Department of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
Chin Med J (Engl). 2012 Dec;125(23):4301-6.
The difference of cardiovascular effects between rosiglitazone and pioglitazone treatment for diabetic patients has not been thoroughly studied. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the risk of cardiovascular adverse effects in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with rosiglitazone compared to pioglitazone.
The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase were searched to identify retrospective cohort studies assessing cardiovascular outcomes with rosiglitazone and pioglitazone. Meta-analysis of retrospective cohort studies was conducted using RevMan 5.0 software to calculate risk ratios.
Of the 74 references identified, eight studies involving 945 286 patients fit the inclusion criteria for the analysis. The results of meta-analyses showed that, compared with pioglitazone, rosiglitazone therapy significantly increased the risk of myocardial infarction (risk ratios (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 - 1.32; P = 0.01), the risk of heart failure (RR 1.18, 95%CI 1.02 - 1.36; P = 0.03), and total mortality (RR 1.13, 95%CI 1.08 - 1.20; P < 0.000 01).
Compared with pioglitazone, rosiglitazone was associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction, heart failure, and all-cause mortality in diabetic patients.
罗格列酮和吡格列酮治疗糖尿病患者的心血管效应差异尚未得到彻底研究。我们进行了一项荟萃分析，比较了 2 型糖尿病患者接受罗格列酮与吡格列酮治疗的心血管不良事件风险。
检索 Cochrane 图书馆、PubMed 和 Embase，以确定评估罗格列酮和吡格列酮心血管结局的回顾性队列研究。使用 RevMan 5.0 软件对回顾性队列研究进行荟萃分析，以计算风险比。
在 74 篇参考文献中，有 8 项研究涉及 945286 名患者符合分析纳入标准。荟萃分析结果表明，与吡格列酮相比，罗格列酮治疗显著增加了心肌梗死的风险（风险比（RR）1.17，95%置信区间（CI）1.04-1.32；P=0.01）、心力衰竭的风险（RR 1.18，95%CI 1.02-1.36；P=0.03）和全因死亡率（RR 1.13，95%CI 1.08-1.20；P<0.000001）。
与吡格列酮相比，罗格列酮与糖尿病患者心肌梗死、心力衰竭和全因死亡率增加相关。
