazone, after oral and intravenous dosing of rosiglitazone: impact on oral bioavailability, absorption, and metabolic disposition in rats.

The possible influence of the bile acid-sequestering agent cholestyramine (CSA), which is a basic co-medication in hypercholesterolemic patients, on the pharmacokinetics of rosiglitazone (RGL) and its circulating metabolite desmethylrosiglitazone (DMRGL) was investigated following a single oral and intravenous dose of RGL to Wistar rats. The pharmacokinetic parameters of RGL and DMRGL were evaluated following oral or intravenous administration of RGL to rats at 10 mg kg-1 with and without pre-treatment (0.5 h before RGL administration) of CSA at 0.057, 0.115, 0.23 and 0.34 g kg-1 doses. With an increase in CSA dose there was dose-dependent decrease in area under the curve (AUC)(0-infinity) and Cmax with no change in Tmax, Kel and t1/2 values for both RGL and DMRGL following oral administration of RGL. The oral bioavailability of RGL was reduced by 19.9, 35.6, 53.8 and 72.0% in rats following pre-treatment with CSA at 0.057, 0.115, 0.230 and 0.340 g kg-1, respectively. There was no change in the above-mentioned pharmacokinetic parameters for RGL and DMRGL in rats when RGL was given intravenously following pre-treatment with the above-mentioned oral doses of CSA. Another objective of the study was to determine the effect of staggered oral CSA dosing at 1, 2 and 4 h after oral RGL administration at 10 mg kg-1. AUC(0-infinity) of RGL and DMRGL was reduced following CSA staggered administration at 1 h, whereas 2- and 4-h staggered dose administration of CSA had no effect on the AUC(0-infinity) of RGL and DMRGL. Irrespective of CSA staggered dose administration there was no change in other pharmacokinetic parameters, namely Cmax, Tmax, Kel and t1/2. The apparent formation rate constant (Kf) of DMRGL was also calculated to show that only the absorption of RGL was affected, not the apparent formation rate of DMRGL. The authors also studied the in vitro adsorption of RGL (100, 250, 500 microg ml-1) at various pH conditions (pH 2, 4 and 7) and different concentrations of CSA (15, 30, 60 and 120 mg ml-1). The percentage binding of CSA was in the range 50-72% (at pH 2), 74-89% (at pH 4) and 97-100% (at pH 7). In conclusion, we carried out a systematic investigation demonstrating mechanistically the interaction potential of RGL when co-administered with CSA. The applicability of the metabolite data after intravenous and oral dosing and pH-based binding experiments further adds credence to the key findings.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2006

Effect of early addition of rosiglitazone to sulphonylurea therapy in older type 2 diabetes patients (>60 years): the Rosiglitazone Early vs. SULphonylurea Titration (RESULT) study.

AIM: To compare the efficacy, safety and tolerability of adding rosiglitazone (RSG) vs. sulphonylurea (SU) dose escalation in older type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients inadequately controlled on SU therapy. METHODS: A total of 227 T2DM patients from 48 centres in the USA and Canada, aged > or =60 years, were randomized to receive RSG (4 mg) or placebo once daily in combination with glipizide 10 mg twice daily for 2 years in a double-blind, parallel-group study. Previous SU monotherapy was (1/4) to (1/2) maximum recommended dose for > or =2 months prior to screening with fasting plasma glucose (FPG) > or =7.0 and < or =13.9 mmol/l. Treatment options were individualized, and escalation of study medication was specifically defined. RESULTS: Disease progression (time to reach confirmed FPG > or =10 mmol/l while on maximum doses of both glipizide and study medication or placebo) was reported in 28.7% of patients uptitrating SU plus placebo compared with only 2.0% taking RSG and SU combination (p < 0.0001). RSG + SU significantly decreased HbA(1c), FPG, insulin resistance, plasma free fatty acids and medical care utilization and improved treatment satisfaction compared with uptitrated SU. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of RSG to SU in older T2DM patients significantly improved glycaemic control and reduced disease progression compared with uptitrated SU alone but without increasing hypoglycaemia. These benefits were associated with increased patient treatment satisfaction and reduced medical care utilization with regards to emergency room visits and length of hospitalization. Early addition of RSG is an effective treatment option for older T2DM patients inadequately controlled on submaximal SU monotherapy.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2002

