Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of low dose pioglitazone compared with standard dose pioglitazone in type 2 diabetes with chronic kidney disease: A randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Choices of hypoglycemic agents for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are limited. Available data among patients with CKD suggest that pioglitazone was effective and safe, with no increase in serious adverse effects. However, weight gain and fluid retention are major clinical problems for pioglitazone among patients with CKD. We conducted this study to compare the efficacy and side effects of low dose pioglitazone with standard dose pioglitazone among patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

Methods

A total of 75 patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD and inadequate glycemic control receiving any pharmacological antidiabetic treatment were randomly assigned to 2 groups. One group consisted of 37 patients treated with standard dose pioglitazone (15 mg/day) and another group consisted of 38 patients treated with low dose pioglitazone (7.5 mg/day). Glycosylated hemoglobinA1c (HbA1c) and metabolic profiles were monitored every 8 weeks for 24 weeks. Body composition was assessed using bio-electrical impedance analysis (BIA).

Results

After 6 months of therapy, HbA1c levels decreased in both standard and low dose pioglitazone groups. The mean changes in HbA1c for standard and low dose pioglitazone were 1.1±1.6 and -1.4±1.5 (P = 0.543), respectively. Compared with low dose pioglitazone, standard dose pioglitazone treatment led to a greater increase in body weight, fat mass, total body water and extracellular water composition. No major adverse effects including hypoglycemia, congestive heart failure and abnormal liver function were identified.

Conclusion

Pioglitazone 7.5 mg once daily treatments presented similar glycemic control to standard dose pioglitazone and exhibited beneficial effects on weight gain and fluid retention among patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

SUBMITTER: Satirapoj B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6209355 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Safety and efficacy of low dose pioglitazone compared with standard dose pioglitazone in type 2 diabetes with chronic kidney disease: A randomized controlled trial.

Satirapoj Bancha B Watanakijthavonkul Khanin K Supasyndh Ouppatham O

PloS one 20181031 10

<h4>Background</h4>Choices of hypoglycemic agents for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are limited. Available data among patients with CKD suggest that pioglitazone was effective and safe, with no increase in serious adverse effects. However, weight gain and fluid retention are major clinical problems for pioglitazone among patients with CKD. We conducted this study to compare the efficacy and side effects of low dose pioglitazone with standard dose pioglitazone amo ...[more]

PMID: 30379936

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLymphangioleiomyomatosis is a rare disease caused by unregulated activation of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signalling pathway. Sirolimus showed efficacy in a phase 3 trial of patients with lymphangioleiomyomatosis, but the optimal dose remains unclear.MethodsWe investigated the efficacy and safety of low-dose compared with conventional-dose sirolimus. Clinical data of 39 patients with lymphangioleiomyomatosis (mean age, 34.8 years; median treatment period, 29.6 months) who received sirolimus were retrospectively reviewed. Low-dose sirolimus was defined as any dose that maintained mean blood trough levels lower than those maintained with conventional doses (5-15 ng/mL).ResultsFifty-one percent of patients received low-dose therapy. The rate of decline in lung function decreased after treatment in the whole group (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1], - 0.12 ± 0.47 [before] vs. 0.24 ± 0.48% predicted/month [after], p = 0.027; diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide [DLco], - 0.33 ± 0.61 vs. 0.03 ± 0.26% predicted/month, p = 0.006) compared with before treatment. In the low-dose group, the rate of decline in FEV1 (- 0.08 ± 0.38 [before] vs. 0.19 ± 0.51% predicted/month [after], p = 0.264) and DLco (-0.13 ± 0.62 vs. 0.02 ± 0.28% predicted/month, p = 0.679) showed a numeric trend towards improvement after treatment; however, the conventional-dose group showed significant improvement in FEV1 (- 0.26 ± 0.54 [before] vs. 0.22 ± 0.38 [after] % predicted/month, p = 0.024) and DLco (- 0.55 ± 0.58 vs. 0.04 ± 0.25% predicted/month, p = 0.002) after treatment. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 89.7% of patients and the most common AEs was hypercholesterolaemia (43.6%), followed by stomatitis (35.9%). The occurrences of AE were similar between the low- and conventional-dose groups (85.0% vs. 94.7%, p = 0.605).ConclusionsLow-dose sirolimus may stabilise lung function decline in lymphangioleiomyomatosis patients, but its efficacy appears to be inferior to that of conventional-dose sirolimus.

