Skip to content

Efficacy Study of Pioglitazone and Metformin and Association Between Pioglitazone Response and Peroxisome Proliferator-activated Receptor Gamma Gene Variants in Bangladeshi Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Subjects

Modulation of Insulin Secretion and Insulin Sensitivity in Bangladeshi Type 2 Diabetic Subjects by an Insulin Sensitizer Pioglitazone and T2DM Association With PPARG Gene Polymorphism.

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01589445
Acronym
T2DMCT
Enrollment
77
Registered
2012-05-02
Start date
2008-11-30
Completion date
2010-06-30
Last updated
2014-02-28

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

Conditions

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Keywords

Bangladesh, T2DM, Pioglitazone, Metformin, Insulin secretion and Sensitivity

Brief summary

* The present study was undertaken to assess the efficacy and safety of two different insulin sensitizers (namely Pioglitazone and Metformin) among subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Bangladesh. * A prospective, double-blind, single group, 'within-subject' designed clinical trial of 77 diagnosed T2DM patients out of 130 patients with glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7.2±1.5%, aged 46±6.4 years and registered for diabetes treatment in Bangladesh Institute of Research and Rehabilitation in Diabetes Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders (BIRDEM) was carried out. * The study was conducted between November 2008 and September 2010. * Baseline data, included case history of the patients,anthropometric measurement, biomedical parameters psychosocial factors, were collected from each subject and then enrolled to receive treatment with 001 drug once daily for three months, then the patients were left for wash out with metformin 850mg once daily for one month; then they received 002 drug once daily for further three months. * Dietary chart was remained as before. * DNA was isolated by Chelex method using the primers and control DNA,restriction Digestion Enzyme Endonuclease Hae 111 for genotyping PPARγ-(Peroxisome Proliferator Activated Receptor gamma)Pro12Pro * (Proline12Proline)/Pro12Ala-(Proline12 Alanine))/Ala12Ala-(Alanine12Alanine). * The blinded drugs were decoded after analyzing results, 001 tablet was pioglitazone (30 mg once daily) and 002 tablets was metformin (850mg once daily). Bio-medical outcomes were measured to assess the efficacy of both the drugs each month. After finishing the treatment period the effects of two drugs were compared using SPSS.And the association between the pioglitazone drug effects and genetic polymorphism was also assessed. * The metformin effects was assessed also using the response rate of HbA1c \<7.0% after 3 months treatment to the patients.