The effect of ranitidine on the pharmacokinetics of rosiglitazone in healthy adult male volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Rosiglitazone is an insulin-sensitizing oral agent in the thiazolidinedione class used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. It binds to peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma in liver, muscle, and adipose tissue. Ranitidine, a histamine2-receptor antagonist, may be prescribed for patients with type 2 diabetes and esophageal symptoms such as heartburn. By raising gastrointestinal pH levels, ranitidine may affect the bioavailability of coadministered drugs. OBJECTIVES: This article presents the absolute bioavailability of rosiglitazone, as well as the effects of ranitidine on the pharmacokinetics of rosiglitazone. METHODS: Healthy men were enrolled in a randomized, open-label, 4-period, period-balanced crossover study of rosiglitazone and ranitidine. All individuals received each of 4 regimens successively, separated by a 4-day washout period: a single IV dose of rosiglitazone 2 mg administered alone over 1 hour; a single IV dose of rosiglitazone 2 mg administered over 1 hour on the fourth day of treatment with oral ranitidine 150 mg given every 12 hours; a single oral dose of rosiglitazone 4 mg alone; and a single oral dose of rosiglitazone 4 mg on the fourth day of treatment with oral ranitidine 150 mg given every 12 hours. The primary end point was dose-normalized area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC(0-infinity)). Maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax), the time at which Cmax occurred (Tmax), plasma clearance (CL), steady-state volume of distribution (Vss), and terminal elimination half-life (t 1/2) were also assessed. RESULTS: Twelve individuals were enrolled. The absolute bioavailability of rosiglitazone was 99%. For AUC(0-infinity), the point estimate and the associated 95% CI for the ratio of ranitidine + IV rosiglitazone to IV rosiglitazone alone was 1.02 (range, 0.88-1.20). With oral rosiglitazone, the AUC(0-infinity) point estimate (95% CI) for the ratio of ranitidine + rosiglitazone to rosiglitazone alone was 0.99 (range, 0.85-1.16). Cmax, Tmax, t 1/2, Vss and CL of rosiglitazone, whether administered orally or intravenously, were unaffected by ranitidine. Oral and IV rosiglitazone were associated with a favorable safety profile and were well tolerated with or without concurrent ranitidine treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of 12 healthy adult male volunteers, the absolute bioavailability of rosiglitazone was 99%, and the oral and IV single-dose pharmacokinetics of rosiglitazone were unaltered by concurrent treatment with ranitidine.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2006

Triple therapy in type 2 diabetes: insulin glargine or rosiglitazone added to combination therapy of sulfonylurea plus metformin in insulin-naive patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of add-on insulin glargine versus rosiglitazone in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on dual oral therapy with sulfonylurea plus metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this 24-week multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel trial, 217 patients (HbA(1c) [A1C] 7.5-11%, BMI >25 kg/m(2)) on > or =50% of maximal-dose sulfonylurea and metformin received add-on insulin glargine 10 units/day or rosiglitazone 4 mg/day. Insulin glargine was forced-titrated to target fasting plasma glucose (FPG) < or =5.5-6.7 mmol/l (< or =100-120 mg/dl), and rosiglitazone was increased to 8 mg/day any time after 6 weeks if FPG was >5.5 mmol/l. RESULTS: A1C improvements from baseline were similar in both groups (-1.7 vs. -1.5% for insulin glargine vs. rosiglitazone, respectively); however, when baseline A1C was >9.5%, the reduction of A1C with insulin glargine was greater than with rosiglitazone (P < 0.05). Insulin glargine yielded better FPG values than rosiglitazone (-3.6 +/- 0.23 vs. -2.6 +/- 0.22 mmol/l; P = 0.001). Insulin glargine final dose per day was 38 +/- 26 IU vs. 7.1 +/- 2 mg for rosiglitazone. Confirmed hypoglycemic events at plasma glucose <3.9 mmol/l (<70 mg/dl) were slightly greater for the insulin glargine group (n = 57) than for the rosiglitazone group (n = 47) (P = 0.0528). The calculated average rate per patient-year of a confirmed hypoglycemic event (<70 mg/dl), after adjusting for BMI, was 7.7 (95% CI 5.4-10.8) and 3.4 (2.3-5.0) for the insulin glargine and rosiglitazone groups, respectively (P = 0.0073). More patients in the insulin glargine group had confirmed nocturnal hypoglycemia of <3.9 mmol/l (P = 0.02) and <2.8 mmol/l (P < 0.05) than in the rosiglitazone group. Effects on total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglyceride levels from baseline to end point with insulin glargine (-4.4, -1.4, and -19.0%, respectively) contrasted with those of rosiglitazone (+10.1, +13.1, and +4.6%, respectively; P < 0.002). HDL cholesterol was unchanged with insulin glargine but increased with rosiglitazone by 4.4% (P < 0.05). Insulin glargine had less weight gain than rosiglitazone (1.6 +/- 0.4 vs. 3.0 +/- 0.4 kg; P = 0.02), fewer adverse events (7 vs. 29%; P = 0.0001), and no peripheral edema (0 vs. 12.5%). Insulin glargine saved $235/patient over 24 weeks compared with rosiglitazone. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose insulin glargine combined with a sulfonylurea and metformin resulted in similar A1C improvements except for greater reductions in A1C when baseline was > or =9.5% compared with add-on maximum-dose rosiglitazone. Further, insulin glargine was associated with more hypoglycemia but less weight gain, no edema, and salutary lipid changes at a lower cost of therapy.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