Project description:ObjectiveWe aimed to further investigate the efficacy and safety of low-dose NOACs by performing a meta-analysis of cohort studies.BackgroundMeta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that low-dose non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) showed inferior efficacy compared with standard-dose NOACs, although they are still frequently prescribed for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in the clinical practice.MethodsCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and MEDLINE were systematically searched from the inception to September 9, 2021, for cohort studies that compared the efficacy and/or safety of low-dose NOACs in patients with AF. The primary outcomes were ischemic stroke and major bleeding, and the secondary outcomes were mortality, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and gastrointestinal hemorrhage (GH). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated with the random-effect model.ResultsTwenty-five publications involving 487856 patients with AF were included. Compared with standard-dose NOACs, low-dose NOACs had comparable risks of ischemic stroke (HR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11), major bleeding (HR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28), ICH (HR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.36), and GH (HR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.33), except for a higher risk of mortality (HR = 1.41, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.65). Compared with warfarin, low-dose NOACs were associated with lower risks of ischemic stroke (HR = 0.72, 95% CI .67 to 0.78), mortality (HR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.77), major bleeding (HR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.79), ICH (HR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.77), and GH (HR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.95).ConclusionsLow-dose NOACs were comparable to standard-dose NOACs considering risks of ischemic stroke, major bleeding, ICH, and GH, and they were superior to warfarin. Low-dose NOACs might be prescribed effectively and safely for patients with AF. Considering limitations, further well-designed prospective studies are foreseen.

Project description:PurposeThe prevalence of chronic urticaria (CU) is increasing worldwide, and it imposes a major burden on patients. Few studies have evaluated the efficacy of second-line treatments of CU, particularly for patients being considered for costly third-line treatments such as omalizumab. We compared the efficacy and safety of second-line treatments of CU refractory to standard doses of nonsedating H1-antihistamines (nsAHs).MethodsThis 4-week, prospective, randomized, open-label trial divided patients into 4 treatment groups: 4-fold updosing of nsAHs, multiple combination of 4 nsAHs, switching to other nsAHs, and adjunctive H2-receptor antagonist. The clinical outcomes included urticaria control status, symptoms, and rescue medication use.ResultsThis study included 109 patients. After 4 weeks of second-line treatment, urticaria was well-controlled, partly controlled, and uncontrolled in 43.1%, 36.7%, and 20.2% of patients, respectively. Complete control of CU was achieved in 20.4% of patients. Among the patients with high-dose nsAHs, the proportion with well-controlled status was higher compared to the patients who received standard doses (51.9% vs. 34.5%, P = 0.031). No significant difference was observed in the proportion of well-controlled cases between the updosing and combination treatment groups (57.7% vs. 46.4%, P = 0.616). However, increasing the dose of nsAHs 4-fold was associated with a higher rate of complete symptom control compared to multiple combination treatment with 4 nsAHs (40.0% vs. 10.7%, P = 0.030). Logistic regression analysis confirmed the higher efficacy of updosing of nsAHs for complete control of CU compared to the other treatment strategies (odds ratio, 0.180; P = 0.020).ConclusionsIn patients with CU refractory to standard doses of nsAHs, both updosing of nsAHs 4-fold and multiple combination treatment with 4 nsAHs increased the rate of well-controlled cases without causing significant adverse effects. Updosing of nsAHs is more effective for complete CU control than combination treatment.

Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of low dose pioglitazone compared with standard dose pioglitazone in type 2 diabetes with chronic kidney disease: A randomized controlled trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Safety and efficacy of low dose pioglitazone compared with standard dose pioglitazone in type 2 diabetes with chronic kidney disease: A randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets