PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (1415001)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Incidence of Diabetes Following Ramipril or Rosiglitazone Withdrawal 
Diabetes Care  2011;34(6):1265-1269.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the impact of withdrawing rosiglitazone and ramipril medication on diabetes incidence after closeout of the Diabetes REduction Assessment with ramipril and rosiglitazone Medication (DREAM) trial.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
The 3,366 DREAM subjects at trial end who had not developed diabetes while taking double-blind study medication were transferred to single-blind placebo for 2 to 3 months before undergoing an oral glucose tolerance test. Glycemic status was analyzed for the trial plus washout period and for the washout period alone.
RESULTS
Following median (interquartile range) 71 (63–86) days drug withdrawal, overall glycemic status remained modestly improved in those allocated ramipril during the trial with an 11% increase in regression to normoglycemia, compared with placebo. In those previously allocated rosiglitazone, glycemic status remained substantially improved with a 49% reduction of new-onset diabetes or death and a 22% increase in regression to normoglycemia, compared with placebo. However, during the washout phase alone the incidence of diabetes or death was identical for those allocated previously to ramipril or placebo, or to rosiglitazone or placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
In people allocated to ramipril compared with those not allocated ramipril during the trial, the postwashout normoglycemia incidence was higher. In people allocated to rosiglitazone compared with those not allocated rosiglitazone during the trial, the postwashout incidence of diabetes was significantly lower and the incidence of normoglycemia was higher. During the washout period, diabetes incidence was the same for ramipril versus placebo and for rosiglitazone versus placebo. Rosiglitazone delays disease progression during treatment but the process resumes at the placebo rate when the drug is stopped.
doi:10.2337/dc10-1567
PMCID: PMC3114353  PMID: 21515846
2.  Effect of Rosiglitazone and Ramipril on β-Cell Function in People With Impaired Glucose Tolerance or Impaired Fasting Glucose 
Diabetes Care  2009;33(3):608-613.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to determine the degree to which ramipril and/or rosiglitazone changed β-cell function over time among individuals with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and/or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) who participated in the Diabetes Reduction Assessment With Ramipril and Rosiglitazone Medication (DREAM) Trial, which evaluated whether ramipril and/or rosiglitazone could prevent or delay type 2 diabetes in high-risk individuals.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
The present analysis included subjects (n = 982) from DREAM trial centers in Canada who had oral glucose tolerance tests at baseline, after 2 years, and at the end of the study. β-Cell function was assessed using the fasting proinsulin–to–C-peptide ratio (PI/C) and the insulinogenic index (defined as 30–0 min insulin/30–0 min glucose) divided by homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (insulinogenic index [IGI]/insulin resistance [IR]).
RESULTS
Subjects receiving rosiglitazone had a significant increase in IGI/IR between baseline and end of study compared with the placebo group (25.59 vs. 1.94, P < 0.0001) and a significant decrease in PI/C (−0.010 vs. −0.006, P < 0.0001). In contrast, there were no significant changes in IGI/IR or PI/C in subjects receiving ramipril compared with placebo (11.71 vs. 18.15, P = 0.89, and −0.007 vs. −0.008, P = 0.64, respectively). The impact of rosiglitazone on IGI/IR and PI/C was similar within subgroups of isolated IGT and IFG + IGT (all P < 0.001). Effects were more modest in those with isolated IFG (IGI/IR: 8.95 vs. 2.13, P = 0.03; PI/C: −0.003 vs. −0.001, P = 0.07).
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment with rosiglitazone, but not ramipril, resulted in significant improvements in measures of β-cell function over time in pre-diabetic subjects. Although the long-term sustainability of these improvements cannot be determined from the present study, these findings demonstrate that the diabetes preventive effect of rosiglitazone was in part a consequence of improved β-cell function.
doi:10.2337/dc09-1579
PMCID: PMC2827518  PMID: 20009095
3.  Change in cough reflex after treatment with enalapril and ramipril. 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  1989;299(6690):13-16.
OBJECTIVE--To find out whether enalapril or ramipril causes the sensitivity of the cough reflex to change or symptomatic cough to develop in patients with hypertension. DESIGN--Prospective, placebo controlled, double blind, randomised crossover study. SETTING--Academic units of clinical pharmacology and medicine. PATIENTS--20 Patients (nine men and 11 women) who needed to take angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors to control hypertension. INTERVENTIONS--All patients received enalapril 10 mg daily, ramipril 10 mg daily, or placebo daily for one week in random order, with a washout period of at least one week between treatments. For assessment of sensitivity of the cough reflex the patients inhaled various concentrations of capsaicin solution in random order. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Measurement of the doses of capsaicin required to cause two or more and five or more coughs or the development of a symptomatic cough. RESULTS--Blood pressure, symptoms of cough, and the sensitivity of the cough reflex to inhaled capsaicin were recorded at the start of the study and before and at the end of each treatment period. Plasma urea and creatinine concentrations and angiotensin converting enzyme activity were measured at the start of the study and the end of each treatment period. Data were analysed by two way analysis of variance. Mean blood pressure was 159/97 mm Hg at the start of the study and 152/92, 143/88, and 147/86 mm Hg after treatment with placebo, enalapril, and ramipril respectively. Mean (SE) plasma angiotensin converting enzyme activity was 2.2 (0.2) mmol/l/h after treatment with placebo and fell significantly to 1.3 (0.1) mmol/l/h and to 0.4 (0.1) mmol/l/h after treatment with enalapril and ramipril respectively. No patient complained of cough while taking placebo but three women complained of cough when taking both enalapril and ramipril. The mean (95% confidence interval) lowest dose of capsaicin causing two or more coughs was 2.4 (1.5 to 4.0), 1.8 (1.12 to 2.82), and 2.2 (1.7 to 3.0) nmol after treatment with placebo, enalapril, and ramipril respectively; none of these changes were significant. The lowest dose of capsaicin causing five or more coughs was 18.9 (13.9 to 25.8), 14.4 (8.4 to 24.5), and 15.3 (10.8 to 21.2) nmol respectively; none of these changes were significant. The three patients who complained of cough had normal sensitivity to capsaicin after treatment with placebo but had a considerably increased sensitivity after treatment with enalapril and ramipril. CONCLUSIONS--Both enalapril and ramipril increase the sensitivity of the cough reflex appreciably in patients who complain of cough during treatment, but they do not change the se
PMCID: PMC1836998  PMID: 2547470
4.  Effects of low dose ramipril on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and raised excretion of urinary albumin: randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial (the DIABHYCAR study) 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2004;328(7438):495.
