CLINICAL TRIALS PROFILE FOR PIOGLITAZONE HYDROCHLORIDE AND GLIMEPIRIDE

All Clinical Trials for PIOGLITAZONE HYDROCHLORIDE AND GLIMEPIRIDE

Trial ID	Title	Status	Sponsor	Phase	Start Date	Summary
NCT00225264 ↗	Efficacy Study of Pioglitazone and Glimepiride on the Rate of Progression of Atherosclerotic Disease.	Completed	Takeda	Phase 3	2003-10-01	The primary purpose of this study is to compare the effects of pioglitazone, once daily (QD), versus glimepiride on the amount of thickening of the carotid artery.
NCT00225277 ↗	Efficacy Study of Pioglitazone Compared to Glimepiride on Coronary Atherosclerotic Disease Progression in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus	Completed	Takeda	Phase 3	2003-07-01	The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of pioglitazone, once daily (QD), compared to glimepiride on atherosclerotic disease measured by intravascular ultrasound.
NCT00576784 ↗	Metabolic Effects of Pioglitazone in Type II Diabetic Patients Previously Treated With Insulin	Completed	IKFE Institute for Clinical Research and Development	Phase 4	2005-04-01	The goal of the study is to demonstrate whether a switch from insulin therapy to an oral therapy with pioglitazone/glimepiride will lead to a deterioration of glycemic control (increase in HbA1c by more than 0.5 %) within a 6 month observation period.
NCT00700856 ↗	Thiazolidinediones Or Sulphonylureas and Cardiovascular Accidents.Intervention Trial	Unknown status	Associazione Medici Diabetologi (AMD)	Phase 4	2008-09-01	Background: In patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin, two main therapeutic options are equally plausible: add-on a sulfonylurea (SU) or a thiazolidinedione (TZD). Since the two classes of drugs clearly differ in terms of mechanisms of action, side effects, economic costs and cardiovascular risk factors profile, a direct comparison of the two therapeutic strategies would be most appropriate. Aims: 1) To evaluate the effects of add-on pioglitazone as compared with add-on a SU on the incidence of cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetic patients inadequately controlled with metformin; 2) To compare the two treatments in terms of glycemic control, safety, and economic costs. Methods: multicentre, randomised, open label, parallel group trial of 48 months duration. Eligible participants (type 2 diabetic males and females, aged 50-75 years, BMI 20-45 Kg/m2, in treatment for the last two months with metformin 2 gr/die in monotherapy and with HbA1c > =7.0% and 8.0 % on two consecutive occasions will lead to addition of insulin to ongoing oral therapy. Primary efficacy outcome: a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, non fatal MI (including silent MI), non fatal stroke, and unplanned coronary revascularization. Secondary outcomes. Principal secondary outcome: a composite ischemic endpoint of sudden death, fatal and non fatal acute MI (including silent MI), fatal and non fatal stroke, major amputations (above ankle), endovascular or surgical intervention on the coronary, leg or carotid arteries. Other secondary outcomes - a composite cardiovascular end point including the primary end point plus hospitalization for heart failure, endovascular or surgical intervention on the coronary, leg or carotid arteries, silent MI, angina - by WHO criteria and confirmed by a new electrocardiogram abnormality - intermittent claudication with an ankle/brachial index lower than 090; events of heart failure; a microvascular endpoint including: plasma creatinine increase of 2 times above the baseline value or creatinine clearance reduction of 20ml/min/1. 73m2 or development of overt nephropathy (dialysis or plasma creatinine >3,3 mg/dl) or macroalbuminuria; glycemic control (changes from baseline in HBA1c, time to failure of glycemic control, i.e., HBA1c >8.0% on two consecutive occasions three months apart); major CV risk factors (lipids, blood pressure, microalbuminuria, inflammation markers, waist circumference); safety and side effects; direct and indirect costs. Data regarding CV endpoints, safety, tolerability, and study conduct will be monitored and analyzed by an independent committee, and will be not available to the study investigators until the closing of data collection. Efficacy end points will be analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.
NCT00700856 ↗	Thiazolidinediones Or Sulphonylureas and Cardiovascular Accidents.Intervention Trial	Unknown status	Associazione Nazionale Medici Cardiologi Ospedalieri	Phase 4	2008-09-01	Background: In patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin, two main therapeutic options are equally plausible: add-on a sulfonylurea (SU) or a thiazolidinedione (TZD). Since the two classes of drugs clearly differ in terms of mechanisms of action, side effects, economic costs and cardiovascular risk factors profile, a direct comparison of the two therapeutic strategies would be most appropriate. Aims: 1) To evaluate the effects of add-on pioglitazone as compared with add-on a SU on the incidence of cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetic patients inadequately controlled with metformin; 2) To compare the two