A one-year study comparing the efficacy and safety of rosiglitazone and glibenclamide in the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: This study was designed to compare the efficacy of rosiglitazone and glibenclamide in individuals with type 2 diabetes over a 12-month period. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 598 patients were randomized to double-blind treatment for 52 weeks with rosiglitazone 4 mg/d (n=200), rosiglitazone 8 mg/d (n=191) or glibenclamide (n=207; dose adjusted up to 15 mg/d over the first 12 weeks according to clinical response). Changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting insulin and its precursor peptides, and lipids were measured and safety was evaluated. Significant reductions in HbA1c levels at 52 weeks compared with baseline were seen in all treatment groups (rosiglitazone 4 mg/d=-0.3%, P=0.0003; rosiglitazone 8 mg/d=-0.5%, P<0.0001; glibenclamide=-0.7%, P<0.0001). Mean FPG levels were also significantly reduced in all treatment groups (rosiglitazone 4 mg/d=-1.4 mmol/l; rosiglitazone 8 mg/d=-2.3 mmol/l; glibenclamide=-1.7 mmol/l; P<0.0001 vs. baseline for all treatments). Rosiglitazone therapy reduced plasma insulin, proinsulin, split proinsulin and free fatty acid levels compared with glibenclamide. Rosiglitazone improved insulin resistance while a worsening was seen with glibenclamide. Total:high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratios were reduced with glibenclamide and unchanged with rosiglitazone. All treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of rosiglitazone 8 mg/d in improving glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes is comparable to that of glibenclamide. However, rosiglitazone reduced insulin resistance and proinsulin levels whereas glibenclamide use was associated with an increase in fasting insulin and proinsulin. This suggests that in the long term, rosiglitazone may protect the beta-cell whereas glibenclamide is likely to increase the burden.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Insulin-sensitizing action of rosiglitazone is enhanced by preventing hyperphagia.

AIM: We investigated whether pair-feeding to prevent hyperphagia would potentiate the insulin-sensitizing effect of rosiglitazone in chow-fed and insulin-resistant dietary obese rats, and studied the role of leptin and hypothalamic neuropeptide Y as mediators of weight gain during treatment. METHODS: Dietary obese and chow-fed rats (575 +/- 10 vs. 536 +/- 7 g; p < 0.01) were given rosiglitazone (30 mg/kg p.o.) or vehicle daily for 14 days. RESULTS: Energy intake and weight gain were greater in rosiglitazone-treated ad-lib-fed rats (body weight: chow + 24 +/- 2 g, rosiglitazone-treated + 55 +/- 2 g, p < 0.001; dietary obese + 34 +/- 2 g, rosiglitazone-treated + 74 +/- 7 g, p < 0.001). Half of each rosiglitazone-treated group were pair-fed to vehicle-treated controls. Rosiglitazone normalized circulating free fatty acids (FFAs) and insulin sensitivity in dietary obese rats (homeostasis model assessment (HOMA): chow-fed controls, 3.9 +/- 0.3; dietary obese controls, 6.7 +/- 0.7; rosiglitazone-treated, ad lib-fed dietary obese, 4.2 +/- 0.5; both p < 0.01). Insulin sensitivity improved further with pair-feeding (HOMA: 2.9 +/- 0.4; p < 0.05 vs. rosiglitazone-treated, ad lib-fed dietary obese), despite unchanged FFAs. Qualitatively similar findings were made in chow-fed rats. Pair-feeding prevented rosiglitazone-related weight gain in chow-fed, but not dietary obese rats (body weight: + 49 +/- 5 g, p < 0.001 vs. untreated dietary obese controls). Adipose tissue OB mRNA was elevated in dietary obese rats, reduced 49% (p < 0.01) by rosiglitazone treatment, and further (by 16%) with pair-feeding (p < 0.0001). Plasma leptin, however, only fell in the pair-fed group. Hypothalamic neuropeptide Y mRNA was unchanged throughout, suggesting that weight gain associated with high-dose rosiglitazone treatment is independent of hypothalamic neuropeptide Y. CONCLUSIONS: Food restriction potentiates the insulin-sensitizing effect of rosiglitazone in rats, and this effect is independent of a fall in FFAs.