Detailed description

1. Introduction Thiazolidinediones and metformin are known drugs and especially metformin is widely used medicine to treat people with T2DM. Though pioglitazone has been suspended in many countries, its safety and efficacy is a matter of research for the drug investigators. Thiazolidinediones had been introduced in 1997 as an oral anti-diabetic drug (OAD). Metformin has been used as the key compound to treat T2DM for many years and is the most prescribed OAD worldwide. Both metformin and thiazolidinediones are considered as insulin sensitizer. The ß-cell dysfunction and insulin resistance are the core defects in the progression of T2DM with associated metabolic syndrome. Evidence suggests that pioglitazone lowers glucose in blood by increasing glucose uptake into cell and metformin by decreasing glucose production. However, there are many controversies in clinical study specially about the improvement of insulin action of metformin. In contrast, a research recommended pioglitazone as the most appropriate OAD for the South Asian population. The key to this argument is that since pioglitazone is a proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR-γ or PPARG) \[a group of nuclear receptor proteins that function as transcription factors regulating the expression of genes\] agonist and decreases insulin resistance, overall glycemic control seems to be better with this thiazolidinedione. However, there are very few published documents on the efficacy and safety of these drugs in South Asians. To the best of our knowledge, there is no published paper that examined and compared the efficacy and safety of these two drugs in Bangladeshi patients T2DM. This double-blind trail therefore examined the efficacy and safety of pioglitazone and metformin in T2DM individuals and also the association of the effects of pioglitazone and the variants of PPARG. We have compared the effects of pioglitazone with metformin on biomedical variables in T2DM patients who were eligible for oral hypoglycaemic therapy and then we also analyzed the association among the effects of pioglitazone and PPARG variants. 2. Methodology 1. Study Setting: The study was conducted between November 2008 and September 2010. The participants for this study were recruited from the outdoor, BIRDEM Hospital in Dhaka,Bangladesh. 2. Subjects I.Individuals who had been diagnosed with T2DM treating with diet/exercise or Metformin 850 mg or Pioglitazone 30mg once daily, and were attending Outdoor Patient Department (OPD) of BIRDEM for consultation were approached by the researcher and invited to participate in the study. The patients were diagnosed already and registered in BIRDEM. T2DM was ascertained based on World Health Organization recommended criteria two repeated measures of fasting (plasma glucose ≥7.0 mmol ⁄ l or 2-h plasma glucose ≥11.1 mmol ⁄ l.) II.We screened a total of 130 patients for eligibility and selected 80 patients for enrollment based of our inclusion and exclusion criteria. But 77 T2DM patients with HbA1c level \< 7.5 %, BMI kg/m2 ≥ 25, SGPT≤ 100 IU/L , creatinine ≤ 1.2 mg/dl) of both sexes, aged between 40-50, treated by monotherapy of pioglitazone or metformin received the drug for the trial according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. 53 patients were screening failure as some did not match eligibility criteria (n=39), some refused to take part(n=11)and some were unable to take part (n=03)due to unknown cause. 3. Patient Preparation: I.Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before study entry. Patients were instructed to follow adhere to a disease- and weight-orientated diet throughout the study as before. II.Each case history was documented in the case report form. The study was approved by the National Medical Ethics Review Boards (NMERB) of Bangladesh Medical Research Council (BMRC).The investigations were carried out in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki as revised in 2000. 4. Treatment: The patients were to receive treatment pioglitazone tablet 001 (30mg once per day) for 3 months followed by one month metformin wash-out period, then to the alternative treatment regimen for further 3 months with metformin tablet 002 (850mg once per day). The drugs were supplied by the Aristopharma Pharmaceutical Ltd., Bangladesh. 5. Anthropometric Measurements I.Height: Standing height was measured using appropriate scales (Detect-Medic, Detect scales INC, USA) without shoes. II.Weight: Weight was measured with the balance was placed on a hard flat surface and checked for zero balance before measurement. The subjects were in the center of the platform wearing light cloths without shoes. III.BMI: Body mass indexes (BMI) of the subjects were calculated using standard formula: BMI= Weight (kg)/\[Height (m)\] 2. IV.Blood Pressure: Systemic and Diastolic pressure was measured according to WHO-IHS. 6. Blood Sample Collection for Biochemical analysis : I. During the appointed date the patients came in the fasting condition. Fasting blood samples (10 ml) were drawn from the antecubital vein. The time was mentioned as 0 hour. Then the patients received drug. They were requested to swallow the tablet and have their breakfast according to their diet charts. Next blood sample had been drawn at 30 min and 2 hour and then they were provided the drugs for the whole month. II.The patients were requested to take the drug just before the breakfast every day for 29 days. III.From the fasting blood sample 1ml of blood was transferred in an EDTA containing tube for measurement of HbA1C and the rest of the blood was taken in an EDTA containing tube and centrifuged immediately. IV.Samples after processing were divided into two aliquots under sterile condition;one aliquot was sent for biochemical analysis for Fasting glucose, Lipid profile, Cholesterol, ALT, Insulin, Creatinine and another one was stored at -80 0C for further verification of results in case of any necessity. 