treatments in terms of glycemic control, safety, and economic costs. Methods: multicentre, randomised, open label, parallel group trial of 48 months duration. Eligible participants (type 2 diabetic males and females, aged 50-75 years, BMI 20-45 Kg/m2, in treatment for the last two months with metformin 2 gr/die in monotherapy and with HbA1c > =7.0% and 8.0 % on two consecutive occasions will lead to addition of insulin to ongoing oral therapy. Primary efficacy outcome: a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, non fatal MI (including silent MI), non fatal stroke, and unplanned coronary revascularization. Secondary outcomes. Principal secondary outcome: a composite ischemic endpoint of sudden death, fatal and non fatal acute MI (including silent MI), fatal and non fatal stroke, major amputations (above ankle), endovascular or surgical intervention on the coronary, leg or carotid arteries. Other secondary outcomes - a composite cardiovascular end point including the primary end point plus hospitalization for heart failure, endovascular or surgical intervention on the coronary, leg or carotid arteries, silent MI, angina - by WHO criteria and confirmed by a new electrocardiogram abnormality - intermittent claudication with an ankle/brachial index lower than 090; events of heart failure; a microvascular endpoint including: plasma creatinine increase of 2 times above the baseline value or creatinine clearance reduction of 20ml/min/1. 73m2 or development of overt nephropathy (dialysis or plasma creatinine >3,3 mg/dl) or macroalbuminuria; glycemic control (changes from baseline in HBA1c, time to failure of glycemic control, i.e., HBA1c >8.0% on two consecutive occasions three months apart); major CV risk factors (lipids, blood pressure, microalbuminuria, inflammation markers, waist circumference); safety and side effects; direct and indirect costs. Data regarding CV endpoints, safety, tolerability, and study conduct will be monitored and analyzed by an independent committee, and will be not available to the study investigators until the closing of data collection. Efficacy end points will be analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.
NCT00700856 ↗	Thiazolidinediones Or Sulphonylureas and Cardiovascular Accidents.Intervention Trial	Unknown status	Italian Society of Diabetology	Phase 4	2008-09-01	Background: In patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin, two main therapeutic options are equally plausible: add-on a sulfonylurea (SU) or a thiazolidinedione (TZD). Since the two classes of drugs clearly differ in terms of mechanisms of action, side effects, economic costs and cardiovascular risk factors profile, a direct comparison of the two therapeutic strategies would be most appropriate. Aims: 1) To evaluate the effects of add-on pioglitazone as compared with add-on a SU on the incidence of cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetic patients inadequately controlled with metformin; 2) To compare the two treatments in terms of glycemic control, safety, and economic costs. Methods: multicentre, randomised, open label, parallel group trial of 48 months duration. Eligible participants (type 2 diabetic males and females, aged 50-75 years, BMI 20-45 Kg/m2, in treatment for the last two months with metformin 2 gr/die in monotherapy and with HbA1c > =7.0% and 8.0 % on two consecutive occasions will lead to addition of insulin to ongoing oral therapy. Primary efficacy outcome: a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, non fatal MI (including silent MI), non fatal stroke, and unplanned coronary revascularization. Secondary outcomes. Principal secondary outcome: a composite ischemic endpoint of sudden death, fatal and non fatal acute MI (including silent MI), fatal and non fatal stroke, major amputations (above ankle), endovascular or surgical intervention on the coronary, leg or carotid arteries. Other secondary outcomes - a composite cardiovascular end point including the primary end point plus hospitalization for heart failure, endovascular or surgical intervention on the coronary, leg or carotid arteries, silent MI, angina - by WHO criteria and confirmed by a new electrocardiogram abnormality - intermittent claudication with an ankle/brachial index lower than 090; events of heart failure; a microvascular endpoint including: plasma creatinine increase of 2 times above the baseline value or creatinine clearance reduction of 20ml/min/1. 73m2 or development of overt nephropathy (dialysis or plasma creatinine >3,3 mg/dl) or macroalbuminuria; glycemic control (changes from baseline in HBA1c, time to failure of glycemic control, i.e., HBA1c >8.0% on two consecutive occasions three months apart); major CV risk factors (lipids, blood pressure, microalbuminuria, inflammation markers, waist circumference); safety and side effects; direct and indirect costs. Data regarding CV endpoints, safety, tolerability, and study conduct will be monitored and analyzed by an independent committee, and will be not available to the study investigators until the closing of data collection. Efficacy end points will be analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.

