4.5 Review

Pharmacokinetics and clinical evaluation of the alogliptin plus pioglitazone combination for type 2 diabetes

期刊

EXPERT OPINION ON DRUG METABOLISM & TOXICOLOGY
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 1005-1020

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1517/17425255.2015.1041499

关键词

alogliptin; combined therapy; fixed-dose combination; pharmacokinetics; pioglitazone; type 2 diabetes mellitus

资金

  1. AstraZeneca/Bristol-Myers Squibb
  2. Boehringer Ingelheim
  3. Eli Lilly
  4. GlaxoSmithKline
  5. Janssen
  6. Merck Sharp Dohme
  7. Novartis
  8. NovoNordisk
  9. Sanofi
  10. Takeda

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Type 2 diabetes is a complex disease with multiple defects, which generally requires a combination of several pharmacological approaches to reach glucose control targets. A unique fixed-dose combination combines a thiazolidinedione (pioglitazone) and a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (alogliptin). Area covered: An extensive literature search was performed to analyze the pharmacokinetics of pioglitazone and alogliptin when used separately and in combination as well as to summarize clinical and toxicological considerations about the combined therapy. Expert opinion: Pioglitazone, a potent insulin sensitizer, and alogliptin, an incretin-based agent that potentiates post-meal insulin secretion and reduces glucagon secretion, have complementary mechanisms of action. The clinical efficacy of a combined therapy is superior to any single therapy in patients treated with diet or with metformin (with or without sulphonylurea). These two drugs can be administered once daily, with or without a meal. No clinically relevant pharmacokinetic interactions between the two agents have been described and the fixed-dose combination has shown bioequivalence with alogliptin and pioglitazone given separately. Combining alogliptin with pioglitazone does not alter the safety profile of each compound. Weight gain observed with pioglitazone may be limited with the addition of alogliptin. The concern of an increased risk of heart failure remains to be better investigated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据