Blog
About

165
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    15
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Effect of Rosiglitazone on the Risk of Myocardial Infarction and Death from Cardiovascular Causes

      ,

      New England Journal of Medicine

      Massachusetts Medical Society

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Rosiglitazone is widely used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, but its effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has not been determined. We conducted searches of the published literature, the Web site of the Food and Drug Administration, and a clinical-trials registry maintained by the drug manufacturer (GlaxoSmithKline). Criteria for inclusion in our meta-analysis included a study duration of more than 24 weeks, the use of a randomized control group not receiving rosiglitazone, and the availability of outcome data for myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. Of 116 potentially relevant studies, 42 trials met the inclusion criteria. We tabulated all occurrences of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. Data were combined by means of a fixed-effects model. In the 42 trials, the mean age of the subjects was approximately 56 years, and the mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level was approximately 8.2%. In the rosiglitazone group, as compared with the control group, the odds ratio for myocardial infarction was 1.43 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.98; P=0.03), and the odds ratio for death from cardiovascular causes was 1.64 (95% CI, 0.98 to 2.74; P=0.06). Rosiglitazone was associated with a significant increase in the risk of myocardial infarction and with an increase in the risk of death from cardiovascular causes that had borderline significance. Our study was limited by a lack of access to original source data, which would have enabled time-to-event analysis. Despite these limitations, patients and providers should consider the potential for serious adverse cardiovascular effects of treatment with rosiglitazone for type 2 diabetes. Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Secondary prevention of macrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the PROactive Study (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events): a randomised controlled trial.

          Patients with type 2 diabetes are at high risk of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction and stroke. There is indirect evidence that agonists of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR gamma) could reduce macrovascular complications. Our aim, therefore, was to ascertain whether pioglitazone reduces macrovascular morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes. We did a prospective, randomised controlled trial in 5238 patients with type 2 diabetes who had evidence of macrovascular disease. We recruited patients from primary-care practices and hospitals. We assigned patients to oral pioglitazone titrated from 15 mg to 45 mg (n=2605) or matching placebo (n=2633), to be taken in addition to their glucose-lowering drugs and other medications. Our primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, non fatal myocardial infarction (including silent myocardial infarction), stroke, acute coronary syndrome, endovascular or surgical intervention in the coronary or leg arteries, and amputation above the ankle. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN NCT00174993. Two patients were lost to follow-up, but were included in analyses. The average time of observation was 34.5 months. 514 of 2605 patients in the pioglitazone group and 572 of 2633 patients in the placebo group had at least one event in the primary composite endpoint (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80-1.02, p=0.095). The main secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke. 301 patients in the pioglitazone group and 358 in the placebo group reached this endpoint (0.84, 0.72-0.98, p=0.027). Overall safety and tolerability was good with no change in the safety profile of pioglitazone identified. 6% (149 of 2065) and 4% (108 of 2633) of those in the pioglitazone and placebo groups, respectively, were admitted to hospital with heart failure; mortality rates from heart failure did not differ between groups. Pioglitazone reduces the composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes who have a high risk of macrovascular events.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Glycemic durability of rosiglitazone, metformin, or glyburide monotherapy.

            The efficacy of thiazolidinediones, as compared with other oral glucose-lowering medications, in maintaining long-term glycemic control in type 2 diabetes is not known. We evaluated rosiglitazone, metformin, and glyburide as initial treatment for recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes in a double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial involving 4360 patients. The patients were treated for a median of 4.0 years. The primary outcome was the time to monotherapy failure, which was defined as a confirmed level of fasting plasma glucose of more than 180 mg per deciliter (10.0 mmol per liter), for rosiglitazone, as compared with metformin or glyburide. Prespecified secondary outcomes were levels of fasting plasma glucose and glycated hemoglobin, insulin sensitivity, and beta-cell function. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a cumulative incidence of monotherapy failure at 5 years of 15% with rosiglitazone, 21% with metformin, and 34% with glyburide. This represents a risk reduction of 32% for rosiglitazone, as compared with metformin, and 63%, as compared with glyburide (P<0.001 for both comparisons). The difference in the durability of the treatment effect was greater between rosiglitazone and glyburide than between rosiglitazone and metformin. Glyburide was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events (including congestive heart failure) than was rosiglitazone (P<0.05), and the risk associated with metformin was similar to that with rosiglitazone. Rosiglitazone was associated with more weight gain and edema than either metformin or glyburide but with fewer gastrointestinal events than metformin and with less hypoglycemia than glyburide (P<0.001 for all comparisons). The potential risks and benefits, the profile of adverse events, and the costs of these three drugs should all be considered to help inform the choice of pharmacotherapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00279045 [ClinicalTrials.gov].). Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data.

              To compare the performance of different meta-analysis methods for pooling odds ratios when applied to sparse event data with emphasis on the use of continuity corrections. Meta-analysis of side effects from RCTs or risk factors for rare diseases in epidemiological studies frequently requires the synthesis of data with sparse event rates. Combining such data can be problematic when zero events exist in one or both arms of a study as continuity corrections are often needed, but, these can influence results and conclusions. A simulation study was undertaken comparing several meta-analysis methods for combining odds ratios (using various classical and Bayesian methods of estimation) on sparse event data. Where required, the routine use of a constant and two alternative continuity corrections; one based on a function of the reciprocal of the opposite group arm size; and the other an empirical estimate of the pooled effect size from the remaining studies in the meta-analysis, were also compared. A number of meta-analysis scenarios were simulated and replicated 1000 times, varying the ratio of the study arm sizes. Mantel-Haenszel summary estimates using the alternative continuity correction factors gave the least biased results for all group size imbalances. Logistic regression was virtually unbiased for all scenarios and gave good coverage properties. The Peto method provided unbiased results for balanced treatment groups but bias increased with the ratio of the study arm sizes. The Bayesian fixed effect model provided good coverage for all group size imbalances. The two alternative continuity corrections outperformed the constant correction factor in nearly all situations. The inverse variance method performed consistently badly, irrespective of the continuity correction used. Many routinely used summary methods provide widely ranging estimates when applied to sparse data with high imbalance between the size of the studies' arms. A sensitivity analysis using several methods and continuity correction factors is advocated for routine practice. Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                New England Journal of Medicine
                N Engl J Med
                Massachusetts Medical Society
                0028-4793
                1533-4406
                June 14 2007
                June 14 2007
                : 356
                : 24
                : 2457-2471
                10.1056/NEJMoa072761
                17517853
                © 2007
                Product

                Comments

                Comment on this article