Clinical Trial Conditions for PIOGLITAZONE HYDROCHLORIDE AND GLIMEPIRIDE

Condition Name

Condition Name for PIOGLITAZONE HYDROCHLORIDE AND GLIMEPIRIDE
Intervention	Trials
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus	6
Diabetes Mellitus	4
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2	4
Type 2 Diabetes	4

Condition MeSH

Condition MeSH for PIOGLITAZONE HYDROCHLORIDE AND GLIMEPIRIDE
Intervention	Trials
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2	15
Diabetes Mellitus	15
Insulin Resistance	2
Dyslipidemias	1

Clinical Trial Locations for PIOGLITAZONE HYDROCHLORIDE AND GLIMEPIRIDE

Trials by Country

Trials by Country for PIOGLITAZONE HYDROCHLORIDE AND GLIMEPIRIDE
Location	Trials
United States	127
Germany	32
Canada	12
Italy	10
United Kingdom	4

Trials by US State

Trials by US State for PIOGLITAZONE HYDROCHLORIDE AND GLIMEPIRIDE
Location	Trials
Washington	4
Virginia	4
Texas	4
Tennessee	4
Pennsylvania	4

Clinical Trial Progress for PIOGLITAZONE HYDROCHLORIDE AND GLIMEPIRIDE

Clinical Trial Phase

Clinical Trial Phase for PIOGLITAZONE HYDROCHLORIDE AND GLIMEPIRIDE
Clinical Trial Phase	Trials
Phase 4	9
Phase 3	7
N/A	2

Clinical Trial Status

Clinical Trial Status for PIOGLITAZONE HYDROCHLORIDE AND GLIMEPIRIDE
Clinical Trial Phase	Trials
Completed	14
Unknown status	4
Terminated	1

Clinical Trial Sponsors for PIOGLITAZONE HYDROCHLORIDE AND GLIMEPIRIDE

Sponsor Name

Sponsor Name for PIOGLITAZONE HYDROCHLORIDE AND GLIMEPIRIDE
Sponsor	Trials
Takeda	6
IKFE Institute for Clinical Research and Development	2
ikfe-CRO GmbH	1

Sponsor Type

Sponsor Type for PIOGLITAZONE HYDROCHLORIDE AND GLIMEPIRIDE
Sponsor	Trials
Other	15
Industry	13

Clinical Trials Update, Market Analysis, and Projection for Pioglitazone Hydrochloride and Glimepiride

Last updated: October 28, 2025

Introduction

Pioglitazone Hydrochloride and Glimepiride are established antidiabetic agents forming part of the therapeutic arsenal against Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). Their combined formulation aims to optimize glycemic control by targeting multiple pathophysiological pathways. Recent developments in clinical research, market dynamics, and regulatory landscapes highlight evolving opportunities and challenges for these agents. This report synthesizes current clinical trial updates, performs a comprehensive market analysis, and projects future market trends to aid strategic decision-making.