Objective To investigate whether a low dose of the angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor ramipril lowers cardiovascular and renal events in patients with type 2 diabetes who have microalbuminuria or proteinuria.
Design Randomised, double blind, parallel group trial comparing ramipril (1.25 mg/day) with placebo (on top of usual treatment) for cardiovascular and renal outcomes for at least three years.
Setting Multicentre, primary care study conducted mostly by general practitioners in 16 European and north African countries.
Participants 4912 patients with type 2 diabetes aged >50 years who use oral antidiabetic drugs and have persistent microalbuminuria or proteinuria (urinary albumin excretion ≥ 20 mg/l in two consecutive samples), and serum creatinine ≤ 150 μmol/l.
Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was the combined incidence of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure leading to hospital admission, and end stage renal failure.
Results Participants were followed for 3 to 6 (median 4) years. There were 362 primary events among the 2443 participants taking ramipril (37.8 per 1000 patient years) and 377 events among the 2469 participants taking placebo (38.8 per 1000 patient years; hazard ratio 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.20, P = 0.65)). None of the components of the primary outcome was reduced. Ramipril lowered systolic and diastolic blood pressures (by 2.43 and 1.06 mm Hg respectively after two years) and favoured regression from microalbuminuria (20-200 mg/l) or proteinuria (> 200mg/l) to normal level (< 20 mg/l) or microalbuminuria (P < 0.07) in 1868 participants who completed the study.
Conclusions Low dose (1.25 mg) ramipril once daily has no effect on cardiovascular and renal outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria, despite a slight decrease in blood pressure and urinary albumin. The cardiovascular benefits of a daily higher dose (10 mg) ramipril observed elsewhere are not found with an eightfold lower daily dose.
doi:10.1136/bmj.37970.629537.0D
PMCID: PMC351842  PMID: 14960504
5.  A crossover randomized comparative study of zofenopril and ramipril on cough reflex and airway inflammation in healthy volunteers 
Cough (London, England)  2014;10(1):7.
Background
Persistent dry cough is a well known unwanted effect of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme inhibitors (ACE-i). Animal studies have shown that the ACE-i zofenopril has a less tussigenic effect compared to the widely used ACE-i ramipril. The aim of this study was to compare cough sensitivity to inhaled tussigens, as well as spontaneous cough in response to the administration of zofenopril and ramipril in healthy volunteers; pharmacokinetic (PK) data of both zofenopril and ramipril, as well as their respective active forms, zofenoprilat and ramiprilat, was also collected.
Methods
Forty healthy volunteers were enrolled in a randomized crossover study. Patients were administered zofenopril calcium salt (test drug) coated tablets, 30 mg daily dose or ramipril (reference drug) tablets, 10 mg daily dose, for 7 consecutive days in two periods separated by a 21-day wash-out period. Cough sensitivity to capsaicin and citric acid was assessed as the concentration of each tussigenic agent causing at least 2 (C2) or 5 coughs (C5); spontaneous cough was also monitored throughout the study. PK parameters of zofenopril, ramipril and their active forms, were collected for each of the two study periods. Airway inflammation, as assessed by fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and bradykinin (BK) levels, were measured prior to and following each treatment period.
Results
Ramipril, but not zofenopril, increased (p < 0.01) cough sensitivity to both tussigenic agents as assessed by C2. With citric acid, C5 values calculated after both ramipril and zofenopril administration were significantly (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively) lower than corresponding control values. With both ACE-i drugs, spontaneous cough was infrequently reported by subjects.
Zofenopril/zofenoprilat PK analysis showed higher area under the curve of plasma concentration, τ values (ng/ml x h) than ramipril/ramiprilat (zofenopril vs. ramipril, 84.25 ± 34.47 vs. 47.40 ± 21.30; and zofenoprilat vs. ramiprilat, 653.67 ± 174.91 vs. 182.26 ± 61.28).
Both ACE-i drugs did not affect BK plasma levels; in contrast, ramipril, but not zofenopril, significantly increased control FeNO values (from 24 ± 9.6 parts per billion [PPB] to 33 ± 16 PPB; p < 0.01).
Conclusions
Zofenopril has a more favourable profile when compared to ramipril as shown by a reduced pro-inflammatory activity and less impact on the cough reflex.
doi:10.1186/s12997-014-0007-5
PMCID: PMC4308941  PMID: 25632296
Zofenopril; Ramipril; Cough; ACE-inhibitors; Airway inflammation
6.  In a Subgroup of High-Risk Asians, Telmisartan Was Non-Inferior to Ramipril and Better Tolerated in the Prevention of Cardiovascular Events 
PLoS ONE  2010;5(12):e13694.
Background and Objectives
Results of the recently published ONTARGET study (The Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial) showed that telmisartan (80 mg/day) was non-inferior to ramipril (10 mg/day) in reducing cardiovascular events. Clinicians in Asia doubt tolerability of these doses for their patients. We therefore analyzed data from this study and a parallel study TRANSCEND (Telmisartan Randomized Assessment Study in ACE Intolerant Subjects with Cardiovascular Disease). Our objectives were to compare Asians and non-Asians with respect to the following:
1) Effectiveness of telmisartan vs. ramipril in reducing cardiovascular events;
2) Proportions who reached the full dose of telmisartan, ramipril or placebo; and
3) Proportions of overall discontinuations, and discontinuations due to adverse effects.
Method
The ONTARGET study randomized 25,620 patients at risk of cardiovascular events to ramipril, telmisartan, or their combination. The primary composite endpoint was death caused by cardiovascular disease, acute MI, stroke, and hospitalization because of congestive heart failure. TRANSCEND randomized 5926 high-risk patients with a history of intolerance to ACE-inhibitors to telmisartan or placebo. The primary outcome was the same. In this substudy, we compared Asians and non-Asians as to how well they tolerated telmisartan (given in both studies) and ramipril (given in ONTARGET).
