Lobeglitazone is a newer oral hypoglycemic agent that has been tested in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aim to conduct a narrative review to find out the therapeutic benefits of lobeglitazone in patients with T2DM. We scientifically searched the electronic database of PubMed from inception until September 12, 2023, using Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) keywords. Additionally, we searched for pre-clinical trials related to lobeglitazone. We retrieved all available results of phase 1 to phase 3 studies of lobeglitazone in T2DM. Subsequently, we reviewed the results narratively. Three double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies and a phase 3 trial of lobeglitazone showed that 0.5 mg daily dose exhibits effective therapeutic activity in glycemic, lipid, and hepatic control, and is also used as a secondary treatment in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Lobeglitazone exhibits as much antidiabetic activity as other thiazolidinediones such as pioglitazone and rosiglitazone. Side effects of lobeglitazone included peripheral edema, weight gain, and bone mineral density, which did not require hospitalization for these effects. This article highlights the pharmacological, pre-clinical, clinical, and safety pharmacology of novel thiazolidinedione lobeglitazone.

No meta-analysis has analyzed the safety and efficacy of rivoglitazone in type-2 diabetes (T2DM). We undertook this meta-analysis to address this knowledge gap. Electronic databases were searched for RCTs involving T2DM patients receiving rivoglitazone in the intervention arm, and placebo/active comparator in the control arm. The primary outcome was to evaluate changes in HbA1c. Secondary outcomes were to evaluate alterations in glucose, lipids, and adverse events. From initially screened 24 articles, data from 3 RCTs (3591 patients) that fulfilled all criteria was analzsed. HbA1c was significantly lower with standard-dose (1 mg/d) [MD-0.86% (95%CI:-1.11--0.61); P < 0.01; I2 = 87%] and high-dose (1.5-2 mg/d) [MD-0.97%(95%CI:-1.03--0.90); P < 0.01; I2 = 19%] rivoglitazone compared to placebo. When compared to pioglitazone (30-45 mg/d), HbA1c lowering was comparable with standard-dose [MD 0.05%(95%CI:-0.01 - 0.11); P = 0.08; I2 = 11%], but superior with high-dose [MD -0.11%(95%CI:-0.18- -0.04); P < 0.01; I2 = 0%] rivoglitazone. Triglycerides were significantly lower with standard-dose [MD-17.95 mg/dl (95%CI:-34.23--1.66); P = 0.03; I2 = 0%] and high-dose [MD-40.41 mg/dl (95%CI:-72.90- -7.93);P = 0.01;I2 = 71%] rivoglitazone compared to placebo. Adiponectin significantly improved with standard-dose [MD 7.94 ng/ml (95%CI: 5.48-10.39); P < 0.01;I2 = 98%] and high-dose [MD 13.82 ng/ml (95%CI: 8.16-19.48); P < 0.01; I2 = 100%] rivoglitazone compared to placebo. hsCRP was significantly lower with standard-dose [MD -1.00 mg/L (95% CI: -1.20 - -0.80); P < 0.01; I2 = 6%] and high-dose [MD -1.50 mg/L (95%CI:-1.59- -1.40); P < 0.01; I2 = 0%] rivoglitazone compared to placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events with standard-dose [Risk ratio (RR) 1.16 (95%CI: 0.84 -1.60); P = 0.38; I2 = 0%] and high-dose [RR1.34 (95%CI: 0.99-1.83); P = 0.06; I2 = 0%] rivoglitazone was comparable to placebo. Severe adverse events with standard-dose [RR1.88 (95%CI: 0.69-5.12);P = 0.22;I2 = 0%] and high-dose [RR 1.27 (95% CI: 0.45 - 3.59); P = 0.68; I2 = 0%] rivoglitazone was comparable to placebo. This meta-analysis highlights the good glycaemic efficacy and safety of both standard and high-dose rivoglitazone, and appears to be better than lobeglitazone in T2DM.

OBJECTIVE: Compare the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin, dapagliflozin, and lobeglitazone in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, despite metformin and sulfonylurea therapy.
METHODS: The study randomized patients into three groups, receiving sitagliptin 100 mg, dapagliflozin 10 mg, or lobeglitazone 0.5 mg daily (n = 26 each) and monitored changes in biochemical parameters and body composition for 24 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was changes in HbA1c at 24 months.
RESULTS: The mean change in HbA1c in the sitagliptin, dapagliflozin, and lobeglitazone groups was -0.81 ± 0.21%, -1.05 ± 0.70%, and -1.08 ± 0.98%, after 24 months. Dapagliflozin treatment significantly lowered systolic blood pressure by 5.5 mmHg and alanine aminotransferase levels. Dapagliflozin and lobeglitazone treatment significantly reduced proteinuria and insulin resistance. Dapagliflozin decreased whole body fat percentage by 1.2%, whereas sitagliptin and lobeglitazone increased it by 1.1% and 1.8%, respectively. Whole body muscle percentage increased in the dapagliflozin group and decreased in the lobeglitazone group. The safety profiles of the three treatments were comparable.
CONCLUSIONS: All three drugs displayed good glucose-lowering efficacy and comparable safety profiles. However, dapagliflozin therapy produced favorable changes in body composition. Dapagliflozin may be a suitable adjunct therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes seeking to improve their body composition.

Thiazolidinedione, an insulin sensitizer, has beneficial effects on glucose metabolism; however, there are concerns regarding weight gain and heart failure. Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors can reduce body weight, increase diuresis, and play a protective role in heart failure. We examined the complementary effects of dapagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, and lobeglitazone, a thiazolidinedione, in high-fat diet (HFD)-induced obese mice. We treated HFD-induced obese mice with vehicle, dapagliflozin, lobeglitazone, and their combination for 12 weeks. Oral glucose tolerance and insulin tolerance tests were performed after 12-week treatment, and body composition was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry before and after treatment. We analyzed oxygen consumption rate (OCR) using 3T3-L1 cells after treatment of β-hydroxybutyrate and/or lobeglitazone. Treatment with a combination of dapagliflozin and lobeglitazone resulted in a significant decrease in postprandial hyperglycemia compared with dapagliflozin monotherapy, but not compared with lobeglitazone monotherapy. The addition of dapagliflozin to lobeglitazone treatment did not attenuate weight gain compared with lobeglitazone monotherapy in this study. However, this combination prevented the increase of organ weight of liver and heart, and OCR in 3T3-L1 cells was increased after treatment with a combination of β-hydroxybutyrate and lobeglitazone compared to lobeglitazone monotherapy. We confirmed the beneficial effect of lobeglitazone on glucose metabolism; however, we did not find any beneficial effect of dapagliflozin on body weight in HFD-induced obese mice. However, the protective effects of dapagliflozin and lobeglitazone combined therapy on the liver, heart, energy consumption, and β-cell senescence are worth investigating in clinical trials.

Ischemic stroke patients with diabetes are at high risk for recurrent stroke and cardiovascular complications. Pioglitazone, a type of thiazolidinedione, has been shown to reduce cardiovascular complications in patients with ischemic stroke and type 2 diabetes (T2D) or insulin resistance. Lobeglitazone is a novel thiazolidinedione agent that improves insulin resistance and has similar glycemic efficacy to pioglitazone. Using population-based health claims data, we evaluated whether lobeglitazone has secondary cardiovascular preventive effects in patients with ischemic stroke and T2D.
This study has a nested case-control design. From nationwide health claims data in Korea, we identified patients with T2D admitted for acute ischemic stroke in 2014-2018. Cases were defined who suffered the primary outcome (a composite of recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction, and all-cause death) before December 2020. Three controls were selected by incidence density sampling for each case from those who were at risk at the time of their case occurrence with exact matching on sex, age, the presence of comorbidities, and medications. As a safety outcome, we also evaluated the risk of heart failure (HF) according to the use of lobeglitazone.
From the cohort of 70,897 T2D patients with acute ischemic stroke, 20,869 cases and 62,607 controls were selected. In the multivariable conditional logistic regression, treatment with lobeglitazone (adjusted OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.61-0.90; p = 0.002) and pioglitazone (adjusted OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.64-0.78; p < 0.001) were significantly associated with a lower risk for the primary outcome. In a safety outcome analysis for HF, treatment with lobeglitazone did not increase the risk of HF (adjusted OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.66-1.22; p = 0.492).
In T2D patients with ischemic stroke, lobeglitazone reduced the risk of cardiovascular complications similar to that of pioglitazone without an increased risk of HF. There is a need for further studies on the cardioprotective role of lobeglitazone, a novel thiazolidinedione.