---

Clinical Trials Update

Ongoing and Recent Clinical Studies

Recent years have witnessed increased research interest in Pioglitazone Hydrochloride and Glimepiride combinations, especially concerning safety profiles, cardiovascular outcomes, and personalized therapy.

• Cardiovascular Safety Trials: The PROactive study, a landmark trial completed years ago, established pioglitazone's beneficial effects on macrovascular outcomes in certain populations but also highlighted risks like edema and heart failure. Current trials, such as PRIME (Preventing Renal and Cardiac Disease in Diabetes with Pioglitazone), focus on renal and cardiovascular endpoints among T2DM patients with high cardiovascular risk profiles.

• Combination Therapy Efficacy: Multiple phase III trials evaluate the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of Pioglitazone and Glimepiride than their monotherapy counterparts. These include assessments of glycemic control, weight gain, hypoglycemia incidence, and lipid profile impacts.

• Safety Profiles and Side Effect Management: A critical focus remains on mitigating adverse effects—particularly weight gain, edema, and osteoporosis risk from pioglitazone, and hypoglycemia risk from Glimepiride. Novel formulations and dosing strategies aim to optimize therapeutic windows.

• Innovative Delivery Systems: Research into sustained-release formulations, combination patches, and novel delivery mechanisms continues to explore improved patient adherence and reduced side effects.

Regulatory and Approval Landscape

• Global Approvals: Pioglitazone was approved by the FDA in 1999, but the market has seen restrictions due to safety concerns. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) withdrew pioglitazone’s marketing authorization in some EU countries over potential bladder cancer risks, though usage persists in others under strict regulations.

• Emerging Data and Labeling Changes: Recent studies incorporating real-world evidence have led regulatory agencies to update safety labels, emphasizing caution among patients with risk factors for heart failure or bladder cancer.

Research Gaps and Future Directions

• Personalized Medicine: Future trials are increasingly emphasizing pharmacogenomics to optimize patient-specific responses and minimize adverse effects.

• Long-Term Safety and Outcomes: There remains a need for expansive, long-term studies to balance the benefits of glycemic control with potential risks, particularly with regard to cancer and cardiovascular health.

---

Market Analysis

Market Overview

The global diabetes therapeutics market is sizable, projected to reach USD 106 billion by 2027 (CAGR ~7.2%), driven predominantly by the rising prevalence of T2DM, especially in emerging economies. Pioglitazone and Glimepiride, both off-patent older agents, still command significant market share within generic formulations, owing to affordability and established efficacy.

Current Market Players and Products

• Major Brands: Several manufacturers produce generic Pioglitazone and Glimepiride, with a handful of branded fixed-dose combinations like Avandamet (rosiglitazone and metformin) and Jardiamet (glimepiride and metformin). Pioglitazone formulations include Actos (initially branded, now generic), with widespread use across Asia, Europe, and North America.

• Market Penetration: In high-income countries, newer agents such as GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors are overtaking Pioglitazone and Glimepiride due to improved safety profiles. However, in low- and middle-income regions, these older agents remain a primary treatment due to cost-effectiveness.

Key Market Drivers and Barriers

• Drivers:

  • Rising prevalence of T2DM worldwide
  • Cost-effective nature of generic formulations
  • Growing adoption of FDCs improving adherence
  • Emerging evidence supporting combination therapy benefits

• Barriers:

  • Safety concerns leading to regulatory restrictions
  • Competition from newer, better-tolerated drugs
  • Market hesitance due to potential adverse events, especially cardiovascular and oncogenic risks

Market Challenges and Opportunities

• Challenges:

  • Regulatory restrictions, particularly in Europe
  • Negative perception stemming from safety concerns
  • Market saturation with generics leading to pricing pressures

• Opportunities:

  • Development of safer formulations with minimized side effects
  • Integration of pharmacogenomics for personalized therapy
  • Strategic positioning in underserved markets with limited access to newer agents

---

Market Projection and Future Outlook

Short-term (Next 2–3 Years)

• Stability Dominates: Market for Pioglitazone and Glimepiride remains stable with sustained demand in cost-sensitive regions.
• Regulatory Navigations: Companies will need to navigate evolving safety regulations, updating formulations or labeling as required.
• R&D Focus: Incremental innovations, such as fixed-dose combinations with other oral agents, aimed at improving compliance and safety.