Animals↗
PubMed2002

Rosiglitazone: a review of its use in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

UNLABELLED: Rosiglitazone, a thiazolidinedione with a different side chain from those of troglitazone and pioglitazone, reduces plasma glucose levels and glucose production and increases glucose clearance in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Insulin sensitivity, pancreatic beta-cell function and surrogate markers of cardiovascular risk factors are significantly improved by rosiglitazone. Double-blind trials of 8 to 26 weeks of rosiglitazone 4 or 8 mg/day monotherapy indicate significant decreases in fasting plasma glucose (-2 to -3 mmol/L with 8 mg/day) and glycosylated haemoglobin levels [HbA(1c); -0.6 to -0.7% (-0.8 to -1.1% in drug-naive patients) with 8 mg/day]. Significant decreases in hyperglycaemic markers occurred when rosiglitazone was combined with metformin (HbA(1c) -0.8 to -1.0%), a sulphonylurea (-1.4%) or insulin (-1.2%) for 26 weeks versus little change with active comparator monotherapy. Efficacy was maintained in trials of < or = 2 years, and was also apparent in various ethnic subgroups, elderly patients, and both obese and nonobese patients. Rosiglitazone is currently not indicated in combination with injected insulin. It should be administered in conjunction with diet and exercise regimens. Rosiglitazone is generally well tolerated. Despite rare individual reports of liver function abnormalities in rosiglitazone recipients, the incidence of these in clinical trials (< or = 2 years' duration) was similar to that in placebo and active comparator groups. Fluid retention associated with rosiglitazone may be the cause of the increased incidence of anaemia in clinical trials, and also means that patients should be monitored for signs of heart failure during therapy. Although bodyweight is increased overall with rosiglitazone therapy, increases are in subcutaneous, not visceral, fat; hepatic fat is decreased. The pharmacokinetic profile of rosiglitazone is not substantially altered by age or renal impairment, nor are there important drug interactions. Rosiglitazone is not indicated in patients with active liver disease or increased liver enzymes. CONCLUSIONS: Oral rosiglitazone 4 or 8 mg/day provides significant antihyperglycaemic efficacy and is generally well tolerated, both as monotherapy and in combination with other antihyperglycaemic agents, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who do not have active liver disease. Long-term data are required before conclusions can be drawn about the clinical significance of positive changes to surrogate markers of cardiovascular disease risk and improvements to pancreatic beta-cell function. Rosiglitazone significantly improves insulin sensitivity and, as such, is a welcome addition to the treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2002

Spotlight on rosiglitazone in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