7. Biochemical Test Methods: I. Serum glucose (fasting, 1 and 2 hours) by Glucose Oxidase (GOD-PAP) method (Randox Laboratories Ltd., UK). II.Serum triglyceride by enzymatic colorimetric (GPO-PAP) method (Randox Laboratories Ltd., UK). III.Serum total cholesterol by enzymatic endpoint (Cholesterol Oxidase/ Peroxidase) method (Randox Laboratories Ltd., UK). IV.Serum HDL cholesterol by enzymatic colorimetric (Cholesterol CHOD-PAP) method (Randox Laboratories Ltd., UK) using micro-plate reader (Bio-Tec, ELISA). V.Serum creatinine by enzymatic colorimetric (GPO-PAP) method (Randox Laboratories Ltd., UK). VI.Serum alanine amino transferase (ALT) by UV method using ALT (GPT) opt.kit (Randox Laboratories Ltd., UK). VII.Serum insulin by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method (Linco Research Inc., USA). VIII.Glycosylated Haemoglobin (HbA1c) by High Performance Liquid Chromatographic (HPLC) method. 8. Blood sample collection for DNA analysis (PPARG gene): I.At the end of 3rd month of each treatment 1.5 ml of blood was taken in EDTA containing tube for genetic analysis and the whole blood specimen was collected in the vacuum collection tube containing EDTA, stored at -20 0C to - 80 0C. II.DNA was isolated by Chelex method, identified by electrophoresis method and amplified by using primers. We used a published document to select the primers for genotyping PPARγ Pro12Ala/Pro12Pro. The primers for the Pro12Ala SNP genotype, we amplified exon B using the reverse primer 5' CTG GAA GAC AAA CTA CAA GAG 3' and the forward primer 5' ACT CTG GGA GAT TCT CCT ATT GGC 3'. (Sigma product, Order No. SIGMA 03/11/09 4152936-F/185 PPARG-R 8006875247-1). III.Control DNA: Professor Colin Palmer Laboratory, Biomedical Research Institute ,University of Dundee Medical School, University of Dundee, Scotland, UK sent six control samples of 3 types control DNA genotyped for PPARG SNP rs 1801282 (Pro12Ala). IV.Restriction Digestion Enzyme Endonuclease Hae 111 was used to identify the cutting site(Sigma Product No. R 5628). 3. Response Rate: 1\. The response rate was defined by the decrease of ≥10% FBG or by the decrease of ≥1% HbA1c from the baseline values. ll.There was another response group was defined by the the HbA1c rate \<7.0% after 3 months treatment with metformin only to find out the secondary failure rate of metformin. 4\) Statistical Analysis: I.Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science) software for Windows version 18 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois, USA). Data were expressed as mean + SD (Standard Deviation). II. Effects of drugs after 3 months treatment were analyzed using t pair tests. The groups were compared using one way ANOVA. If the p value was \<0.05, the groups were compared using the student's t test for unpaired samples or χ2 test through univariate analysis for further verification. Correlation coefficient among the variables was tested using Pearson's test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to obtain the odds ratios and independent influencing factor for finding possible association between PPARγ genotypes and drug response in case of genetic analysis. III.A p value \<0.05 was considered significant for all tests. lv. The statistical analysis for within group study like PPARG response group and metformin secondary failure group has not been displayed here. 5\) List of Abbreviations AEs Adverse Events ALT Alanine aminotransferase BMI Body Mass Index BMRC Bangladesh Medical Research Council BIRDEM Bangladesh Institute of Research and Rehabilitation in Diabetes,Endocrine and Metabolic Disorder BP Blood Pressure DNA Deoxynucleic Acid DBP Diastolic Blood Pressure DM Diabetes Mellitus EASD European Association for the Study of Diabetes EDTA Ethylene Diamine Tetra Acetic acid ELISA Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay FBG/FSG Fasting Blood Glucose/Fasting Serum Glucose FSI Fasting Serum Insulin 2hBG 2 hours Blood Glucose HbA1c Glycosylated Haemoglobin HOMA percent B Homeostasis Model Assessment percentage of beta cell function HOMA percent S Homeostasis Model Assessment percentage of sensitivity HOMA IR Homeostasis Model Assessment Insulin Resistance HDL-C High Density Lipid Cholesterol IU/L International Unit/Litre LDL-C Low Density Lipid Cholesterol ml millilitre mm millimetre mg/dl milligram/ decilitre MLR Multiple Logistic Regression OPD Outdoor Patient Department OMIM Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man OR Odds Ratio PPARγ Peroxisome Proliferator Activated Receptor gamma Pro12Pro Proline12Proline Pro12Ala Proline 12 Alanine Ala12Ala Alanine12Alanine PCR Polymerase Chain Reaction QUICKI Quantitative Insulin sensitivity Check Index SD Standard Deviation SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science SBP Systolic Blood Pressure TC Total Cholesterol TG Triglyceride T2DM Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus TZD Thiazolidinedione µl Microliter WHO World Health Organization