Results
1) Telmisartan was non-inferior to ramipril in lowering the primary endpoint among Asians (RR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.74, 1.13); 2) more Asians achieved the full dose of either drug; 3) less withdrew (overall); and 4) less withdrew for adverse effects. Furthermore, telmisartan was better tolerated than ramipril. This advantage was greater among Asians.
Conclusion and Significance
Although Asians had lower BMI than non-Asians, Asians tolerated both drugs better. Regulatory agencies require reporting of safety and effectiveness data by ethnicity, but few comply with this requirement. This study shows that safety data in ethnic subgroups can help assess applicability of results to specific populations.
Trial Registration
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00153101
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013694
PMCID: PMC3006195  PMID: 21200437
7.  Treatment of diabetic vasculopathy with rosiglitazone and ramipril: Hype or hope? 
Cardiovascular diseases are responsible for increased morbidity and mortality in people with diabetes. Diabetic macrovasculopathy is associated with structural and functional changes in large arteries, which causes endothelial dysfunction, increased arterial stiffness, or decreased arterial distensability. Diabetic complications can be controlled and avoided by strict glycemic control, maintaining normal lipid profiles, regular physical exercise, adopting a healthy lifestyle and pharmacological interventions. Treatment goals for patients with type 2 diabetes specify targets for glycemia and other cardiometabolic risk factors, for example, hypertension and dyslipidemia. In recent years, special attention has been devoted to both thiazolidindiones (TZDs) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors as clinical trials revealed that these drugs may reduce the rate of progression to diabetes or delay the onset of diabetes, regression of impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) to normoglycemia and reduces the composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke in patients with diabetes. This review focuses on the potential roles of rosiglitazone, a member of TZD class of antidiabetic agents, and ramipril, an ACE inhibitor, in preventing the preclinical macrovasculopathy in diabetes and IGT population.
doi:10.4103/0973-3930.54287
PMCID: PMC2822214  PMID: 20165647
Diabetic vasculopathy; ramipril; rosiglitazone
8.  The striking effect of the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) on ramipril prescribing in Ontario 
Background
The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE), a Canadian-led, multicentre, randomized controlled trial, demonstrated the effectiveness of the ACE inhibitor ramipril in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients who were at high risk for cardiovascular events but did not have left ventricular dysfunction or heart failure. We studied whether HOPE affected the prescribing of ACE inhibitors generally, and ramipril specifically, in Ontario, where the trial was coordinated.
Methods
We used linked administrative databases to examine prescribing patterns for ACE inhibitors in the 1.29 million to 1.54 million elderly (aged 66 and over) residents of Ontario during the study period and specifically those with diabetes or congestive heart failure. For all new prescriptions for these drugs filled between Jan. 1, 1993, and Mar. 31, 2001, we conducted time-series analyses to measure any association with the release of the HOPE results.
Results
The monthly number of new prescriptions for ramipril from the time it was introduced in 1995 until HOPE's early termination, in April 1999, peaked at 58 per 100 000 elderly Ontario residents. The rate increased to 92/100 000 in May, coincident with newspaper coverage of the trial's early termination, then fell back to 63/100 000 in August. After HOPE's results were formally released, starting Aug. 31, the rate increased significantly; it peaked at 304/100 000 in May 2000 (p < 0.01). The market share of ramipril among ACE inhibitors also increased significantly (p < 0.01), both overall and among patients with diabetes or congestive heart failure.
Interpretation
HOPE led to a striking and unprecedented increase, over 400%, in ramipril prescribing to elderly Ontario residents, including those not eligible for the trial. Many physicians are now prescribing ramipril for patients with diabetes or congestive heart failure.
PMCID: PMC149247  PMID: 12615747
9.  Long-term outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving glimepiride combined with liraglutide or rosiglitazone 
Background
Poor control of type 2 diabetes results in substantial long-term consequences. Studies of new diabetes treatments are rarely designed to assess mortality, complication rates and costs. We sought to estimate the long-term consequences of liraglutide and rosiglitazone both added to glimepiride.
Methods
To estimate long-term clinical and economic consequences, we used the CORE diabetes model, a validated cohort model that uses epidemiologic data from long-term clinical trials to simulate morbidity, mortality and costs of diabetes. Clinical data were extracted from the LEAD-1 trial evaluating two doses (1.2 mg and 1.8 mg) of a once daily GLP-1 analog liraglutide, or rosiglitazone 4 mg, on a background of glimepiride in type 2 diabetes. CORE was calibrated to the LEAD-1 baseline patient characteristics. Survival, cumulative incidence of cardiovascular, ocular and renal events and healthcare costs were estimated over three periods: 10, 20 and 30 years.
Results
In a hypothetical cohort of 5000 patients per treatment followed for 30 years, liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg had higher survival rates compared to the group treated with rosiglitazone (15.0% and 16.0% vs. 12.6% after 30 years), and fewer cardiovascular, renal, and ocular events. Cardiovascular death rates after 30 years were 69.7%, 68.4% and 72.5%, for liraglutide 1.2 mg, 1.8 mg, and rosiglitazone, respectively. First and recurrent amputations were lower in the rosiglitazone group, probably due to a 'survival paradox' in the liraglutide arms (number of events: 565, 529, and 507, respectively). Overall cumulative costs per patient, were lower in both liraglutide groups compared to rosiglitazone (US$38,963, $39,239, and $40,401 for liraglutide 1.2 mg, 1.8 mg, and rosiglitazone, respectively), mainly driven by the costs of cardiovascular events in all groups.
Conclusion
Using data from LEAD-1 and epidemiologic evidence from the CORE diabetes model, projected rates of mortality, diabetes complications and healthcare costs over the long term favor liraglutide plus glimepiride over rosiglitazone plus glimepiride.
Trial registration
LEAD-1 NCT00318422; LEAD-2 NCT00318461; LEAD-3 NCT 00294723; LEAD-4 NCT00333151; LEAD-5 NCT00331851; LEAD-6 NCT00518882.
doi:10.1186/1475-2840-8-12
PMCID: PMC2667489  PMID: 19245711
10.  Ramipril-based versus diuretic-based antihypertensive primary treatment in patients with pre-diabetes (ADaPT) study 
Background
Previous randomized controlled trials demonstrated a protective effect of renin angiotensin system blocking agents for the development of type-2 diabetes in patients with pre-diabetes. However, there are no real-world data available to illustrate the relevance for clinical practice.