Mid-term (3–5 Years)

• Market Resilience Through Innovation: Introduction of improved formulations with lower risks, such as selective PPARγ modulators, could revive usage.
• Growing Adoption in Emerging Markets: Increased healthcare infrastructure and diabetes prevalence will amplify demand.
• Shift Toward Personalized Therapy: Pharmacogenomics-guided prescribing may optimize safety and efficacy, influencing market dynamics.

Long-term (5+ Years)

• Decline in Monotherapy Use: As newer agents demonstrate favorable safety profiles, the market for Pioglitazone and Glimepiride may decline in developed regions.
• Potential Resurgence via Repositioning: Focus on niche indications or combination therapies with novel agents may preserve or expand market share.
• Regulatory and Safety Enhancements: Advances in formulations reducing adverse effects could sustain relevance.

Overall Market Outlook

While the global trend favors newer antidiabetic classes, Pioglitazone and Glimepiride maintain a critical role, especially where affordability and long-term safety data are prioritized. The market, currently mature, is expected to stabilize with potential modest growth in emerging markets, conditioned on innovations and safety management.

---

Key Takeaways

• Evolving Clinical Research: Ongoing studies aim to reaffirm safety profiles and enhance therapeutic effectiveness, particularly focusing on adverse effect mitigation and personalized medicine applications.
• Regulatory Landscape Complexity: While pioglitazone faces restrictions in some regions due to safety concerns, its global usage persists, especially in cost-sensitive markets.
• Market Dynamics: The market is influenced heavily by safety profiles, regulatory policies, and competition from newer agents. Generics dominate, with limited branded plays.
• Future Trends: Innovation around safer formulations, combination therapies, and pharmacogenomics will determine the trajectory of Pioglitazone Hydrochloride and Glimepiride in the diabetes management landscape.
• Strategic Focus: Stakeholders should emphasize safety, regulatory compliance, and cost-effectiveness, leveraging opportunities in emerging markets and personalized medicine.

---

FAQs

Q1: Will Pioglitazone and Glimepiride's market decline due to safety concerns?
A: Safety issues, particularly regarding bladder cancer risk with pioglitazone, have led to regulatory restrictions in some regions. However, in markets where safety profiles are acceptable, their affordability and efficacy sustain their market. Long-term decline is possible if newer agents demonstrate superior safety and efficacy.

Q2: Are there ongoing efforts to improve the safety profile of Pioglitazone?
A: Yes. Research aims to develop selective PPARγ modulators, novel delivery systems, and dosage strategies to maintain efficacy while reducing adverse effects such as weight gain, edema, and cardiovascular risks.

Q3: How do market projections differ between developed and emerging economies?
A: Developed nations are shifting towards newer agents due to safety and efficacy advantages, leading to market stagnation. In contrast, emerging economies continue to rely heavily on generics of Pioglitazone and Glimepiride, with modest growth prospects driven by increasing diabetes prevalence and affordability.

Q4: What role do fixed-dose combinations play in the future of these drugs?
A: FDCs enhance compliance, simplify treatment regimens, and can mitigate the side effects associated with monotherapy. Their development remains a strategic area, potentially extending the market lifespan of these agents.

Q5: Are there specific patient populations where Pioglitazone and Glimepiride remain particularly advantageous?
A: These drugs are especially beneficial in cost-sensitive populations or where other newer agents are inaccessible. Patients with contraindications to newer classes or those requiring long-term, cost-effective therapies may continue to benefit from Pioglitazone and Glimepiride.

---

Sources:

1. [1] International Diabetes Federation. Diabetes Atlas, 9th Edition, 2019.
2. [2] FDA. Pioglitazone (Actos) Label.
3. [3] EMA. Committee recommends restricting use of pioglitazone medicines.
4. [4] MarketWatch. Diabetes Drugs Market Size & Trends.
5. [5] ClinicalTrials.gov. Various studies on Pioglitazone and Glimepiride.