Cargando…

Assessing the need for pioglitazone in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of its risks and benefits from prospective trials

The safety and usefulness of pioglitazone (Pio) is repeatedly called into question due to the contradictory information available about it. A meta-analysis and risk benefit assessment was conducted to address the various points of debate regarding Pio. Electronic database search (Cochrane library, E...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sinha, Binayak, Ghosal, Samit
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7519682/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32978507
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72967-8
_version_ 1783587618614673408
author Sinha, Binayak
Ghosal, Samit
author_facet Sinha, Binayak
Ghosal, Samit
author_sort Sinha, Binayak
collection PubMed
description The safety and usefulness of pioglitazone (Pio) is repeatedly called into question due to the contradictory information available about it. A meta-analysis and risk benefit assessment was conducted to address the various points of debate regarding Pio. Electronic database search (Cochrane library, Embase & PubMed) resulted in 10 citations eligible for this meta-analysis (prospective, randomised studies), which was conducted using CMA software version 3 (Biostat Inc., Englewood, NJ, USA). The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019122403) and compared pioglitazone with a control (anti-hyperglycemic agents without pioglitazone) in patients with either established cardiovascular disease or having high cardiovascular risk. Sensitivity and subgroup analysis were conducted to differentiate the effect of Pio against active controls and placebo. The use of Pio compared to the control group that did not use Pio resulted in a 14% and 23% significant reduction in odds of major adverse cardiac events (MACE: MH-OR, 0.86; 95% CI 0.75–0.98), and stroke (MH-OR, 0.77; 95% CI 0.60–0.99), respectively. This reduction in stroke was not significant in comparison to placebo on subgroup analysis. However, Pio significantly increased odds of heart failure (HF) (MH-OR, 1.47; 95% CI 1.26–1.71) as well as hospitalization for heart failure (hHF) (MH-OR, 1.48; 95% CI 1.21–1.81). In addition, the use of Pio was associated with a significant increase in odds of fractures in women (MH-OR, 2.05; 95% CI 1.28–3.27) and anaemia (MH-OR, 2.56; 95% CI 1.55–4.21). Pio has no significant effect on bladder cancer nor macular oedema. Pio has salutary effects on MACE. The positive effects are completely offset by the harm they seem to cause by way of heart failure, fractures, and anaemia. Pio should therefore be reserved for treatment of T2D with high CV risk or established cardiovascular (CV) disease only in selected patients where other antidiabetics are precluded and not routinely.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7519682
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75196822020-09-29 Assessing the need for pioglitazone in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of its risks and benefits from prospective trials Sinha, Binayak Ghosal, Samit Sci Rep Article The safety and usefulness of pioglitazone (Pio) is repeatedly called into question due to the contradictory information available about it. A meta-analysis and risk benefit assessment was conducted to address the various points of debate regarding Pio. Electronic database search (Cochrane library, Embase & PubMed) resulted in 10 citations eligible for this meta-analysis (prospective, randomised studies), which was conducted using CMA software version 3 (Biostat Inc., Englewood, NJ, USA). The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019122403) and compared pioglitazone with a control (anti-hyperglycemic agents without pioglitazone) in patients with either established cardiovascular disease or having high cardiovascular risk. Sensitivity and subgroup analysis were conducted to differentiate the effect of Pio against active controls and placebo. The use of Pio compared to the control group that did not use Pio resulted in a 14% and 23% significant reduction in odds of major adverse cardiac events (MACE: MH-OR, 0.86; 95% CI 0.75–0.98), and stroke (MH-OR, 0.77; 95% CI 0.60–0.99), respectively. This reduction in stroke was not significant in comparison to placebo on subgroup analysis. However, Pio significantly increased odds of heart failure (HF) (MH-OR, 1.47; 95% CI 1.26–1.71) as well as hospitalization for heart failure (hHF) (MH-OR, 1.48; 95% CI 1.21–1.81). In addition, the use of Pio was associated with a significant increase in odds of fractures in women (MH-OR, 2.05; 95% CI 1.28–3.27) and anaemia (MH-OR, 2.56; 95% CI 1.55–4.21). Pio has no significant effect on bladder cancer nor macular oedema. Pio has salutary effects on MACE. The positive effects are completely offset by the harm they seem to cause by way of heart failure, fractures, and anaemia. Pio should therefore be reserved for treatment of T2D with high CV risk or established cardiovascular (CV) disease only in selected patients where other antidiabetics are precluded and not routinely. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-09-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7519682/ /pubmed/32978507 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72967-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Sinha, Binayak
Ghosal, Samit
Assessing the need for pioglitazone in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of its risks and benefits from prospective trials
title Assessing the need for pioglitazone in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of its risks and benefits from prospective trials
title_full Assessing the need for pioglitazone in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of its risks and benefits from prospective trials
title_fullStr Assessing the need for pioglitazone in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of its risks and benefits from prospective trials
title_full_unstemmed Assessing the need for pioglitazone in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of its risks and benefits from prospective trials
title_short Assessing the need for pioglitazone in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of its risks and benefits from prospective trials
title_sort assessing the need for pioglitazone in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of its risks and benefits from prospective trials
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7519682/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32978507
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72967-8
work_keys_str_mv AT sinhabinayak assessingtheneedforpioglitazoneinthetreatmentofpatientswithtype2diabetesametaanalysisofitsrisksandbenefitsfromprospectivetrials
AT ghosalsamit assessingtheneedforpioglitazoneinthetreatmentofpatientswithtype2diabetesametaanalysisofitsrisksandbenefitsfromprospectivetrials