Methods
Open, prospective, parallel group study comparing patients with an ACE inhibitor versus a diuretic based treatment. The principal aim was to document the first manifestation of type-2 diabetes in either group.
Results
A total of 2,011 patients were enrolled (mean age 69.1 ± 10.3 years; 51.6% female). 1,507 patients were available for the per-protocol analysis (1,029 ramipril, 478 diuretic group). New-onset diabetes was less frequent in the ramipril than in the diuretic group over 4 years. Differences were statistically different at a median duration of 3 years (24.4% vs 29.5%; p < 0.05). Both treatments were equally effective in reducing BP (14.7 ± 18.0/8.5 ± 8.2 mmHg and 12.7 ± 18.1/7.0 ± 8.3 mmHg) at the 4 year follow-up (p < 0.001 vs. baseline; p = n.s. between groups). In 38.6% and 39.7% of patients BP was below 130/80 mmHg (median time-to-target 3 months). There was a significant reduction of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in favour of ramipril (p = 0.033). No significant differences were found for a change in HbA1c as well as for fasting blood glucose levels during follow-up. The rate of adverse events was higher in diuretic treated patients (SAE 15.4 vs. 12.4%; p < 0.05; AE 26.6 vs. 25.6%; p = n.s).
Conclusions
Ramipril treatment is preferable over diuretic based treatment regimens for the treatment of hypertension in pre-diabetic patients, because new-onset diabetes is delayed.
doi:10.1186/1475-2840-11-1
PMCID: PMC3313888  PMID: 22230104
11.  The Effects of Ramipril in Individuals at Risk for Alzheimer’s Disease: Results of a Pilot Clinical Trial 
Research shows that certain antihypertensives taken during midlife confer Alzheimer’s disease (AD) related benefits in later life. We conducted a clinical trial to evaluate the extent to which the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I), ramipril, affects AD biomarkers including CSF amyloid β levels (Aβ) and ACE activity, arterial function and cognition in participants with a parental history of AD.
This four month randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot clinical trial evaluated the effects of ramipril, a blood-brain-barrier (BBB) crossing ACE-I, in cognitively healthy individuals with mild, or Stage I hypertension. Fourteen participants were stratified by gender and apolipoprotein E ε4 (APOE ε4) status and randomized to receive 5mg of ramipril or matching placebo daily. Participants were assessed at baseline and month 4 on measures of CSF Aβ1–42 and ACE activity, arterial function and cognition.
Participants were middle-aged (mean 54yrs) highly educated (mean 15.4yrs), and included 50% men and 50% APOEε4 carriers. While results did not show a treatment effect on CSF Aβ1–42 (p=0.836), data revealed that ramipril can inhibit CSF ACE activity (p=0.009) and improve blood pressure (BP), however there were no differences between groups in arterial function or cognition.
In this study, ramipril therapy inhibited CSF ACE activity and improved BP, but did not influence CSF Aβ1–42. While larger trials are needed to confirm our CSF Aβ results, it is possible that prior research reporting benefits of ACE-I during midlife may be attributed to alternative mechanisms including improvements in cerebral blood flow or the prevention of Angiotensin II-mediated inhibition of acetylcholine.
doi:10.3233/JAD-2012-120763
PMCID: PMC3593582  PMID: 22776970
Alzheimer’s disease; Hypertension; Blood Pressure; Clinical Trial; Vascular Risk; Cognition; Angiotensin Converting Enzyme; Antihypertensive; Arterial Function; Prevention
12.  Autonomic neuropathy predisposes to rosiglitazone-induced vascular leakage in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised, controlled trial on thiazolidinedione-induced vascular leakage 
Diabetologia  2010;53(9):1856-1866.
Aims/hypothesis
The mechanism of fluid-related complications caused by thiazolidinedione derivatives is unclear. One potential mechanism is thiazolidinedione-induced arterial vasodilatation, which results in vascular leakage and a fall in blood pressure, normally counterbalanced by sympathetic activation and subsequent renal fluid retention. We hypothesised that thiazolidinedione-induced vascular leakage will be particularly prominent in patients with autonomic neuropathy.
Methods
We conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel study in 40 patients with type 2 diabetes on insulin treatment recruited from a university medical centre. The randomisation was performed by a central office using a randomisation schedule. Both treatment groups, placebo (n = 21) and rosiglitazone (n = 19), were stratified for sex and level of autonomic neuropathy as assessed by Ewing score (<2.5 or ≥2.5). We investigated the effects of 16 weeks of treatment with rosiglitazone 4 mg twice daily on vascular leakage (transcapillary escape rate of albumin, TERalb), body weight, extracellular volume and plasma volume.
Results
Thirty-nine patients were included in the analysis. In patients with high Ewing scores (n = 16), rosiglitazone increased TERalb significantly (ΔTERalb: rosiglitazone +2.43 ± 0.45%/h, placebo −0.11 ± 0.15%/h, p = 0.002), while rosiglitazone had no effect in the patients with low Ewing scores (n = 23). Rosiglitazone-induced increases in TERalb and Ewing score at baseline were correlated (r = 0.65, p = 0.02). There was no correlation between Ewing score and rosiglitazone-induced changes in fluid variables. One subject was withdrawn from the study because of atrial fibrillation.
Conclusions/interpretation
Rosiglitazone may increase vascular leakage in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes with autonomic neuropathy. Autonomic neuropathy did not exaggerate rosiglitazone-induced fluid retention. Therefore, autonomic neuropathy should be considered as a risk factor for thiazolidinedione-induced oedema, not for thiazolidinedione-induced fluid retention.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00422955
Funding
GlaxoSmithKline
doi:10.1007/s00125-010-1787-8
PMCID: PMC2910895  PMID: 20499046
Autonomic neuropathy; Clinical science; Diabetes mellitus; Human; Oedema; Oral pharmacological agents; Randomised controlled trial; Risk factors; Thiazolidinediones
13.  Effects of oral fixed-dose combinations of telmisartan plus ramipril and losartan plus ramipril in hypertension: A multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, phase iii trial in adult indian patients 
Background:
A new oral fixed-dose combination (FDC) of telmisartan plus ramipril is being introduced in India for the treatment of patients with stage 2 hypertension.
