4.3 Article

Pioglitazone increases circulating adiponectin levels and subsequently reduces TNF-α levels in Type 2 diabetic patients:: a randomized study

期刊

DIABETIC MEDICINE
卷 23, 期 3, 页码 253-257

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006.01776.x

关键词

adiponectin; alpha-glucosidase inhibitor; thiazolidinedione; tumour necrosis factor-alpha; Type 2 diabetes mellitus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Adipocytokines are involved in the development of insulin resistance and endothelial dysfunction in diabetic patients. However, the relationship between these factors remains unclear. We observed a chronological change in circulating adipocytokines and blood pressure levels with administration of oral hypoglycaemic agents in Type 2 diabetic (T2DM) subjects. Methods Thirty poorly controlled T2DM subjects (aged 60.1 +/- 1.5 years, 11 males and 19 females) were randomized into two groups: voglibose (initial dose 0.6 mg/day, increased to 0.9 mg/day) and pioglitazone (initial dose 15 mg/day, increased to 30 mg/day). Results Both treatment groups showed a similar improvement in glycaemic control. In pioglitazone-treated patients, circulating adiponectin levels were significantly increased from 4 weeks after the start of treatment, and until the end of the study at 12 weeks. Plasma tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) levels were significantly decreased only at 12 weeks. In contrast, no significant changes in plasma adiponectin or TNF-alpha levels were observed in voglibose-treated patients. Plasma PAI-1 and leptin levels were not significantly changed at 12 weeks in either treatment group. Pioglitazone significantly decreased systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels at 12 weeks, but voglibose had no effect. Conclusion In summary, pioglitazone caused an immediate increase in circulating adiponectin levels, followed by a reduction of TNF-alpha. The observed increase in circulating adiponectin could be related to decreases in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

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

4.3
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