UNLABELLED: Rosiglitazone, a thiazolidinedione with a different side chain from those of troglitazone and pioglitazone, reduces plasma glucose levels and glucose production and increases glucose clearance in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Insulin sensitivity, pancreatic beta-cell function and surrogate markers of cardiovascular risk factors are significantly improved by rosiglitazone. Double-blind trials of 8 to 26 weeks of rosiglitazone 4 or 8 mg/day monotherapy indicate significant decreases in fasting plasma glucose (-2 to -3 mmol/L with 8 mg/day) and glycosylated hemoglobin levels [HbA(1c); -0.6 to -0.7% (-0.8 to -1.1% in drug-naive patients) with 8 mg/day]. Significant decreases in hyperglycemic markers occurred when rosiglitazone was combined with metformin (HbA(1c) -0.8 to -1.0%), a sulfonylurea (-1.4%) or insulin (-1.2%) for 26 weeks versus little change with active comparator monotherapy. Efficacy was maintained in trials of < or =2 years, and was also apparent in various ethnic subgroups, elderly patients and both obese and nonobese patients. Rosiglitazone is currently not indicated in combination with injected insulin. It should be administered in conjunction with diet and exercise regimens. Rosiglitazone is generally well tolerated. Despite rare individual reports of liver function abnormalities in rosiglitazone recipients, the incidence of these in clinical trials (< or =2 years' duration) was similar to that in placebo and active comparator groups. Fluid retention associated with rosiglitazone may be the cause of the increased incidence of anemia in clinical trials, and also means that patients should be monitored for signs of heart failure during therapy. Although bodyweight is increased overall with rosiglitazone therapy, increases are in subcutaneous, not visceral, fat; hepatic fat is decreased. The pharmacokinetic profile of rosiglitazone is not substantially altered by age or renal impairment, nor are there important drug interactions. Rosiglitazone is not indicated in patients with active liver disease or increased liver enzymes. CONCLUSIONS: Oral rosiglitazone 4 or 8 mg/day provides significant antihyperglycemic efficacy and is generally well tolerated, both as monotherapy and in combination with other antihyperglycemic agents, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who do not have active liver disease. Long-term data are required before conclusions can be drawn about the clinical significance of positive changes to surrogate markers of cardiovascular disease risk and improvements to pancreatic beta-cell function. Rosiglitazone significantly improves insulin sensitivity and, as such, is a welcome addition to the treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2↗
PubMed2005

Long-term treatment with rosiglitazone and metformin reduces the extent of, but does not prevent, islet amyloid deposition in mice expressing the gene for human islet amyloid polypeptide.

Islet amyloid deposition in type 2 diabetes is associated with reduced beta-cell mass. Therefore, interventions aimed at reducing islet amyloid formation may help preserve beta-cell mass in type 2 diabetes. Rosiglitazone and metformin act by different mechanisms to improve insulin sensitivity and thereby reduce beta-cell secretory demand, resulting in decreased release of insulin and islet amyloid polypeptide (IAPP), the unique constituent of islet amyloid deposits. We hypothesized that this reduced beta-cell secretory demand would lead to reduced islet amyloid formation. Human IAPP (hIAPP) transgenic mice, a model of islet amyloid, were treated for 12 months with rosiglitazone (1.5 mg.kg(-1).day(-1), n = 19), metformin (1 g.kg(-1).day(-1), n = 18), or control (n = 17). At the end of the study, islet amyloid prevalence (percent islets containing amyloid) and severity (percent islet area occupied by amyloid), islet mass, beta-cell mass, and insulin release were determined. Islet amyloid prevalence (44 +/- 8, 13 +/- 4, and 11 +/- 3% for control, metformin-, and rosiglitazone-treated mice, respectively) and severity (9.2 +/- 3.0, 0.22 +/- 0.11, and 0.10 +/- 0.05% for control, metformin-, and rosiglitazone-treated mice, respectively) were markedly reduced with both rosiglitazone (P < 0.001 for both measures) and metformin treatment (P < 0.001 for both measures). Both treatments were associated with reduced insulin release assessed as the acute insulin response to intravenous glucose (2,189 +/- 857, 621 +/- 256, and 14 +/- 158 pmol/l for control, metformin-, and rosiglitazone-treated mice, respectively; P < 0.05 for metformin vs. control and P < 0.005 for rosiglitazone vs. control), consistent with reduced secretory demand. Similarly, islet mass (33.4 +/- 7.0, 16.6 +/- 3.6, and 12.2 +/- 2.1 mg for control, metformin-, and rosiglitazone-treated mice, respectively) was not different with metformin treatment (P = 0.06 vs. control) but was significantly lower with rosiglitazone treatment (P < 0.05 vs. control). When the decreased islet mass was accounted for, the islet amyloid-related decrease in beta-cell mass (percent beta-cell mass/islet mass) was ameliorated in both rosiglitazone- and metformin-treated animals (57.9 +/- 3.1, 64.7 +/- 1.4, and 66.1 +/- 1.6% for control, metformin-, and rosiglitazone-treated mice, respectively; P < 0.05 for metformin or rosiglitazone vs. control). In summary, rosiglitazone and metformin protect beta-cells from the deleterious effects of islet amyloid, and this effect may contribute to the ability of these treatments to alleviate the progressive loss of beta-cell mass and function in type 2 diabetes.