Objective:
The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and tolerability of an oral FDC of telmisartan plus ramipril with those of an oral FDC of losartan plus ramipril in adult Indian patients with stage 2 hypertension.
Methods:
This multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, Phase III study was conducted at 5 centers in India. Indian patients aged 18 to 65 years with uncomplicated stage 2 essential hypertension (systolic/diastolic blood pressure [SBP/DBP], >160/>100 mm Hg) were enrolled. After a 2-week placebo run-in period, patients were randomly assigned to receive telmisartan 40 mg plus ramipril 5 mg (T + R) or losartan 50 mg plus ramipril 5 mg (L + R), PO (tablet) QD (before the morning meal) for 8 weeks. Supine blood pressure (BP) was measured at 0 (baseline) and 8 weeks of treatment. The primary end point was the mean reduction from baseline in BP. Responders were classified as patients who had a DBP <90 mm Hg at the end of 8 weeks of therapy. Tolerability was assessed using spontaneous reports of adverse events (AEs) during the follow-up visits and laboratory analyses performed at week 8.
Results:
A total of 289 patients were enrolled (155 men, 134 women; mean age, 50.74 years). Of these, 8 patients in the T + R group and 7 in the L + R group were lost to follow-up and considered withdrawals. At the end of week 8, the mean percentage reduction in SBP was significantly greater in the T + R group compared with that in the L + R group (24.1% vs 19.4%; P < 0.05). The mean percentage reduction in DBP was also significantly greater in the T + R group compared with that in the L + R group (17.3% vs 12.5%; P < 0.05). The response rates in the T + R and L + R groups were statistically similar (79.1% vs 68.7%). The most common AEs in the T + R and L + R groups were cough (9 [6.1%] and 11 [7.8%] patients, respectively) and headache (7 [4.7%] and 8 [5.7%] patients, respectively).
Conclusions:
The results in this study in Indian patients with stage 2 essential hypertension suggest that the FDC of T + R controlled BP more effectively compared with the FDC of L + R over 8 weeks. The response rates were similar between the 2 groups. Both treatments were well tolerated.
doi:10.1016/j.curtheres.2005.12.007
PMCID: PMC3966013  PMID: 24678079
telmisartan; ramipril; losartan; stage 2 hypertension
14.  Reappraisal of role of angiotensin receptor blockers in cardiovascular protection 
Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have shown cardioprotective and renoprotective properties. These agents are recommended as first-line therapy for the treatment of hypertension and the reduction of cardiovascular risk. Early studies pointed to the cardioprotective and renoprotective effects of ARBs in high-risk patients. The ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET) established the clinical equivalence of the cardioprotective and renoprotective effects of telmisartan and ramipril, but did not find an added benefit of the combination over ramipril alone. Similar findings were observed in the Telmisartan Randomized AssessmeNt Study in aCE INtolerant subjects with cardiovascular Disease (TRANSCEND) trial conducted in ACEI-intolerant patients. In ONTARGET, telmisartan had a better tolerability profile with similar renoprotective properties compared with ramipril, suggesting a potential clinical benefit over ramipril. The recently completed Olmesartan Reducing Incidence of Endstage Renal Disease in Diabetic Nephropathy Trial (ORIENT) and Olmesartan and Calcium Antagonists Randomized (OSCAR) studies will further define the role of ARBs in cardioprotection and renoprotection for high-risk patients.
doi:10.2147/VHRM.S15787
PMCID: PMC3104608  PMID: 21633521
angiotensin receptor blockers; hypertension; outcomes; clinical trials
15.  Angiotensin –Converting Enzyme Inhibition or Mineralocorticoid Receptor Blockade Do Not Affect Incidence of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery 
Critical care medicine  2012;40(10):2805-2812.
Objective
This study tested the hypothesis that interruption of the renin-angiotensin system with either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist will decrease the incidence of atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery.
Design
Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study.
Setting
University affiliated hospitals.
Patients
Four-hundred and forty-five adult patients in normal sinus rhythm undergoing elective cardiac surgery.
Interventions
One week to four days prior to surgery, patients were randomized to treatment with placebo, ramipril (2.5 mg the first three days followed by 5mg/day, with the dose reduced to 2.5mg/d on the first postoperative day only), or spironolactone (25 mg/day).
Measurements
The primary endpoint was the occurrence of electrocardiographically confirmed postoperative atrial fibrillation. Secondary endpoints included acute renal failure, hyperkalemia, the incidence of hypotension, length of hospital stay, stroke, and death.
Main Results
The incidence of atrial fibrillation was 27.2% in the placebo group, 27.8% in the ramipril group, and 25.9% in the spironolactone group (P=0.95). Patients in the ramipril (0.7%) or spironolactone (0.7%) group were less likely to develop acute renal failure than those randomized to placebo (5.4%, P=0.006). Patients in the placebo group tended to be hospitalized longer than those in the ramipril or spironolactone group (6.8±8.2 days versus 5.7±3.2 and 5.8±3.4 days, respectively, P=0.08 for the comparison of placebo versus the active treatment groups using log-rank test). Compared to patients in the placebo group, patients in the spironolactone group were extubated sooner after surgery (576.4±761.5 minutes versus 1091.3±3067.3 minutes, P=0.04).
Conclusions
Neither angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition nor mineralocorticoid receptor blockade decreased the primary outcome of postoperative atrial fibrillation. Treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist was associated with decreased acute renal failure. Spironolactone use was also associated with a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation after surgery.
doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31825b8be2
PMCID: PMC3588582  PMID: 22824930
angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; aldosterone; atrial fibrillation; renal insufficiency; cardiac surgery
16.  Short-Term Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Combined with Insulin Sensitizers Rosiglitazone, Metformin, or Antioxidant α-Lipoic Acid in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus 
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics  2013;15(10):859-869.
Abstract
Background
Short-term continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes has been proved effective in improving metabolic control and β-cell function, thus inducing long-term drug-free remission. A randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate whether CSII in combination with rosiglitazone, metformin, or α-lipoic acid separately brings about extra benefits.
