Skip to content

Comparing Tricor, Avandia, or Weight Loss to Lower Cardiovascular Risk Factors in People With High Triglycerides.

Comparison Fenofibrate, Rosiglitazone, or Weight Loss to Decrease Cardiovascular Risk in Insulin Resistant Dyslipidemic Individuals.

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00186537
Enrollment
47
Registered
2005-09-16
Start date
2003-09-30
Completion date
2008-09-30
Last updated
2017-01-12

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Hypertriglyceridemia, Insulin Resistance

Keywords

Insulin resistance, Insulin resistance syndrome, dyslipidemia, atherogenic dyslipidemia, triglyceride/HDL-C ratio

Brief summary

Approximately 1/4 of the US population has insulin resistance and the associated risk factors such as elevated lipid levels -triglycerides (type of fat from what we eat and what the liver produces and low HDL cholesterol which is the good cholesterol helping to protect against heart disease. Currently one known treatment for this a medication called fenofibrate, another medication that can improve insulin resistance is rosiglitazone, a third treatment known to improve insulin resistance an decrease triglycerides is weight loss. In this study insulin resistant individuals with elevated triglycerides and or a ratio of triglycerides to HDL cholesterol of 3:1 or greater will be randomized (selected by chance) to receive one of these treatments and results of insulin sensitivity and cardiac risk profiles will be compared at the end of the study.

Detailed description

It has been estimated that approximately ¼ of the US population has the Insulin Resistant Syndrome (IRS). The notion that insulin resistance and compensatory hyperinsulinemia lead to a cluster of abnormalities that increase CVD risk was first introduced in 1988, and central to the changes identified was a dyslipidemia characterized by a high plasma triglyceride (TG) and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) concentration. The atherogenic lipoprotein pattern associated with the IRS has grown to include enhanced postprandial lipemia and smaller and denser low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles. In addition to being associated with insulin resistance and compensatory hyperinsulinemia, these changes in lipoprotein metabolism have been identified as increasing CVD risk. The power of the dyslipidemia associated with the IRS is reinforced by reports that the plasma TG/HDL-C concentration ratio is as powerful a predictor of CVD, if not more so, than the more conventional total plasma cholesterol/LDL-C concentration ratio, and evidence from the Copenhagen Male Study of the interaction between the plasma TG and HDL-C concentrations, conventional CVD risk factors, and CVD events. Specifically, these latter investigators were able to show in a prospective study (11) that CVD events were substantially attenuated in: 1) smokers; 2) patients with high blood pressure; 3) individuals with a high LDL-C concentration; and 4) subjects who were sedentary; as long as they were in the lowest 1/3rd of the population with the lowest TG/HDL-C concentration ratio and presumably insulin sensitive. Conversely, if they were in the tertile with the highest plasma TG/HDL-C concentration ratio, and presumably insulin resistant, they had a significant increase in CVD events in the absence of the four conventional CVD risk factors evaluated. An obvious alternative therapeutic approach to decreasing CVD risk in patients with the IRS would be to administer a thiazolidinedione (TZD) compound in an effort to directly treat the basic defect of the syndrome. However, based upon our own results with rosiglitazone (ROSI) in several different patient populations, improvements in insulin sensitivity were not associated with a significant improvement in dyslipidemia. For example, in a recent study (unpublished) of ROSI-treated patients with type 2 diabetes, neither plasma TG (358 to 347 mg/dL) nor HDL-C (40 to 42 mg/dL) concentrations improved, and both total (215 to 239 mg/dL and LDL-C (118-142mg/dL) concentrations actually increased. Since the patients in this study became more insulin sensitive with treatment, and had lower daylong plasma glucose, insulin, and free fatty acid concentrations, the reason for the lack of a beneficial effect of ROSI on lipoprotein metabolism is not clear. On the other hand, given evidence of the importance of dyslipidemia in increasing CVD risk in insulin resistant individuals, it seems reasonable to question the notion that TZD compounds provide the most beneficial approach to decreasing CVD risk in the dyslipidemic patient with the IRS. With this background in mind, we propose to initiate a study in which insulin resistant individuals with the dyslipidemia characteristic of the IRS will be randomized to treatment with fenofibrate,ROSI, or weight loss and the effect of these three treatments on CVD risk factors compared. It is postulated that although insulin resistance will improve to a greater degree with ROSI treatment, the atherogenic lipoprotein profile known to link IRS and CVD will only significantly improve following treatment with fenofibrate and effects of weight loss can effect both of these.