Amyloid↗
PubMed2005

Discrepancies in the regulation of plasma adiponectin and TNF-alpha levels and adipose tissue gene expression in obese African Americans with glucose intolerance: a pilot study using rosiglitazone.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the effects of rosiglitazone: 1) on glucose homeostasis, insulin action, beta-cell function, and plasma adiponectin and TNF-alpha (TNF-alpha) levels; and 2) the expression of adipose tissue TNF-alpha and adiponectin mRNA in African Americans with parental history of type 2 diabetes and with varying degrees of glucose intolerance. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The study groups comprised 11 African Americans with normal glucose tolerance and six with diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance. The glucose-intolerant subjects received rosiglitazone (4-8 mg/day) every morning for 12 weeks. They underwent oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and subcutaneous adipose tissue biopsy (under local anesthesia) before and after 12 weeks of rosiglitazone therapy. Beta cell function and insulin resistance were calculated by using homeostasis model assessment (HOMA). Adipose tissue gene expression (mRNA) was measured by real-time polymerase chain reaction in both groups. RESULTS: Rosiglitazone monotherapy improved both fasting and two-hour serum glucose levels during OGTT in the glucose-intolerant group. However, mean serum insulin and C-peptide levels did not change when compared with baseline. Rosiglitazone monotherapy improved insulin resistance but not overall beta-cell secretion. Mean adiponectin levels at fasting and two hours after oral glucose ingestion were significantly (50%) lower in the glucose-intolerant group than in the control group. Rosiglitazone monotherapy significantly increased plasma adiponectin levels at fasting and two hours after oral challenge by two-fold in the glucose-intolerant group. Mean plasma TNF-alpha levels were not significantly different at fasting and after two hours during OGTT. Rosiglitazone had no significant effect on plasma TNF-alpha levels during OGTT. No significant differences were seen in the expression of adipose tissue TNF-alpha and adiponectin mRNA in the groups at baseline. Rosiglitazone did not significantly change the adipose tissue adiponectin and TNF-alpha mRNA. Rosiglitazone was well tolerated, without experiencing weight gain, edema, and liver function test abnormality in the glucose intolerant subjects. SUMMARY: Rosiglitazone improved glucose homeostasis and insulin resistance in high-risk African Americans. We found that adiponectin was lower in the glucose-intolerant group, while TNF-alpha was similar. While rosiglitazone increased plasma adiponectin, it had no effect on adipose tissue adiponectin mRNA. In addition, rosiglitazone had no effect on plasma TNF-alpha and adipose tissue TNF-alpha mRNA. We conclude that the metabolic effects of rosiglitazone could be mediated by adiponectin but not TNF-alpha in African Americans with glucose intolerance. Our study demonstrates that: 1) the role of adipocytokines in the etiology of type 2 diabetes in African Americans is complex; and 2) that adiponectin, but not TNF-alpha, could mediate the metabolic benefits of thiazolidinediones in African Americans with glucose intolerance.

Adiponectin↗
PubMed2003

The effect of rosiglitazone on serum lipoprotein(a) levels in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The aim of the study was to determine if rosiglitazone increases serum levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A total of 118 patients were divided into 2 groups: those with rosiglitazone (rosiglitazone group, n = 49) and those without rosiglitazone (control group, n = 69). The rosiglitazone group was given rosiglitazone (4 mg/d) with previous treatment, insulin, or sulfonylurea, for 12 weeks, whereas the control group continued previous treatment with some dose modification for glycemic control. The patients had their blood glucose, lipid levels, as well as Lp(a) levels assessed to obtain a baseline, which were remeasured 12 weeks later. The fasting blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels decreased significantly in both groups as compared with the baseline. The fasting glucose and HbA(1c) levels in both groups were similar at 12 weeks. The total cholesterol levels increased significantly in the rosiglitazone group (190.6 +/- 32.4 to 212.2 +/- 47.2 mg/dL, P =.002), while they were unchanged in the control group (185.4 +/- 36.8 to 188.0 +/- 35.8 mg/dL, P =.615). The triglyceride levels did not change in either group. Significant increases in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels were observed in the rosiglitazone group as compared with the baseline (41.7 +/- 10.6 to 45.9 +/- 11.4 mg/dL, P =.004). The low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels increased significantly in the rosiglitazone group (120.5 +/- 29.9 to 136.3 +/- 40.0 mg/dL, P =.012), while they did not change in the control group (113.0 +/- 29.1 to 118.3 +/- 31.7 mg/dL, P =.234). Significant increases in Lp(a) levels were observed in the rosiglitazone group as compared with the baseline (22.4 +/- 17.4 to 25.7 +/- 20.5 mg/dL, P =.015), approximately a 15% increase in average values. In contrast, there was no change in Lp(a) levels in the control group. There was no correlation between the changes in Lp(a) and changes in fasting blood glucose or HbA(1c) levels in all study subjects. In summary, rosiglitazone increased serum total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, as well as Lp(a) levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Considering that patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus have increased risks for cardiovascular disease, caution should be taken when prescribing rosiglitazone to patients who already have other risk factors, such as hypertension and smoking.

