Search

Background: There is conflicting evidence on the reduction of cardiovascular risk in diabetic patients treated with oral antidiabetic agents., Objectives: To compare the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) and coronary revascularization (CR) in type 2 diabetic patients treated with rosiglitazone, metformin, or sulfonylurea., Methods: Using data from a large US insurer, we created propensity-matched cohorts. We identified hospitalizations for MI or CR. We calculated incidence rates and 95% confidence intervals for the outcomes and estimated risks from Cox proportional hazards models., Results: We identified 26,931 initiators of monotherapy, 4,086 initiators of dual-therapy, and 2,346 initiators of combination with insulin therapy. There was no difference between the risk of the composite outcome with rosiglitazone monotherapy compared to metformin monotherapy (HR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.85, 1.34), and similarly with rosiglitazone monotherapy compared to sulfonylurea monotherapy (HR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.67, 1.02). There was no difference in the risk of outcome with rosiglitazone in combination with insulin therapy compared to other oral antidiabetic agents in combination with insulin (HR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.59, 1.32). Overall, there was little difference in the risk of the composite outcome or of the individual outcomes of MI and CR comparing rosiglitazone therapies to non-rosiglitazone therapies (HR for composite outcome 0.93, 95% CI: 0.80, 1.10)., Conclusions: The results from the monotherapy and the dual-therapy comparisons, though not individually significant, are consistent in suggesting that the risk of cardiovascular outcome events in patients using rosiglitazone may lie between the risks associated with sulfonylureas (higher incidence) and metformin (lower incidence).

Purpose: We conducted three nested case-control studies to evaluate the risk of breast, colon, and prostate cancers developing in patients exposed to thiazolidinediones (TZDs) compared with other anti-diabetic agents., Methods: Cancer cases were matched to five controls by age, gender, calendar year, and time in the database from a cohort of 1 26 971 diabetic patients taking anti-diabetic medication in the US Integrated Healthcare Information Services database. Five hundred thirteen breast cancer cases were matched with 2557 controls, 408 cases of colon cancer were matched with 2027 controls and 643 cases of prostate cancer were matched with 3176 controls. Exposure to an anti-diabetic agent within 90 days preceding the index date was defined as recent exposure and at any time during the follow-up was defined as ever exposed., Results: The adjusted odds ratios and 95%CI of cancer from ever exposure to TZDs compared to oral monotherapy, oral dual therapy, oral triple therapy, insulin monotherapy, insulin and oral therapy and all non-TZD anti-diabetic agents were, respectively for breast cancer: 0.91 (0.69-1.20), 0.80 (0.56-1.14), 0.87 (0.32-2.35), 1.27 (0.61-2.67), 0.71 (0.36-1.37), 0.89 (0.68-1.15); for colon cancer: 1.06 (0.80-1.40), 1.12 (0.77-1.63), 1.73 (0.39-7.78), 4.46 (1.05-19.00), 1.06 (0.50-2.26) 1.03 (0.80-1.32) and for prostate cancer: 1.08 (0.85-1.37), 0.89 (0.66-1.21); 0.82 (0.33-2.06); 1.80 (0.79-4.07), 1.10 (0.55-2.18), 1.04 (0.83-1.31). Results for exposure within 90 days of the date of the cancer were similar., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the effect of TZDs on the likelihood of development of the cancers studied (colon, prostate and breast) appears to be neutral and do not support a beneficial or deleterious effect of TZD on the cancers studied., (Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)