Interventions

DRUGRosiglitazone
DRUGFenofibrate
BEHAVIORALWeight Loss

Sponsors

Abbott
CollaboratorINDUSTRY
Stanford University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
30 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

Insulin Resistant Triglyceride 150 mg/dL or greater or triglyceride HDL-C ratio 3 or greater BMI 25-35

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes Mellitus History of gall stones History of CHF History of CAD Severe anemia,kidney, or liver disease

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Pre- and Post-Intervention Triglyceride LevelsBaseline, 12 weeksCompare the change in mean triglyceride levels between groups after the interventions
Pre- and Post-Intervention LDL Cholesterol LevelsBaseline, 12 weeksCompare the change in mean LDL Cholesterol levels between groups after the interventions
Pre- and Post-Intervention HDL Cholesterol LevelsBaseline, 12 weeksCompare the change in mean HDL Cholesterol levels between groups after the interventions

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Fenofibrate
160 mg daily for 12 weeks Fenofibrate
12
Rosiglitazone
4 mg/daily 4 weeks followed by 4 mg 2 x daily for 8 weeks Rosiglitazone
12
Calorie Restricted Diet
calorie restricted to achieve 0.5 kg weight loss/week x 12 weeks Weight Loss
13
Total37

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001FG002
Overall StudyALT > 1.5 x ULN300
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject403

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicFenofibrateRosiglitazoneCalorie Restricted DietTotal
Age, Continuous55 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7
52 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6
53 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7
53 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7
Gender
Female
3 Participants5 Participants6 Participants14 Participants
Gender
Male
9 Participants7 Participants7 Participants23 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —— / —— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
3 / 190 / 120 / 16
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 190 / 120 / 16

Outcome results

Primary

Pre- and Post-Intervention HDL Cholesterol Levels

Compare the change in mean HDL Cholesterol levels between groups after the interventions

Time frame: Baseline, 12 weeks

Population: HDL Cholesterol

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
FenofibratePre- and Post-Intervention HDL Cholesterol Levelspre treatment35 mg/dLStandard Deviation 7
FenofibratePre- and Post-Intervention HDL Cholesterol LevelsPost treatment36 mg/dLStandard Deviation 8
RosiglitazonePre- and Post-Intervention HDL Cholesterol Levelspre treatment40 mg/dLStandard Deviation 11
RosiglitazonePre- and Post-Intervention HDL Cholesterol LevelsPost treatment42 mg/dLStandard Deviation 13
Calorie Restricted DietPre- and Post-Intervention HDL Cholesterol Levelspre treatment38 mg/dLStandard Deviation 9
Calorie Restricted DietPre- and Post-Intervention HDL Cholesterol LevelsPost treatment38 mg/dLStandard Deviation 7
Primary

Pre- and Post-Intervention LDL Cholesterol Levels

Compare the change in mean LDL Cholesterol levels between groups after the interventions

Time frame: Baseline, 12 weeks

Population: LDL cholesterol

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
FenofibratePre- and Post-Intervention LDL Cholesterol Levelspre treatment114 mg/dLStandard Deviation 34
FenofibratePre- and Post-Intervention LDL Cholesterol Levelspost treatment111 mg/dLStandard Deviation 22
RosiglitazonePre- and Post-Intervention LDL Cholesterol Levelspre treatment119 mg/dLStandard Deviation 41
RosiglitazonePre- and Post-Intervention LDL Cholesterol Levelspost treatment129 mg/dLStandard Deviation 37
Calorie Restricted DietPre- and Post-Intervention LDL Cholesterol Levelspre treatment144 mg/dLStandard Deviation 34
Calorie Restricted DietPre- and Post-Intervention LDL Cholesterol Levelspost treatment128 mg/dLStandard Deviation 34
Primary

Pre- and Post-Intervention Triglyceride Levels

Compare the change in mean triglyceride levels between groups after the interventions

Time frame: Baseline, 12 weeks

Population: Triglycerides

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
FenofibratePre- and Post-Intervention Triglyceride Levelspre treatment231 mg/dLStandard Deviation 117
FenofibratePre- and Post-Intervention Triglyceride Levelspost treatment140 mg/dLStandard Deviation 47
RosiglitazonePre- and Post-Intervention Triglyceride Levelspre treatment209 mg/dLStandard Deviation 67
RosiglitazonePre- and Post-Intervention Triglyceride Levelspost treatment232 mg/dLStandard Deviation 72
Calorie Restricted DietPre- and Post-Intervention Triglyceride Levelspre treatment201 mg/dLStandard Deviation 121
Calorie Restricted DietPre- and Post-Intervention Triglyceride Levelspost treatment143 mg/dLStandard Deviation 49

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026