Aged↗
PubMed2002

Lack of effect of sucralfate on the absorption and pharmacokinetics of rosiglitazone.

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of sucralfate pretreatment on the pharmacokinetics of rosiglitazone following a single oral dose in healthy male volunteers. After an over night fast, and according to a randomized schedule, each volunteer (n = 9) received a single oral dose of rosiglitazone 8 mg (Avandia tablets, 4 mg x 2) with or without pretreatment of sucralfate 2 g (Recolfate tablets, 1 g x 2) in an open-label crossover study with a 2-week washout period. Plasma samples were collected over a period of 24 hours at regular intervals. Safety assessment included monitoring of the vital signs, blood parameters, and ECG. No statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed for any of the calculated rosiglitazone pharmacokinetic parameters in the two treatment groups. The mean parameters, AUC0-infinity and Cmax, following rosiglitazone administration alone were 3825.02 ng x h/ml and 664.47 ng/ml, respectively, and for rosiglitazone administered after pretreatment with sucralfate were 4848.19 ng x h/ml and 624.88 ng/ml, respectively. The t(max) for rosiglitazone alone and for rosiglitazone after sucralfate treatments was 1.11 and 1.67 hours, respectively. The mean elimination half-life for rosiglitazone and rosiglitazone after sucralfate treatment was 4.35 and 4.51 hours, respectively. Fraction of rosiglitazone absorbed was calculated by the Wagner-Nelson method, and no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) was observed for the two treatments. Since sucralfate pretreatment did not show any significant difference in the pharmacokinetics of rosiglitazone, no dose adjustment is warranted for rosiglitazone when it is administered with sucralfate.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2004

Effects of rosiglitazone and metformin on liver fat content, hepatic insulin resistance, insulin clearance, and gene expression in adipose tissue in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Both rosiglitazone and metformin increase hepatic insulin sensitivity, but their mechanism of action has not been compared in humans. The objective of this study was to compare the effects of rosiglitazone and metformin treatment on liver fat content, hepatic insulin sensitivity, insulin clearance, and gene expression in adipose tissue and serum adiponectin concentrations in type 2 diabetes. A total of 20 drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (age 48 +/- 3 years, fasting plasma glucose 152 +/- 9 mg/dl, BMI 30.6 +/- 0.8 kg/m2) were treated in a double-blind randomized fashion with either 8 mg rosiglitazone or 2 g metformin for 16 weeks. Both drugs similarly decreased HbA1c, insulin, and free fatty acid concentrations. Body weight decreased in the metformin (84 +/- 4 vs. 82 +/- 4 kg, P < 0.05) but not the rosiglitazone group. Liver fat (proton spectroscopy) was decreased with rosiglitazone by 51% (15 +/- 3 vs. 7 +/- 1%, 0 vs. 16 weeks, P = 0.003) but not by metformin (13 +/- 3 to 14 +/- 3%, NS). Rosiglitazone (16 +/- 2 vs. 20 +/- 1 ml.kg(-1).min(-1), P = 0.02) but not metformin increased insulin clearance by 20%. Hepatic insulin sensitivity in the basal state increased similarly in both groups. Insulin-stimulated glucose uptake increased significantly with rosiglitazone but not with metformin. Serum adiponectin concentrations increased by 123% with rosiglitazone but remained unchanged during metformin treatment. The decrease of serum adiponectin concentrations correlated with the decrease in liver fat (r = -0.74, P < 0.001). Rosiglitazone but not metformin significantly increased expression of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma, adiponectin, and lipoprotein lipase in adipose tissue. In conclusion, rosiglitazone but not metformin decreases liver fat and increases insulin clearance. The decrease in liver fat by rosiglitazone is associated with an increase in serum adiponectin concentrations. Both agents increase hepatic insulin sensitivity, but only rosiglitazone increases peripheral glucose uptake.

Adipose Tissue↗
PubMed2003

Gemfibrozil considerably increases the plasma concentrations of rosiglitazone.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Our aim was to investigate possible interaction between gemfibrozil and rosiglitazone, a thiazolidinedione antidiabetic drug. METHODS: In a randomised crossover study with two phases, 10 healthy volunteers took 600 mg gemfibrozil or placebo orally twice daily for 4 days. On day 3, they ingested a single 4 mg dose of rosiglitazone. Plasma rosiglitazone and its N-desmethyl metabolite concentrations were measured for up to 48 h. RESULTS: Gemfibrozil raised the mean area under the plasma rosiglitazone concentration-time curve (AUC) 2.3-fold (range 1.5- to 2.8-fold; p=0.00002) and prolonged the elimination half-life (t(1/2)) of rosiglitazone from 3.6 to 7.6 h ( p=0.000002). The peak plasma rosiglitazone concentration (C(max)) was increased only 1.2-fold (range 0.9- to 1.6-fold; p=0.01) by gemfibrozil, but gemfibrozil raised the plasma rosiglitazone concentration measured 24 h after dosing (C(24)) 9.8-fold (range, 4.5- to 33.6-fold; p=0.00008). In addition, gemfibrozil prolonged the t(max) of N-desmethylrosiglitazone from 7 to 12 h and reduced the N-desmethylrosiglitazone/rosiglitazone AUC(0-48) ratio by 38% ( p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Gemfibrozil raises the plasma concentrations of rosiglitazone probably by inhibiting the CYP2C8-mediated biotransformation of rosiglitazone. Co-administration of gemfibrozil, or another potent inhibitor of CYP2C8, and rosiglitazone could increase the efficacy but also the risk of concentration-dependent adverse effects of rosiglitazone.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

The effects of rosiglitazone on fatty acid and triglyceride metabolism in type 2 diabetes.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We investigated the effects of rosiglitazone on NEFA and triglyceride metabolism in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study of rosiglitazone in diet-treated type 2 diabetic subjects, we measured arteriovenous differences and tissue blood flow in forearm muscle and subcutaneous abdominal adipose tissue, used stable isotope techniques, and analysed gene expression. Responses to a mixed meal containing [1,1,1-(13)C]tripalmitin were assessed. RESULTS: Rosiglitazone induced insulin sensitisation without altering fasting NEFA concentrations (-6.6%, p=0.16). Postprandial NEFA concentrations were lowered by rosiglitazone compared with placebo (-21%, p=0.04). Adipose tissue NEFA release was not decreased in the fasting state by rosiglitazone treatment (+24%, p=0.17) and was associated with an increased fasting hormone-sensitive lipase rate of action (+118%, p=0.01). Postprandial triglyceride concentrations were decreased by rosiglitazone treatment (-26%, p<0.01) despite unchanged fasting concentrations. Rosiglitazone did not change concentrations of triglyceride-rich lipoprotein remnants. Adipose tissue blood flow increased with rosiglitazone (+32%, p=0.03). Postprandial triglyceride [(13)C]palmitic acid concentrations were unchanged, whilst NEFA [(13)C]palmitic acid concentrations were decreased (p=0.04). In muscle, hexokinase II mRNA expression was increased by rosiglitazone (+166%, p=0.001) whilst the expression of genes involved in insulin signalling was unchanged. Adipose tissue expression of FABP4, LPL and FAT/CD36 was increased. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Rosiglitazone decreases postprandial NEFA and triglyceride concentrations. This may represent decreased spillover of NEFAs from adipose tissue depots. Decreased delivery of NEFAs to the liver may lead to lowered postprandial triglyceride concentrations. Upregulation of hexokinase II expression in muscle may contribute to insulin sensitisation by rosiglitazone.

Adipose Tissue↗