Cargando…

Rosiglitazone and Myocardial Infarction in Patients Previously Prescribed Metformin

OBJECTIVE: Rosiglitazone was found associated with approximately a 43% increase in risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in a two meta-analyses of clinical trials. Our objective is to estimate the magnitude of the association in real-world patients previously treated with metformin. RESEARCH DES...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dormuth, Colin R., Maclure, Malcolm, Carney, Greg, Schneeweiss, Sebastian, Bassett, Ken, Wright, James M.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2698985/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562036
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006080
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: Rosiglitazone was found associated with approximately a 43% increase in risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in a two meta-analyses of clinical trials. Our objective is to estimate the magnitude of the association in real-world patients previously treated with metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a nested case control study in British Columbia using health care databases on 4.3 million people. Our cohort consisted of 158,578 patients with Type 2 diabetes who used metformin as first-line drug treatment. We matched 2,244 cases of myocardial infarction (AMI) with up to 4 controls. Conditional logistic regression models were used to estimate matched odds ratios for AMI associated with treatment with rosiglitazone, pioglitazone and sulfonylureas. RESULTS: In our cohort of prior metformin users, adding rosiglitazone for up to 6 months was not associated with an increased risk of AMI compared to adding a sulfonylurea (odds ratio [OR] 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91–2.10), or compared to adding pioglitazone (OR for rosi versus pio 1.41; 95% CI, 0.74–2.66). There were also no significant differences between rosiglitazone, pioglitazone and sulfonylureas for longer durations of treatment. Though not significantly different from sulfonylureas, there was a transient increase in AMI risk associated with the first 6 months of treatment with a glitazone compared to not using the treatment (OR 1.53; 95% CI, 1.13–2.07) CONCLUSIONS: In our British Columbia cohort of patients who received metformin as first-line pharmacotherapy for Type 2 diabetes mellitus, further treatment with rosiglitazone did not increase the risk of AMI compared to patients who were treated with pioglitazone or a sulfonylurea. Though not statistically significantly different compared from each other, an increased risk of AMI observed after starting rosiglitazone or sulfonylureas is a matter of concern that requires more research.