Patients and Methods
One hundred sixty patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes were randomized to one of four treatment groups: CSII alone, CSII in combination with rosiglitazone or metformin for 3 months, or CSII with α-lipoic acid intravenous infusion for 2 weeks. Duration of CSII treatment was identical in the four groups. Glucose and lipid profiles, homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) indices, acute insulin response (AIR), intramyocellular lipid (IMCL) level, and malondialdehyde level were compared before and after intervention.
Results
The near-normoglycemia rate at the third month in CSII alone and that in combination with rosiglitazone, metformin, or α-lipoic acid was 72.5%, 87.5%, 90%, and 75%, respectively (metformin group vs. CSII alone, P=0.045). The metformin group achieved euglycemia in a shorter time (2.6±1.3 vs. 3.7±1.8 days, P=0.020) with less daily insulin dosage and was more powerful in lowering total cholesterol, increasing AIR and HOMA β-cell function, whereas reduction of IMCL in the soleus was more obvious in the rosiglitazone group but not in the metformin group. The efficacy of combination with α-lipoic acid was similar to that of CSII alone.
Conclusions
Short-term CSII in combination with rosiglitazone or metformin is superior to CSII alone, yet the efficacy of the two differs in some way, whereas that with α-lipoic acid might not have an additive effect.
doi:10.1089/dia.2013.0013
PMCID: PMC3781121  PMID: 23991629
17.  A double-blind randomized study comparing the effects of continuing or not continuing rosiglitazone + metformin therapy when starting insulin therapy in people with Type 2 diabetes1 
Diabetic Medicine   2007;24(6):618-625.
Aims
To compare the efficacy and safety of either continuing or discontinuing rosiglitazone + metformin fixed-dose combination when starting insulin therapy in people with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on oral therapy.
Methods
In this 24-week double-blind study, 324 individuals with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on maximum dose rosiglitazone + metformin therapy were randomly assigned to twice-daily premix insulin therapy (target pre-breakfast and pre-evening meal glucose ≤ 6.5 mmol/l) in addition to either rosiglitazone + metformin (8/2000 mg) or placebo.
Results
Insulin dose at week 24 was significantly lower with rosiglitazone + metformin (33.5 ± 1.5 U/day, mean ± se) compared with placebo [59.0 ± 3.0 U/day; model-adjusted difference −26.6 (95% CI −37.7, −15,5) U/day, P < 0.001]. Despite this, there was greater improvement in glycaemic control [HbA1c rosiglitazone + metformin vs. placebo 6.8 ± 0.1 vs. 7.5 ± 0.1%; difference −0.7 (−0.8, −0.5)%, P < 0.001] and more individuals achieved glycaemic targets (HbA1c < 7.0% 70 vs. 34%, P < 0.001). The proportion of individuals reporting at least one hypoglycaemic event during the last 12 weeks of treatment was similar in the two groups (rosiglitazone + metformin vs. placebo 25 vs. 27%). People receiving rosiglitazone + metformin in addition to insulin reported greater treatment satisfaction than those receiving insulin alone. Both treatment regimens were well tolerated but more participants had oedema [12 (7%) vs. 4 (3%)] and there was more weight gain [3.7 vs. 2.6 kg; difference 1.1 (0.2, 2.1) kg, P = 0.02] with rosiglitazone + metformin.
Conclusions
Addition of insulin to rosiglitazone + metformin enabled more people to reach glycaemic targets with less insulin, and was generally well tolerated.
doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2007.02141.x
PMCID: PMC1974817  PMID: 17403121
insulin; metformin; randomized controlled trial; thiazolidinediones; Type 2 diabetes mellitus
18.  A Clinical Trial to Maintain Glycemic Control in Youth with Type 2 Diabetes 
The New England journal of medicine  2012;366(24):2247-2256.
BACKGROUND
Despite the increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes in youth, there are few data to guide treatment. We compared the efficacy of three treatment regimens to achieve durable glycemic control in children and adolescents with recent-onset type 2 diabetes.
METHODS
Eligible patients 10 to 17 years of age were treated with metformin (at a dose of 1000 mg twice daily) to attain a glycated hemoglobin level of less than 8% and were randomly assigned to continued treatment with metformin alone or to metformin combined with rosiglitazone (4 mg twice a day) or a lifestyle-intervention program focusing on weight loss through eating and activity behaviors. The primary outcome was loss of glycemic control, defined as a glycated hemoglobin level of at least 8% for 6 months or sustained metabolic decompensation requiring insulin.
RESULTS
Of the 699 randomly assigned participants (mean duration of diagnosed type 2 diabetes, 7.8 months), 319 (45.6%) reached the primary outcome over an average follow-up of 3.86 years. Rates of failure were 51.7% (120 of 232 participants), 38.6% (90 of 233), and 46.6% (109 of 234) for metformin alone, metformin plus rosiglitazone, and metformin plus lifestyle intervention, respectively. Metformin plus rosiglitazone was superior to metformin alone (P = 0.006); metformin plus lifestyle intervention was intermediate but not significantly different from metformin alone or metformin plus rosiglitazone. Prespecified analyses according to sex and race or ethnic group showed differences in sustained effectiveness, with metformin alone least effective in non-Hispanic black participants and metformin plus rosiglitazone most effective in girls. Serious adverse events were reported in 19.2% of participants.
CONCLUSIONS
Monotherapy with metformin was associated with durable glycemic control in approximately half of children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes. The addition of rosiglitazone, but not an intensive lifestyle intervention, was superior to metformin alone. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; TODAY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00081328.)
doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1109333
PMCID: PMC3478667  PMID: 22540912
19.  Rosiglitazone for Active Ulcerative Colitis 
Gastroenterology  2007;134(3):688-695.
Background
Thiazolidinedione ligands for the gamma subtype of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARγ), widely used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus, have been proposed as novel therapies for ulcerative colitis.
Methods
This multicenter randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial compared the efficacy of rosiglitazone (Avandia™) 4 mg orally twice daily versus placebo twice daily for 12 weeks in 105 patients with mild to moderately active UC. Disease activity was measured with the Mayo Score. The primary endpoint was clinical response (≥ 2 point reduction) at week 12. Clinical remission (Mayo Score ≤2), endoscopic remission, and quality of life were secondary outcomes.
