Tips from Other Journals
Rosiglitazone vs. Pioglitazone: Which Is Safer?
FREE PREVIEW Log in or buy this issue to read the full article. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles. Subscribe now.
FREE PREVIEW Subscribe or buy this issue. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles.
Am Fam Physician. 2009 Nov 15;80(10):1165-1166.
Background: Recent concern about rosiglitazone (Avandia) started with a 2007 meta-analysis associating its use with higher rates of myocardial infarction (MI) and congestive heart failure (CHF). There is some concern about whether pioglitazone (Actos)—as a related drug—might also pose similar risks. One study reported a lower incidence of a combined end point of MI, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality with pioglitazone, but did not examine these outcomes individually. Head-to-head comparisons of these two drugs have been rare, and have generally not addressed long-term clinical outcomes. Winkelmayer and colleagues compared cardiovascular outcomes and mortality rates between patients starting rosiglitazone and pioglitazone.
The Study: The authors conducted a population-based cohort study of U.S. Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years. They reviewed medical claims data over a seven-year period, using National Drug Code numbers to identify patients who were started on rosiglitazone or pioglitazone, as well as comorbidities, cardiac procedures, and hospitalizations. The primary end point was all-cause mortality, with secondary end points of MI, stroke, and hospitalization for CHF.
Results: Of the 28,361 eligible patients, 50.3 percent were started on pioglitazone and 49.7 percent on rosiglitazone. Baseline traits were similar between the groups, although the rosiglitazone group had slightly more diagnoses of coronary artery disease and CHF at baseline. Rosiglitazone users had a 15 percent greater mortality rate compared with pioglitazone users, but whether this was specifically of cardiovascular origin could not be determined. Rosiglitazone users also had a 13 percent greater risk of hospitalization for CHF compared with pioglitazone users. Risks of MI or stroke were comparable using either medication.
Conclusion: The authors conclude that patients started on rosiglitazone have higher rates of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for CHF than those using pioglitazone. The risks of MI or stroke are comparable for the two drugs. This study confirms the safety concerns of rosiglitazone relative to pioglitazone, although pioglitazone has also been shown to increase risk of CHF.
Winkelmayer WC, et al. Comparison of cardiovascular outcomes in elderly patients with diabetes who initiated rosiglitazone vs pioglitazone therapy. Arch Intern Med. November 24, 2008;168(21):2368–2375.
editor's note: Although this study shows that pioglitazone may be ‘safer’ than rosiglitazone, this is a relative distinction only; both drugs are linked with higher rates of CHF.1 For this reason, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) has advised caution with the use of either agent, especially with class III or IV heart failure. New guidelines from the ADA and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommend a “back-to-basics” approach for treating diabetes. Lifestyle modification and metformin (Glucophage) should be used initially, followed by insulin, sulfonylureas, or both if further control is needed. Thiazolidinediones and other drug classes should be reserved for cases in which the initial treatments are unsuccessful in achieving target glycemic goals.2—k.t.m.
1. Lincoff AM, Wolski K, Nicholls SJ, Nissen SE. Pioglitazone and risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA. 2007;298(10):1180–1188.
2. Nathan DM, Buse JB, Davidson MB, et al. Medical management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a consensus algorithm for the initiation and adjustment of therapy: a consensus statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(1):193–203.
Copyright © 2009 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact firstname.lastname@example.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.
Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions