Evidence Hub

Database evaluation of the effects of long-term rosiglitazone treatment on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes

Loebstein R, Dushinat M, Vesterman-Landes J, Silverman B, Friedman N, Katzir I, Kurnik D, Lomnicky Y et al.

Journal of clinical pharmacology, 2011

2,753 participants

Abstract

Recent meta-analyses suggest an increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with rosiglitazone. These meta-analyses have drawn considerable criticisms. Retrospective observational studies do not consistently support this association. The objective of this study was to compare rates of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in T2DM patients treated with rosiglitazone alone or combined with metformin or metformin alone. This retrospective study, using the health maintenance organization database, included patients who were dispensed rosiglitazone (alone or with metformin) for at least 6 months as follows: rosiglitazone alone (n = 745), rosiglitazone and metformin (n = 2753), and metformin alone (n = 11 938). Adverse cardiovascular outcomes were new diagnosis of AMI, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), coronary revascularization (CRV), congestive heart failure (CHF), and all-cause mortality. Mean on-treatment follow-up was 30 months. After adjustment for covariates found to be significant in univariate analyses, rosiglitazone was associated only with CHF (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41-1.95) with no increase of risk for AMI (HR = 1.13; 95%CI: 0.60-2.12), ACS (HR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.57-1.26), coronary revascularization (HR = 1.22; 95% CI:0.82-1.54), or all-cause mortality (HR = 1.15; 95% CI: 0.85-1.56). In this community-based cohort, 30 months of therapy with rosiglitazone treatment was associated…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 2,753 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free