Results
After 12 weeks of therapy, 23 patients (44%) treated with rosiglitazone and 12 patients (23%) treated with placebo achieved clinical response (p=0.04). Remission was achieved in 9 patients (17%) treated with rosiglitazone and 1 patient (2%) treated with placebo (p=0.01). Endoscopic remission was uncommon in either treatment arm (8% rosiglitazone vs. 2% placebo, p=0.34). Clinical improvement was evident as early as 4 weeks (p=0.049). Quality of life was significantly improved at week 8 (p=0.01) but not at week 4 (p=0.48) or 12 (p=0.14). Serious adverse events were rare.
Conclusions
Rosiglitazone was efficacious in the treatment of mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis.
doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2007.12.012
PMCID: PMC2276587  PMID: 18325386
20.  A pilot study on the effect of telmisartan & ramipril on 24 h blood pressure profile & dipping pattern in type 1 diabetes patients with nephropathy 
Background & objectives:
Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been used to normalize the blood pressure and the dipping pattern in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and nephropathy. However, there are no data on the effect of the dual blockade on the dipping pattern in these subjects. We therefore, carried out this study to evaluate the effect of administrating an ACEI followed by ARB in the optimum doses in T1DM patients with nephropathy on 24 h blood pressure (BP) profile and nocturnal dipping pattern.
Methods:
An open label interventional pilot study was done during a one year period involving 30 consecutive patients who were treated with telmisartan 80 mg (0800-1000 h) for eight weeks followed by addition of ramipril 10 mg (1200-1400 h) for the next eight weeks. Ambulatory BP, dipping pattern and albumin excretion rate were studied after each phase. Twenty patients were hypertensive and 10 patients had macro- and 20 patients had microalbuminuria.
Results:
Telmisartan produced a fall in the clinic BP by 4/1.3 mm Hg (P<0.05 and P<0.362, respectively), 2/1.9 mm Hg in the mean 24 h BP, 1.4/1.1 mm Hg in the day BP and 3.7/3 mm Hg in the trough BP. Addition of ramipril to telmisartan produced a further reduction of 6.3/5.9 mm Hg in the clinic BP (P<0.001 for both), 4.3/4.2 mm Hg in the mean 24 h BP (P<0.01 and P<0.0001, respectively), 5.8/3.9 mm Hg in the day BP (P<0.01 for both), 4.2/2.5 mm Hg in the trough BP, with a reduction of clinic SBP and DBP of 10.3/7.2 mm Hg from the baseline. Telmisartan restored normal systolic dipping pattern in 33.3 per cent of the nondippers (P<0.01) but addition of ramipril was not complimentary. Hyperkalamia (>5.5 mmol/l) was observed only in 2 patients towards the end of the study.
Interpretation & conclusions:
The dual blockade with telmisartan and ramipril had complimentary effect on lowering of the BP, however, similar beneficial effect on the nocturnal dipping was not observed. Further studies with large number of subjects with longer duration of follow-up are required to validate these observations.
doi:10.4103/0971-5916.90991
PMCID: PMC3249964  PMID: 22199105
Albuminuria; ambulatory BP; hypertension; type 1 diabetes
21.  Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition on C-reactive protein levels: The Ramipril C-Reactive pRotein Randomized evaluation (4R) trial results 
The Canadian Journal of Cardiology  2009;25(7):e236-e240.
BACKGROUND:
Plasma levels of the inflammatory biomarker C-reactive protein (CRP) predict cardiovascular risk and may represent a target for treating and/or monitoring risk-reduction strategies. The effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on CRP levels has not been adequately studied.
METHODS:
A total of 264 men and women, with CRP levels of 2 mg/L or greater and no history of cardiovascular disease, were enrolled in a 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg/day of ramipril (n=132) or placebo (n=132) for 12 weeks. The main outcome measure was the change in CRP levels from baseline to 12 weeks in the ramipril- versus placebo-treated patients.
RESULTS:
The mean (± SD) age was 53±9 years (60% men). Baseline demographics were similar between the volunteers allocated to receive either placebo or ramipril. The geometric mean CRP at baseline was 3.84 mg/L (95% CI 3.62 mg/L to 4.06 mg/L). The percentage change in geometric mean CRP values over 12 weeks was −13.2% (95% CI −22.3% to −3.2%) in the placebo group compared with −21.1% (95% CI −29.9% to −11.2%) in the ramipril group (P nonsignificant), indicating no significant reduction in the primary end point of the trial.
CONCLUSIONS:
A 12-week ramipril treatment protocol for healthy middle-aged volunteers did not lower CRP levels compared with placebo. However, because of the inherent variability of CRP levels, a much larger study is required to exclude a small treatment effect.
PMCID: PMC2723033  PMID: 19584979
ACE inhibitors; CRP; Risk factors
22.  First-line antihypertensive treatment in patients with pre-diabetes: Rationale, design and baseline results of the ADaPT investigation 
Background
Recent clinical trials reported conflicting results on the reduction of new-onset diabetes using RAS blocking agents. Therefore the role of these agents in preventing diabetes is still not well defined. Ramipril is an ACE inhibitor (ACEi), that has been shown to reduce cardiovascular events in high risk patients and post-hoc analyses of the HOPE trial have provided evidence for its beneficial action in the prevention of diabetes.
Methods
The ADaPT investigation ("ACE inhibitor-based versus diuretic-based antihypertensive primary treatment in patients with pre-diabetes") is a 4-year open, prospective, parallel group phase IV study. It compares an antihypertensive treatment regimen based on ramipril versus a treatment based on diuretics or betablockers. The primary evaluation criterion is the first manifestation of type 2 diabetes. The study is conducted in primary care to allow the broadest possible application of its results. The present article provides an outline of the rationale, the design and baseline characteristics of AdaPT and compares these to previous studies including ASCOT-BLPA, VALUE and DREAM.
Results
Until March 2006 a total of 2,015 patients in 150 general practices (general physicians and internists) throughout Germany were enrolled. The average age of patients enrolled was 67.1 ± 10.3 years, with 47% being male and a BMI of 29.9 ± 5.0 kg/m2. Dyslipidemia was present in 56.5%. 37.8% reported a family history of diabetes, 57.8% were previously diagnosed with hypertension (usually long standing). The HbA1c value at baseline was 5.6 %. Compared to the DREAM study patients were older, had more frequently hypertension and patients with cardiovascular disease were not excluded.