OBJECTIVE: Lobeglitazone (LGZ), a newly researched thiazolidinedione (TZD) thought to have lesser side effects compared with pioglitazone (PGZ), has been recently approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in India. We aim to conduct an updated systematic review of LGZ to critically appraise its efficacy and safety in the context of PGZ.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out in the electronic database of PubMed until Jan 15, 2023, using specific keywords and MeSH terms. All studies which evaluated LGZ in people with T2D were retrieved and data were synthesized with regard to its efficacy and safety. A comparative critical appraisal was additionally made in the context of PGZ in T2D.
RESULTS: Four randomized controlled, one prospective observational, and two real-world studies have evaluated the safety and efficacy of LGZ against placebo or active comparators either as monotherapy or in combination therapy. HbA1c reduction with LGZ 0.5 mg was superior to the placebo but similar to PGZ 15 mg and sitagliptin (SITA) 100 mg. Weight gain with LGZ was significantly higher compared to placebo and SITA but similar to PGZ. Edema was more frequently observed with LGZ compared to placebo, PGZ, and SITA.
CONCLUSIONS: No substantial evidence is yet available that suggests LGZ could be a better alternative to PGZ both in the context of glycemic or extra-glycemic effects. At least in the short-term, adverse events of LGZ are indifferent from PGZ. More data is additionally needed to claim any advantage of LGZ over PGZ.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lobeglitazone as compared to the standard of care (SOC) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
METHODS: Databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was the comparison of the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) level after 24 weeks. Pooled mean differences and odds ratios were calculated using random-effects models.
RESULTS: Of 267 studies that were screened, four were included. Treatment with adjunct lobeglitazone showed a reduction in the HbA1C level [mean difference: -0.23% (95% CI: -0.62 to 0.16); p = 0.24; i2: 87%; moderate GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and. Evaluation) of evidence], fasting blood glucose level [mean difference: -7.12 mg/dl (95% CI: -20.09 to 5.85); p = 0.28; i2: 87%; moderate GRADE of evidence], and lipid profile as compared to those following treatment with the SOC; however, the changes were not statistically significant. The risk of hypoglycemia was significantly lower [odds ratio: 0.24 (95% CI: 0.08 to 0.70); p < 0.05; i2: 0%; moderate GRADE of evidence] without any significant difference in the risk of drug-related adverse events [odds ratio: 1.59 (95% CI: 0.87 to 2.93); p = 0.13; i2: 0%; moderate GRADE of evidence] following treatment with lobeglitazone as compared to those following treatment with the SOC.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with adjunct lobeglitazone showed changes in the blood glycemic status and lipid profile similar to SOC in patients with T2DM, and the results were not statistically significant. Lobeglitazone was well tolerated; its safety profile was comparable to SOC.

