罗格列酮再探讨:心肌梗死风险与心血管死亡率的最新荟萃分析
Rosiglitazone revisited: an updated meta-analysis of risk for myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality.
作者信息
Nissen Steven E, Wolski Kathy
机构信息
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
出版信息
Arch Intern Med. 2010 Jul 26;170(14):1191-1201. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.207.
CONTEXT
Controversy regarding the effects of rosiglitazone therapy on myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiovascular (CV) mortality persists 3 years after a meta-analysis initially raised concerns about the use of this drug.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the effects of rosiglitazone therapy on MI and mortality (CV and all-cause).
DATA SOURCES
We searched MEDLINE, the Web site of the Food and Drug Administration, and the GlaxoSmithKline clinical trials registry for trials published through February 2010.
STUDY SELECTION
The study included all randomized controlled trials of rosiglitazone at least 24 weeks in duration that reported CV adverse events.
DATA EXTRACTION
Odds ratios (ORs) for MI and mortality were estimated using a fixed-effects meta-analysis of 56 trials, which included 35 531 patients: 19 509 who received rosiglitazone and 16 022 who received control therapy.
RESULTS
Rosiglitazone therapy significantly increased the risk of MI (OR, 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.63; P = .04) but not CV mortality (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.78-1.36; P = .86). Exclusion of the RECORD (Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiac Outcomes and Regulation of Glycemia in Diabetes) trial yielded similar results but with more elevated estimates of the OR for MI (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.02-1.89; P = .04) and CV mortality (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.92-2.33; P = .11). An alternative analysis pooling trials according to allocation ratios allowed inclusion of studies with no events, yielding similar results for MI (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.01-1.62; P = .04) and CV mortality (OR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.75-1.32; P = .96).
CONCLUSIONS
Eleven years after the introduction of rosiglitazone, the totality of randomized clinical trials continue to demonstrate increased risk for MI although not for CV or all-cause mortality. The current findings suggest an unfavorable benefit to risk ratio for rosiglitazone.
背景
在一项荟萃分析最初引发对罗格列酮使用的担忧3年后,关于罗格列酮治疗对心肌梗死(MI)和心血管(CV)死亡率影响的争议依然存在。
目的
系统评价罗格列酮治疗对MI和死亡率(CV及全因死亡率)的影响。
数据来源
我们检索了MEDLINE、美国食品药品监督管理局网站以及葛兰素史克临床试验注册库,以获取截至2010年2月发表的试验。
研究选择
该研究纳入了所有持续时间至少24周且报告了CV不良事件的罗格列酮随机对照试验。
数据提取
使用固定效应荟萃分析对56项试验估计MI和死亡率的比值比(OR),这些试验包括35531例患者:19509例接受罗格列酮治疗,16022例接受对照治疗。
结果
罗格列酮治疗显著增加MI风险(OR,1.28;95%置信区间[CI],1.02 - 1.63;P = 0.04),但未增加CV死亡率(OR,1.03;95% CI,0.78 - 1.36;P = 0.86)。排除RECORD(罗格列酮评估糖尿病患者心脏结局和血糖调节)试验得到了类似结果,但MI的OR估计值更高(OR,1.39;95% CI,1.02 - 1.89;P = 0.04),CV死亡率的OR估计值也更高(OR,1.46;95% CI,0.92 - 2.33;P = 0.11)。根据分配比例合并试验的另一种分析方法允许纳入无事件发生的研究,得到的MI结果类似(OR,1.28;95% CI,1.01 - 1.62;P = 0.04),CV死亡率结果也类似(OR 0.99;95% CI,0.75 - 1.32;P = 0.96)。
结论
罗格列酮引入11年后,所有随机临床试验继续表明MI风险增加,尽管CV或全因死亡率未增加。目前的研究结果表明罗格列酮的风险效益比不利。