Interventions

77 patients were treated with pioglitazone hydrochloride (B001) for 3 months.Biomedical parameters were measured each month.

DRUGMetformin hydrochloride

After the treatment with pioglitazone(001) for 3 months first and then patients were on one month washout period;in the washout period they were given metformin tablet 850mg once daily,then treated with 002 (metformin) for further 3 months. The same biomedical measurements were assayed.

Sponsors

Bangladesh Institute of Research and Rehabilitation in Diabetes, Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders
CollaboratorOTHER
University of Dundee
CollaboratorOTHER
University of Dhaka
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
QUADRUPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
40 Years to 50 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Type 2 DM patients (with HbA1c level \< 8.5 %, BMI kg/m2 ≥ 25, SGPT ≤ 100 IU/L , creatinine ≤ 1.2 mg/dl) of both sexes, * Aged between 40-50, * Treated by monotherapy of pioglitazone or metformin.

Exclusion criteria

* Patients with diabetes secondary to another cause. * Patients suffering from serious incurrent illness requiring systemic treatment. * Patients suffering from any other infectious diseases. * Patients with impaired kidney function (serum creatinine level more than 1.2mg/dl) * Patients with impaired hepatic function (SGPT ≥ 100 IU/L). * Patients with pulmonary insufficiency with hypoxaemia. * Triglyceriadiamea (TG ≥ 150mg/dl). * Bloodpressure \> 180 mmHg (Systolic) or \> 110 mmHg (diastolic). * Positive history of drug or alcohol abuse. * Pregnant women and willing to be pregnant shortly.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Comparison of Changes in Fasting Serum Glucose (FSG)With Pioglitazone and Metformin3 months for each drugResponse rate was defined by ≥10% decrease of FSG or/and ≥1% decrease of HbA1c from the baseline values after 3 months treatment.48 responded to pioglitazone and 32 responded to metformin.
Comparison of Changes in Glycosylated Hemoglobin (HbA1c)With Pioglitazone and Metformin3 months for each drugResponse rate was defined by ≥10% decrease of FSG or/and ≥1% decrease of HbA1c from the baseline values after 3 months treatment.48 responded to pioglitazone and 32 responded to metformin.
Comparison of Changes in Insulin Levels (HOMA IR,QUICKI) With Pioglitazone and Metformin3 months for each drugResponse rate was defined by ≥10% decrease of FSG or/and ≥1% decrease of HbA1c from the baseline values after 3 months treatment.48 responded to pioglitazone and 32 responded to metformin. Analysis 1: Homeostasis Model Assessment Insulin Resistance(HOMA IR) Analysis 2: Quantitative Insulin sensitivity Check Index(QUICKI)
Comparison of Changes in HOMA Percent B and HOMA Percent S With Pioglitazone and Metformin3 months for each drugResponse rate was defined by ≥10% decrease of FSG or/and ≥1% decrease of HbA1c from the baseline values after 3 months treatment.48 responded to pioglitazone and 32 responded to metformin. Analysis 1: Homeostatic Model Assessment of Beta cell function(HOMA percent B) Analysis 2: Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Sensitivity (Homa percent S)
Comparison of Changes in Fasting Serum Insulin (FSI)With Pioglitazone and Metformin3 months for each drugResponse rate was defined by ≥10% decrease of FSG or/and ≥1% decrease of HbA1c from the baseline values after 3 months treatment.48 responded to pioglitazone and 32 responded to metformin.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Comparison of Changes in Lipid Profiles With Pioglitazone and Metformin3 months for each drugResponse rate was defined by ≥10% decrease of FSG or/and ≥1% decrease of HbA1c from the baseline values after 3 months treatment.48 responded to pioglitazone and 32 responded to metformin. Analysis 1:Total Cholesterol(TC) Analysis 2:Triglyceride(TG) Analysis 3:High Density Lipoprotein(HDL) Analysis 4:Low Density Lipoprotein(LDL)

