ArticleJournal of diabetes investigation2011
Randomized controlled trial of single-agent glimepiride and pioglitazone in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A comparative study.
Article in Journal of diabetes investigation, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It reports registered trial NCT01589445. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledAims/Introduction: To compare first-line, single-agent glimepiride and pioglitazone in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled by diet and exercise with respect to glycemic control, safety and metabolic changes. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients with previously untreated type 2 diabetes were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, non-blind, parallel-group trial of glimepiride (0.5-6 mg/day) or pioglitazone (15-45 mg/day) for 6 months.
resultsA total of 191 patients aged 30-75 years were randomized. Similar percentages of patients attained the primary end-point, with glycated hemoglobin < 6.9% at month 6 with glimepiride and pioglitazone, respectively (61.2 vs 56.8%, P = 0.64). At month 6, the following significant (P < 0.05) intragroup changes in mean plasma lipid concentrations were noted as compared with baseline: total cholesterol decreased from 203.5 to 195.5 mg/dL and low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol decreased from 124.5 to 116.3 mg/dL in the glimepiride group, whereas high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol increased from 51.6 to 56.0 mg/dL and triglycerides decreased from 167.6 to 143.6 mg/dL in the pioglitazone group. The only symptomatic adverse events were mild-to-moderate in four patients receiving pioglitazone, and constipation in one patient receiving glimepiride. Similar numbers of patients experienced asymptomatic hypoglycemia (<60 mg/dL) in the glimepiride and pioglitazone groups (n = 7 and 5, respectively).
conclusionsThere was no statistically significant difference between glimepiride and pioglitazone with respect to glycemic control, and both agents were well tolerated. Glimepiride significantly lowered total cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol, whereas pioglitazone increased HDL-cholesterol. This trial was registered with University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN), Japan, UMIN000004582. (J Diabetes Invest, doi: 10.1111/j.2040-1124.2011.00115.x, 2011).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.