Conclusion
Comparing the ADaPT design and baseline data to previous randomized controlled trial it can be acknowledged that AdaPT included patients with a high risk for diabetes development. Results are expected to be available in 2010. Data will be highly valuable for clinical practice due to the observational study design.
doi:10.1186/1475-2840-7-22
PMCID: PMC2529270  PMID: 18652658
23.  Use of ramipril in preventing stroke: double blind randomised trial 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2002;324(7339):699.
Objective
To determine the effect of the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril on the secondary prevention of stroke.
Design
Randomised controlled trial with 2×2 factorial design.
Setting
267 hospitals in 19 countries.
Participants
9297 patients with vascular disease or diabetes plus an additional risk factor, followed for 4.5 years as part of the HOPE study.
Outcome measures
Stroke (confirmed by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging when available), transient ischaemic attack, and cognitive function. Blood pressure was recorded at entry to the study, after 2 years, and at the end of the study.
Results
Reduction in blood pressure was modest (3.8 mm Hg systolic and 2.8 mm Hg diastolic). The relative risk of any stroke was reduced by 32% (156 v 226) in the ramipril group compared with the placebo group, and the relative risk of fatal stroke was reduced by 61% (17 v 44). Benefits were consistent across baseline blood pressures, drugs used, and subgroups defined by the presence or absence of previous stroke, coronary artery disease, peripheral arterial disease, diabetes, or hypertension. Significantly fewer patients on ramipril had cognitive or functional impairment.
Conclusion
Ramipril reduces the incidence of stroke in patients at high risk, despite a modest reduction in blood pressure.
What is already known on this topicTreatment with aspirin and lowering blood pressure reduce the incidence of strokeWhat this study addsRamipril, an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, reduces strokes in patients at high risk whose blood pressure is not elevated, despite only a modest lowering of blood pressureThe benefits are observed even when patients receive aspirin and other blood pressure lowering treatments
PMCID: PMC99052  PMID: 11909785
24.  Effect of Rosiglitazone and Metformin on Insulin Resistance in Patients Infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus Receiving Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy Containing Protease Inhibitor: Randomized Prospective Controlled Clinical Trial 
Croatian medical journal  2007;48(6):791-799.
Aim
To evaluate and compare effects of 48-week treatment with rosiglitazone and metformin on insulin resistance in patients infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) receiving highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), containing a protease inhibitor.
Methods
Randomized prospective controlled clinical trial enrolled 90 male patients infected with HIV and having impaired glucose tolerance and insulin resistance (fasting insulin concentration >20 mIU/L). The patients were randomly assigned into three groups (each 30 patients); the first group receiving 4 mg rosiglitazone once a day, the second group receiving 500 mg metformin two times a day, and the third group serving as control without hypoglycemic treatment. The primary efficacy parameters were fasting plasma glucose and insulin levels compared between baseline and week. Data on insulin resistance and beta cell function were analyzed by the Homeostasis Model Assessment (HOMA).
Results
After 48 weeks of treatment, the fasting insulin concentration (±standard deviation) in rosiglitazone group significantly declined from 39.0 ± 3.35 to 19.7 ± 3.99 mIU/L (P<0.001; 49% decrease) and in metformin group from 40.3 ± 2.29 to 29.2 ± 2.82 mIU/L (P<0.001; 27% decrease). HOMA indicated that rosiglitazone significantly reduced insulin resistance from 11.3 ± 1.03 to 4.0 ± 0.95 (P<0.001), compared with metformin which reduced it from 11.9 ± 0.73 to 5.7 ± 0.62 (P<0.001). Insulin resistance was significantly lower in the rosiglitazone group after 48 weeks (P<0.001). Metformin significantly improved beta cell function (from 257.3 ± 21.91 to 707.4 ± 207.32; P<0.001), as did rosiglitazone (from 261.3 ± 27.98 to 403.3 ± 162.50; P<0.001), but the improvement in the metformin group was significantly better (P<0.001). However, metformin was more efficient in improving beta cell function (from 257.3 ± 21.91 to 707.4 ± 207.32) than rosiglitazone (from 261.3 ± 27.98 to 403.3 ± 162.50) .
Conclusions
Both rosiglitazone and metformin were effective and well tolerated in HIV patients, treated with protease inhibitor-containing HAART. Rosiglitazone significantly more reduced insulin resistance, while beta cell function was significantly better in patients on metformin. Both drugs may be considered as an appropriate therapy, with rosiglitazone being a better alternative in treating insulin resistance in this patient population.
ClinicalTrials.gov trial registration number: NCT00483392.
doi:10.3325/cmj.2007.6.791
PMCID: PMC2213797  PMID: 18074413
25.  Effect of rosiglitazone on progression of atherosclerosis: insights using 3D carotid cardiovascular magnetic resonance 
Background
There is recent evidence suggesting that rosiglitazone increases death from cardiovascular causes. We investigated the direct effect of this drug on atheroma using 3D carotid cardiovascular magnetic resonance.
Results
A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study was performed to evaluate the effect of rosiglitazone treatment on carotid atherosclerosis in subjects with type 2 diabetes and coexisting vascular disease or hypertension. The primary endpoint of the study was the change from baseline to 52 weeks of carotid arterial wall volume, reflecting plaque burden, as measured by carotid cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Rosiglitazone or placebo was allocated to 28 and 29 patients respectively. Patients were managed to have equivalent glycemic control over the study period, but in fact the rosiglitazone group lowered their HbA1c by 0.88% relative to placebo (P < 0.001). Most patients received a statin or fibrate as lipid control medication (rosiglitazone 78%, controls 83%). Data are presented as mean ± SD. At baseline, the carotid arterial wall volume in the placebo group was 1146 ± 550 mm3 and in the rosiglitazone group was 1354 ± 532 mm3. After 52 weeks, the respective volumes were 1134 ± 523 mm3 and 1348 ± 531 mm3. These changes (-12.1 mm3 and -5.7 mm3 in the placebo and rosiglitazone groups, respectively) were not statistically significant between groups (P = 0.57).
Conclusion
Treatment with rosiglitazone over 1 year had no effect on progression of carotid atheroma in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus compared to placebo.
doi:10.1186/1532-429X-11-24
PMCID: PMC2726137  PMID: 19635160

Results 1-25 (1415001)