Countries

Bangladesh

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Location: Bangladesh Institute of Research and Rehabilitation in Diabetes, Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders (BIRDEM),Dhaka, Bangladesh and National Forensic DNA Profiling Laboratory, Dhaka Medical College, Dhaka. Recruitment of patients were started at November 2008 and ended at December 2010.

Pre-assignment details

130 Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) out door patients of BIRDEM were screened to participate in the study.80 patients signed consent form and 77 enrolled the trial.3 patients didn't participate due to unknown cause.The patients were directed to follow their routine diet chart as before.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Single Group Study With Two Interventions
This was double blind, single group and within subjects designed study with two interventions.We screened 130 patients, selected 77 subjects who received drug Code 001, then gone through one month wash out period, then received Code 002.For PPARγ genotyping blood samples were collected from patients. There were found two groups-Pro12Pro and Pro12Ala. Baseline evaluation included detailed medical history,socioeconomic status, physical examination, and laboratory investigations for biomedical variables,psychosocial factors according to Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and WHO-5 questionnaires.We decoded blinded drug after analyzing the results and knew that pioglitazone (30 mg once daily) was coded as 001 and metformin (850 mg once daily) as code 002. For statistical analysis we compare Pio vs Met, Pro12Pro vs Pro12Ala, met responder vs non responder.
77
Total77

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000
001 (Pioglitazone) -3 Monthsbiasedness about the double blind method2
001 (Pioglitazone) -3 MonthsLack of Efficacy1
001 (Pioglitazone) -3 MonthsLost to Follow-up2
001 (Pioglitazone) -3 MonthsProtocol Violation1
001 (Pioglitazone) -3 MonthsWithdrawal by Subject1
002 (Metformin)-3 MonthsAdverse Event2
002 (Metformin)-3 MonthsHusbands of female patients refrained2
002 (Metformin)-3 MonthsLack of Efficacy1
002 (Metformin)-3 MonthsLost to Follow-up2
002 (Metformin)-3 MonthsProtocol Violation2

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicSingle Group Study With Two Interventions
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
0 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
77 Participants
Age, Continuous46 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.4
Region of Enrollment
Bangladesh
77 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
47 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
30 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
14 / 7719 / 70
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 772 / 70

Outcome results

Primary

Comparison of Changes in Fasting Serum Glucose (FSG)With Pioglitazone and Metformin

Response rate was defined by ≥10% decrease of FSG or/and ≥1% decrease of HbA1c from the baseline values after 3 months treatment.48 responded to pioglitazone and 32 responded to metformin.

Time frame: 3 months for each drug

Population: After completion of both of the treatments, it is found in the 3rd month some patients didn't response according to the response rate and during result analysis the responded numbers (48 and 32)were considered only. That's why the number of participant in both the trials didn't match with number of participants analyzed.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Pioglitazone (001 Group)Comparison of Changes in Fasting Serum Glucose (FSG)With Pioglitazone and MetforminBaseline FSG6.9 mmol/lStandard Deviation 2.5
Pioglitazone (001 Group)Comparison of Changes in Fasting Serum Glucose (FSG)With Pioglitazone and Metformin3rd Month FSG5.4 mmol/lStandard Deviation 1.2
Metformin (002 Group)Comparison of Changes in Fasting Serum Glucose (FSG)With Pioglitazone and MetforminBaseline FSG6.2 mmol/lStandard Deviation 1.6
Metformin (002 Group)Comparison of Changes in Fasting Serum Glucose (FSG)With Pioglitazone and Metformin3rd Month FSG6.5 mmol/lStandard Deviation 2.6
Comparison: Change from Baseline in FSG at 3rd monthp-value: <0.0595% CI: [-7.9, 8]ANOVA
Primary

Comparison of Changes in Fasting Serum Insulin (FSI)With Pioglitazone and Metformin

Response rate was defined by ≥10% decrease of FSG or/and ≥1% decrease of HbA1c from the baseline values after 3 months treatment.48 responded to pioglitazone and 32 responded to metformin.

