Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Bldg 22, Room 4314, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, USA.
JAMA. 2010 Jul 28;304(4):411-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.920. Epub 2010 Jun 28.
Studies have suggested that the use of rosiglitazone may be associated with an increased risk of serious cardiovascular events compared with other treatments for type 2 diabetes.
To determine if the risk of serious cardiovascular harm is increased by rosiglitazone compared with pioglitazone, the other thiazolidinedione marketed in the United States.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Nationwide, observational, retrospective, inception cohort of 227,571 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older (mean age, 74.4 years) who initiated treatment with rosiglitazone or pioglitazone through a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan from July 2006-June 2009 and who underwent follow-up for up to 3 years after thiazolidinedione initiation.
Individual end points of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, heart failure, and all-cause mortality (death), and composite end point of AMI, stroke, heart failure, or death, assessed using incidence rates by thiazolidinedione, attributable risk, number needed to harm, Kaplan-Meier plots of time to event, and Cox proportional hazard ratios for time to event, adjusted for potential confounding factors, with pioglitazone as reference.
A total of 8667 end points were observed during the study period. The adjusted hazard ratio for rosiglitazone compared with pioglitazone was 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-1.18) for AMI; 1.27 (95% CI, 1.12-1.45) for stroke; 1.25 (95% CI, 1.16-1.34) for heart failure; 1.14 (95% CI, 1.05-1.24) for death; and 1.18 (95% CI, 1.12-1.23) for the composite of AMI, stroke, heart failure, or death. The attributable risk for this composite end point was 1.68 (95% CI, 1.27-2.08) excess events per 100 person-years of treatment with rosiglitazone compared with pioglitazone. The corresponding number needed to harm was 60 (95% CI, 48-79) treated for 1 year.
Compared with prescription of pioglitazone, prescription of rosiglitazone was associated with an increased risk of stroke, heart failure, and all-cause mortality and an increased risk of the composite of AMI, stroke, heart failure, or all-cause mortality in patients 65 years or older.
研究表明,与其他治疗 2 型糖尿病的药物相比,使用罗格列酮可能会增加严重心血管事件的风险。
确定与吡格列酮相比,罗格列酮是否会增加严重心血管危害的风险,吡格列酮是美国市场上另一种噻唑烷二酮类药物。
设计、地点和患者:全美范围内,观察性、回顾性、2006 年 7 月至 2009 年 6 月期间通过医疗保险处方药计划开始使用罗格列酮或吡格列酮治疗的 227571 名年龄在 65 岁或以上(平均年龄 74.4 岁)的医疗保险受益人队列,在开始噻唑烷二酮类药物治疗后进行了长达 3 年的随访。
个体终点为急性心肌梗死(AMI)、中风、心力衰竭和全因死亡率(死亡),以及 AMI、中风、心力衰竭或死亡的复合终点,使用噻唑烷二酮类药物的发病率、归因风险、危害人数、事件时间的 Kaplan-Meier 图和事件时间的 Cox 比例风险比进行评估,调整了潜在混杂因素,以吡格列酮为参照。
在研究期间共观察到 8667 个终点。与吡格列酮相比,罗格列酮的调整后风险比为 1.06(95%置信区间[CI],0.96-1.18)用于 AMI;1.27(95% CI,1.12-1.45)用于中风;1.25(95% CI,1.16-1.34)用于心力衰竭;1.14(95% CI,1.05-1.24)用于死亡;以及 1.18(95% CI,1.12-1.23)用于 AMI、中风、心力衰竭或死亡的复合终点。与吡格列酮相比,罗格列酮治疗 1 年的归因风险增加了 1.68(95% CI,1.27-2.08),每 100 人年发生 1.68 例额外事件。相应的危害人数为 60(95% CI,48-79)。
与开处方使用吡格列酮相比,为 65 岁及以上患者开处方使用罗格列酮与中风、心力衰竭和全因死亡率增加以及 AMI、中风、心力衰竭或全因死亡率的复合终点风险增加相关。