Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique


#34 Rosiglitazone – Reasonable Option or Regrettable Choice?


CLINICAL QUESTION
QUESTION CLINIQUE
 Is rosiglitazone a reasonable second or third line agent in the management of Type 2 Diabetes (DM2)?

BOTTOM LINE
RÉSULTAT FINAL
 Strong evidence supports increased cardiovascular risk, specifically MI, in Type 2 Diabetes patients receiving rosiglitazone. In the absence of any demonstrated patient-oriented benefits, there is no indication for its use.


CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

 Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session


EVIDENCE
DONNÉES PROBANTES
 A 2007 meta-analysis (42 randomized controlled trials, 27,847 patients) first assessed the impact of rosiglitazone on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in DM2 patients.
  • Rosiglitazone caused a statistically significant increase in myocardial infarction (MI) over placebo or other drugs, Relative Risk Increase 43% (Confidence Interval (CI) 3%-97%). 1
    • No difference in cardiovascular deaths.
  • Some questioned the meta-analysis validity due to inclusion of low-quality studies and concern that analysis may have overestimated CV events.2
Two larger 2010 meta-analyses3,4 support the increased risk of MI with rosiglitazone
  • 56 trials, 35,531 patients Odds Ratio 1.28 (CI 1.02-1.63), Number Needed to Harm (NNH) 52 over five years. 3
  • 52 trials, 16,995 patients Odds Ratio 1.80 (CI 1.03-3.25). 4
    • FDA analysis4 found the researchers’ management of some data potentially masked rosiglitazone harms.
An FDA mandated re-analysis of the open-label, manufacturer-sponsored RECORD data did not find increased risk of MI (Hazard Ratio 1.13 (CI 0.80-1.59) or related outcomes with rosiglitazone. 5 Rosiglitazone is known to increase heart failure, Odds Ratio 1.93 (CI 1.30-2.93). 4 Context:
  • Rosiglitazone was approved based on its ability to improve glycemic control, without any evidence of improvement in patient-oriented outcomes.
  • A systematic review reported a strong link between author’s views on rosiglitzone and financial conflicts of interest with manufacturer. 6
  • The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes released a consensus statement in 2009 recommending against the use of rosiglitazone in DM2. 7
  • In 2013, the FDA relaxed restrictions on rosiglitazone based on re-analysis of the RECORD trial, despite remaining concerns on its safety. 8,9

Peter Wells March 18, 2024

Wow!
I don’t use so lucky me 🙂

Peter Wells March 18, 2024

I do not use but really good to know!
I don’t use so lucky me 🙂

Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique
program image
Bradley LeDrew PharmD candidate

#363 Making a difference in indifference? Medications for apathy in dementia

In patients with dementia, how safe and effective are stimulants, antidepressants, and antipsychotics for treating apathy?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles
program image
Allison Paige MD CCFP

#362 Facing the Evidence in Acne, Part I: Oral contraceptives and spironolactone in females

How effective are combined oral contraceptives (COC) and spironolactone for treating acne of at least mild-moderate severity in females?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles
program image
Michael R Kolber MD CCFP MSc

#361 Preventing RSV Infections in Infants

How safe and effective are monoclonal antibodies to prevent respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections in infants?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles
October 4, 2010

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session
Author(s)
Auteur(s)
  • Christina Korownyk MD CCFP
  • G. Michael Allan MD CCFP

1. Nissen SE, Wolski K. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356:2457-71.

2. Hlatky MA, Bravata DM. ACP Journal Club. 2007 Nov-Dec; 147:66.

3. Nissen SE, Wolski K. Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170(14):1191-1201.

4. Food and Drug Administration. Rosiglitazone cardiovascular safety meta-analysis: presented at the July 13-14, 2010 meeting of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee. Available from: https://wayback.archiveit.org/7993/20170405214642/https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/ CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/EndocrinologicandMetabolicDrugsAdvisoryCommi ttee/UCM224738.pdf. Last Accessed: January 13, 2018.

5. Mahaffey KW, Hafley G, Dickerson S, et al. Am Heart J. 2013; 166:240-9.

6. Wang AT, McCoy CP, Murad MH, et al. BMJ. 2010; 340:c1344.

7. Nathan DM, Buse JB, Davidson MB, et al. Diabetes Care. 2009; 32(1):193-203.

8. Tucker ME. BMJ. 2013; 346:f3769.

9. McCarthy M. BMJ. 2013; 347:f7144.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Les auteurs n’ont aucun conflit d’intérêts à déclarer.