Time frame: 3 months for each drug

Population: After completion of both of the treatments, it is found in the 3rd month some patients didn't response according to the response rate and during result analysis the responded numbers (48 and 32)were considered only. That's why the number of participant in both the trials didn't match with number of participants analyzed.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Pioglitazone (001 Group)Comparison of Changes in Fasting Serum Insulin (FSI)With Pioglitazone and MetforminBaseline FSI16.2 μU/mlStandard Deviation 8.7
Pioglitazone (001 Group)Comparison of Changes in Fasting Serum Insulin (FSI)With Pioglitazone and Metformin3rd month FSI12.3 μU/mlStandard Deviation 7.5
Metformin (002 Group)Comparison of Changes in Fasting Serum Insulin (FSI)With Pioglitazone and MetforminBaseline FSI13.0 μU/mlStandard Deviation 8.8
Metformin (002 Group)Comparison of Changes in Fasting Serum Insulin (FSI)With Pioglitazone and Metformin3rd month FSI13.9 μU/mlStandard Deviation 7.3
Comparison: FSIp-value: <0.03995% CI: [-27.04, 26.52]ANOVA
Primary

Comparison of Changes in Glycosylated Hemoglobin (HbA1c)With Pioglitazone and Metformin

Response rate was defined by ≥10% decrease of FSG or/and ≥1% decrease of HbA1c from the baseline values after 3 months treatment.48 responded to pioglitazone and 32 responded to metformin.

Time frame: 3 months for each drug

Population: After completion of both of the treatments, it is found in the 3rd month some patients didn't response according to the response rate and during result analysis the responded numbers (48 and 32)were considered only. That's why the number of participant in both the trials didn't match with number of participants analyzed.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Pioglitazone (001 Group)Comparison of Changes in Glycosylated Hemoglobin (HbA1c)With Pioglitazone and MetforminBaseline HbA1c7.3 percentageStandard Deviation 1.2
Pioglitazone (001 Group)Comparison of Changes in Glycosylated Hemoglobin (HbA1c)With Pioglitazone and Metformin3rd month HbA1c6.7 percentageStandard Deviation 1.1
Metformin (002 Group)Comparison of Changes in Glycosylated Hemoglobin (HbA1c)With Pioglitazone and MetforminBaseline HbA1c7.8 percentageStandard Deviation 2
Metformin (002 Group)Comparison of Changes in Glycosylated Hemoglobin (HbA1c)With Pioglitazone and Metformin3rd month HbA1c7.0 percentageStandard Deviation 1.5
p-value: >0.0595% CI: [-4.4, 2.4]ANOVA
Primary

Comparison of Changes in HOMA Percent B and HOMA Percent S With Pioglitazone and Metformin

Response rate was defined by ≥10% decrease of FSG or/and ≥1% decrease of HbA1c from the baseline values after 3 months treatment.48 responded to pioglitazone and 32 responded to metformin. Analysis 1: Homeostatic Model Assessment of Beta cell function(HOMA percent B) Analysis 2: Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Sensitivity (Homa percent S)

Time frame: 3 months for each drug

Population: After completion of both of the treatments, it is found in the 3rd month some patients didn't response according to the response rate and during result analysis the responded numbers (48 and 32)were considered only. That's why the number of participant in both the trials didn't match with number of participants analyzed.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Pioglitazone (001 Group)Comparison of Changes in HOMA Percent B and HOMA Percent S With Pioglitazone and MetforminBaseline HOMA percent beta cells function118.9 percentageStandard Deviation 87
Pioglitazone (001 Group)Comparison of Changes in HOMA Percent B and HOMA Percent S With Pioglitazone and Metformin3rd month HOMA percent beta cells function132.3 percentageStandard Deviation 66
Pioglitazone (001 Group)Comparison of Changes in HOMA Percent B and HOMA Percent S With Pioglitazone and MetforminBaseline HOMA percent sensitivity51.1 percentageStandard Deviation 30.8
Pioglitazone (001 Group)Comparison of Changes in HOMA Percent B and HOMA Percent S With Pioglitazone and Metformin3rd month HOMA percent sensitivity69.3 percentageStandard Deviation 31
Metformin (002 Group)Comparison of Changes in HOMA Percent B and HOMA Percent S With Pioglitazone and Metformin3rd month HOMA percent sensitivity67.2 percentageStandard Deviation 45
Metformin (002 Group)Comparison of Changes in HOMA Percent B and HOMA Percent S With Pioglitazone and MetforminBaseline HOMA percent beta cells function109.3 percentageStandard Deviation 61
Metformin (002 Group)Comparison of Changes in HOMA Percent B and HOMA Percent S With Pioglitazone and MetforminBaseline HOMA percent sensitivity76.2 percentageStandard Deviation 52
Metformin (002 Group)Comparison of Changes in HOMA Percent B and HOMA Percent S With Pioglitazone and Metformin3rd month HOMA percent beta cells function116.0 percentageStandard Deviation 77
Comparison: HOMA Bp-value: <0.80895% CI: [-346.4, 328.1]ANOVA
Comparison: HOMA Sp-value: <0.02595% CI: [-148.7, 180]ANOVA
Primary

Comparison of Changes in Insulin Levels (HOMA IR,QUICKI) With Pioglitazone and Metformin

Response rate was defined by ≥10% decrease of FSG or/and ≥1% decrease of HbA1c from the baseline values after 3 months treatment.48 responded to pioglitazone and 32 responded to metformin. Analysis 1: Homeostasis Model Assessment Insulin Resistance(HOMA IR) Analysis 2: Quantitative Insulin sensitivity Check Index(QUICKI)

Time frame: 3 months for each drug

Population: After completion of both of the treatments, it is found in the 3rd month some patients didn't response according to the response rate and during result analysis the responded numbers (48 and 32)were considered only. That's why the number of participant in both the trials didn't match with number of participants analyzed.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Pioglitazone (001 Group)Comparison of Changes in Insulin Levels (HOMA IR,QUICKI) With Pioglitazone and MetforminBaseline QUICKI0.52 Score on a scale ( SI unit)Standard Deviation 0.08
Pioglitazone (001 Group)Comparison of Changes in Insulin Levels (HOMA IR,QUICKI) With Pioglitazone and Metformin3rd month QUICKI0.59 Score on a scale ( SI unit)Standard Deviation 0.12
Pioglitazone (001 Group)Comparison of Changes in Insulin Levels (HOMA IR,QUICKI) With Pioglitazone and MetforminBaseline HOMA IR5.1 Score on a scale ( SI unit)Standard Deviation 3.6
Pioglitazone (001 Group)Comparison of Changes in Insulin Levels (HOMA IR,QUICKI) With Pioglitazone and Metformin3rd month HOMA IR2.9 Score on a scale ( SI unit)Standard Deviation 1.9
Metformin (002 Group)Comparison of Changes in Insulin Levels (HOMA IR,QUICKI) With Pioglitazone and Metformin3rd month HOMA IR4.3 Score on a scale ( SI unit)Standard Deviation 3.6
Metformin (002 Group)Comparison of Changes in Insulin Levels (HOMA IR,QUICKI) With Pioglitazone and MetforminBaseline QUICKI0.57 Score on a scale ( SI unit)Standard Deviation 0.12
Metformin (002 Group)Comparison of Changes in Insulin Levels (HOMA IR,QUICKI) With Pioglitazone and MetforminBaseline HOMA IR3.7 Score on a scale ( SI unit)Standard Deviation 2.9
Metformin (002 Group)Comparison of Changes in Insulin Levels (HOMA IR,QUICKI) With Pioglitazone and Metformin3rd month QUICKI0.54 Score on a scale ( SI unit)Standard Deviation 0.09
p-value: <0.00195% CI: [-0.4, 0.27]ANOVA
Comparison: HOMA IRp-value: <0.00495% CI: [-14.12, 15.52]ANOVA
Secondary

