Favorable effect of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, dapagliflozin, on non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease compared with pioglitazone

Aims/Introduction Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, as well as thiazolidines, suppress nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD); however, few comparative studies have been reported. Dapagliflozin has shown non‐inferiority compared with pioglitazone for glycemic control, and superiority rega...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of Cutaneous Immunology and Allergy 2021-07, Vol.12 (7), p.1272-1277
Hauptverfasser: Cho, Kyu Yong, Nakamura, Akinobu, Omori, Kazuno, Takase, Takahiro, Miya, Aika, Yamamoto, Kohei, Nomoto, Hiroshi, Kameda, Hiraku, Taneda, Shinji, Kurihara, Yoshio, Aoki, Shin, Atsumi, Tatsuya, Miyoshi, Hideaki
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Aims/Introduction Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, as well as thiazolidines, suppress nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD); however, few comparative studies have been reported. Dapagliflozin has shown non‐inferiority compared with pioglitazone for glycemic control, and superiority regarding weight reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes. We carried out a secondary analysis for the favorable effects of sodium–glucose cotransporter inhibitors for NAFLD. Materials and Methods In this multicenter, open‐label, prospective, randomized, parallel‐group comparison trial, patients taking pioglitazone for ≥12 weeks were randomly switched to dapagliflozin or continued pioglitazone for a further 24 weeks. The fatty liver index (FLI), consisting of body mass index, triglycerides, waist circumference and γ‐glutamyl transpeptidase, was used for the evaluation of NAFLD. Results A total of 53 participants with NAFLD (27 dapagliflozin; 26 pioglitazone) were included in this analysis. FLI decreased significantly in the dapagliflozin group (48.7 ± 23.4 to 42.1 ± 23.9) compared with the pioglitazone group (49.0 ± 26.1 to 51.1 ± 25.8; P 
ISSN:2040-1116
2040-1124
DOI:10.1111/jdi.13457