OBJECTIVE: No meta-analysis has analysed the safety and efficacy of lobeglitazone in type-2 diabetes (T2DM). We undertook this meta-analysis to address this knowledge-gap.
METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for RCTs involving type-2 diabetes patients receiving lobeglitazone in intervention arm, and placebo/active comparator in control arm. Primary outcome was to evaluate changes in HbA1c. Secondary outcomes were to evaluate alterations in glucose, lipids and adverse events.
RESULTS: From initially screened 65 articles, data from 4 RCTs (828 patients) which fulfilled all criteria was analysed. Over 24 weeks, when compared to sitagliptin 100 mg/d and half maximal pioglitazone dose (15 mg/d), lobeglitazone 0.5 mg/day had comparable impact on HbA1c [MD 0.03% (95%CI: 0.11-0.17); P = 0.65; I2 = 0%], fasting glucose [MD 1.47 mg/dl (95%CI: 4.66-7.60); P = 0.64; I2 = 0%], triglycerides [MD-9.96 mg/dl (95%CI: 43.55-23.62); P = 0.56; I2 = 81%], LDL-cholesterol [MD0.74 mg/dl (95%CI: 4.60-6.09); P = 0.79; I2 = 0%] and HDL-cholesterol [MD1.55 mg/dl (95%CI: 3.72-6.82); P = 0.56]. Occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) [RR 1.07 (95% CI:0.78-1.47); P = 0.67; I2 = 0%] and severe AEs [RR 1.05(95%CI: 0.42-2.65); P = 0.91; I2 = 0%] were similar. Edema and weight gain were significantly higher with lobeglitazone compared to controls [RR 2.58 (95%CI: 1.08-6.17); P = 0.03; I2 = 0%]. Lobeglitazone 0.5 mg/d compared to half-maximal pioglitazone (15 mg/d), had similar edema and weight gain [RR 1.65 95% CI: 0.78-1.47)]. BMD percent changes at neck of femur was comparable in both groups [MD 0.07% (95%CI: 0.19-0.33); P = 0.60; I2 = 91%]. Low dose lobeglitazone (0.25 mg/d) was inferior to high dose lobeglitazone (0.5 mg/d) with regards to glycaemic efficacy with advantage of lower weight gain and edema.
CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence makes lobeglitazone unlikely to replace pioglitazone as the preferred thiazolidinedione in T2DM.

Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) have been associated with various safety concerns including weight gain, bladder cancer, and congestive heart failure (CHF). This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of lobeglitazone, a novel TZD in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in real practice.
In this non-interventional, multi-center, retrospective, and observational study conducted at 15 tertiary or secondary referral hospitals in Korea, a total of 2,228 patients with T2DM who received lobeglitazone 0.5 mg for more than 1 year were enrolled.
Overall adverse events (AEs) occurred in 381 patients (17.10%) including edema in 1.97% (n=44). Cerebrovascular and cardiovascular diseases were identified in 0.81% (n=18) and 0.81% (n=18), respectively. One case of CHF was reported as an AE. Edema occurred in 1.97% (n=44) of patients. Hypoglycemia occurred in 2.47% (n=55) of patients. Fracture occurred in 1.17% (n=26) of all patients. Lobeglitazone significantly decreased HbA1c level, resulting in a mean treatment difference of -1.05%± 1.35% (P<0.001), and decreased total cholesterol, triglyceride, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. However, it increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, regardless of statin administration. The patients who received lobeglitazone 0.5 mg showed an apparent reduction in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline during the first 6 months of treatment. The HbA1c levels remained stable between months 6 and 42.
Lobeglitazone has long-term safety profile, good glycemic-lowering effect and long-term durability of glycemic control in real-world clinical settings.

In this open-label, single-dose, parallel-group study, we compared the pharmacokinetic profile and safety of lobeglitazone, a thiazolidinedione acting as an agonist for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors, in patients with hepatic impairment (HI) and healthy matched controls for age, sex, and body weight. After a single oral dose of lobeglitazone (0.5 mg), the lobeglitazone (parent drug) and M7 (major metabolite) plasma concentrations and pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed and compared between the HI patient groups and healthy matched control groups. The geometric mean ratio (GMR; 90% confidence interval [CI]) for maximum concentration (Cmax ) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUCinf ) of lobeglitazone was 1.06 (0.90-1.24) and 1.07 (0.82-1.40), respectively, for mild HI vs control A. The GMR (90%CI) of Cmax and AUCinf was 0.70 (0.56-0.88) and 1.00 (0.72-1.37), respectively, for moderate HI vs control B. For M7, the GMR (90%CI) of Cmax and AUCinf was 1.09 (0.75-1.57) and 1.18 (0.71-1.97), respectively, for mild HI vs control A and 1.50 (0.95-2.38) and 1.79 (1.06-3.04), respectively, for moderate HI vs control B. Notable adverse events or tolerability issues were not observed. Lobeglitazone may be safely used in patients with mild or moderate HI without dose adjustment.