Comparison of Changes in Lipid Profiles With Pioglitazone and Metformin

Response rate was defined by ≥10% decrease of FSG or/and ≥1% decrease of HbA1c from the baseline values after 3 months treatment.48 responded to pioglitazone and 32 responded to metformin. Analysis 1:Total Cholesterol(TC) Analysis 2:Triglyceride(TG) Analysis 3:High Density Lipoprotein(HDL) Analysis 4:Low Density Lipoprotein(LDL)

Time frame: 3 months for each drug

Population: After completion of both of the treatments, it is found in the 3rd month some patients didn't response according to the response rate and during result analysis the responded numbers (48 and 32)were considered only. That's why the number of participant in both the trials didn't match with number of participants analyzed.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Pioglitazone (001 Group)Comparison of Changes in Lipid Profiles With Pioglitazone and MetforminBaseline TC182.0 mg/dlStandard Deviation 44
Pioglitazone (001 Group)Comparison of Changes in Lipid Profiles With Pioglitazone and Metformin3rd month TC178 mg/dlStandard Deviation 42
Pioglitazone (001 Group)Comparison of Changes in Lipid Profiles With Pioglitazone and MetforminBaseline TG183 mg/dlStandard Deviation 128
Pioglitazone (001 Group)Comparison of Changes in Lipid Profiles With Pioglitazone and Metformin3rd month TG195 mg/dlStandard Deviation 165
Pioglitazone (001 Group)Comparison of Changes in Lipid Profiles With Pioglitazone and MetforminBaseline HDL33 mg/dlStandard Deviation 10
Pioglitazone (001 Group)Comparison of Changes in Lipid Profiles With Pioglitazone and Metformin3rd month HDL33.2 mg/dlStandard Deviation 8
Pioglitazone (001 Group)Comparison of Changes in Lipid Profiles With Pioglitazone and MetforminBaseline LDL112.8 mg/dlStandard Deviation 105.5
Pioglitazone (001 Group)Comparison of Changes in Lipid Profiles With Pioglitazone and Metformin3rd month LDL105.5 mg/dlStandard Deviation 47
Metformin (002 Group)Comparison of Changes in Lipid Profiles With Pioglitazone and Metformin3rd month LDL112.0 mg/dlStandard Deviation 34
Metformin (002 Group)Comparison of Changes in Lipid Profiles With Pioglitazone and MetforminBaseline TC193.0 mg/dlStandard Deviation 48
Metformin (002 Group)Comparison of Changes in Lipid Profiles With Pioglitazone and MetforminBaseline HDL34.4 mg/dlStandard Deviation 9
Metformin (002 Group)Comparison of Changes in Lipid Profiles With Pioglitazone and Metformin3rd month TC177.0 mg/dlStandard Deviation 38
Metformin (002 Group)Comparison of Changes in Lipid Profiles With Pioglitazone and MetforminBaseline LDL125.6 mg/dlStandard Deviation 47
Metformin (002 Group)Comparison of Changes in Lipid Profiles With Pioglitazone and MetforminBaseline TG166.0 mg/dlStandard Deviation 89
Metformin (002 Group)Comparison of Changes in Lipid Profiles With Pioglitazone and Metformin3rd month HDL34.7 mg/dlStandard Deviation 7
Metformin (002 Group)Comparison of Changes in Lipid Profiles With Pioglitazone and Metformin3rd month TG175.0 mg/dlStandard Deviation 108
Comparison: TCp-value: <0.16195% CI: [-88, 118]ANOVA
Comparison: TGp-value: <0.91395% CI: [-397, 976]ANOVA
Comparison: HDLp-value: <0.32295% CI: [-35, 19]ANOVA
Comparison: LDLp-value: <0.2195% CI: [-113.8, 76.2]ANOVA

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