Search

Evidence has emerged that pioglitazone may increase the risk of bladder cancer, but the association has not been confirmed. This potential risk also has not been evaluated in users of rosiglitazone. Using Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD), this large population-based nested case–control study was conducted to explore the relationship between the use of rosiglitazone or pioglitazone and risk of bladder cancer in diabetic patients. We identified 3,412 cases of newly diagnosed bladder cancer and 17,060 controls (1:5 matched by age and sex) among a diabetic patient cohort from the NHIRD. We defined an index date for each case as the date of first hospitalization for bladder cancer. Each control was assigned the index date of their corresponding case. Multivariable conditional logistic regressions were used to estimate the association between exposure (timing and duration) to rosiglitazone or pioglitazone and bladder cancer. We defined rosiglitazone or pioglitazone exposure as “current” if the prescription duration covered the index date or ended at 90 days before, as “recent” if it ended 91–180 days before the index date, or as “past” if the last prescription ended more than 180 days before. Duration of rosiglitazone or pioglitazone use was defined based on the cumulative days of exposure prior to the index date

Concern has been expressed over the cardiovascular risks associated with rosiglitazone and pioglitazone. This study investigates the association between oral antihyperglycaemics (rosiglitazone, pioglitazone, sulfonylureas and metformin) with myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, angina pectoris, stroke and transient ischaemic attack.We used Taiwan's 2000-5 National Health Insurance database to conduct a population-based, retrospective cohort study of 473 483 newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. We classified study patients into five basic groups based on the agents they were prescribed during the study period: (i) rosiglitazone monotherapy; (ii) pioglitazone monotherapy; (iii) sulfonylurea-based therapy; (iv) metformin-based therapy; and (v) sulfonylurea and metformin-based therapy. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between the use of rosiglitazone or pioglitazone and the occurrence of cardiovascular events.Patients receiving rosiglitazone monotherapy were at higher risk for any cardiovascular event (hazard ratio [HR] 1.89; 95% CI 1.57, 2.28), myocardial infarction (HR 2.09; 95% CI 1.36, 3.24), angina pectoris (HR 1.79; 95% CI 1.39, 2.30) and transient ischaemic attack (HR 2.57; 95% CI 1.33, 4.96) than those receiving metformin monotherapy. Overall, add-on rosiglitazone and pioglitazone were associated with comparable cardiovascular risk. Based on our point estimates, pioglitazone as an add-on therapy was found to have a favourable, but nonsignificant, effect on outcome.Our findings extend the evidence from current literature to a real-world setting and support data from clinical trials that the disadvantages or harm caused by thiazolidinediones, especially rosiglitazone, may outweigh their benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Background: Using national data (2001–2003), this study explored the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), angina, stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) in long-term users of rofecoxib and celecoxib in Taiwan and compared this data with that for those using meloxicam. Methods: Patients included in the study had used celecoxib, rofecoxib or meloxicam for at least 180 days. Data were taken from National Health Insurance database for the period from 2001 to 2003. Main outcome measurements were the occurrence of AMI, angina, stroke or TIA after the initiation of long-term continuous use of these drugs. Person-time exposures and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated based on data from 9602 eligible patients. Results: In patients without a history of a cardiovascular event within the year before drug treatment began, the overall rates of AMI, angina, stroke and TIA were 1.1%, 0.6%, 2.0% and 0.6%, respectively. In those with cardiovascular events in the year before treatment began, the overall rates of AMI, angina, stroke and TIA were 5.0%, 4.8%, 6.6% and 5.8%, respectively. Compared with meloxicam users, celecoxib users had lower HRs for the development of AMI (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.63, 0.96) and stroke (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70, 0.93). Rofecoxib users were at no higher risk of cardiovascular events than those receiving meloxicam. Regardless of treatment, having had a cardiovascular event in the year before treatment began played a significant role in the development of the same cardiovascular event during the prescription period; the HRs associated with having had the same cardiovascular event in the past year, versus not having had such an event, were 3.02 (95% CI 1.44, 6.32) for AMI, 5.82 (95% CI 3.19, 10.63) for angina, 2.44 (95% CI 1.79, 3.33) for stroke and 7.16 (95% CI 3.70, 13.87) for TIA. Conclusions: Patients taking celecoxib had a lower risk of cardiovascular events than those taking meloxicam. Patients taking rofecoxib were not found to be at higher cardiovascular risk than those taking meloxicam. The most significant determinant of cardiovascular risk was a history of such cardiovascular disease in the year preceding treatment initiation. Patients with a history of other medical conditions also appeared to be at higher risk of adverse cardiovascular events.