4.2 Article

Risk of acute myocardial infarction in patients treated with thiazolidinediones or other antidiabetic medications

期刊

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 166-174

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pds.1700

关键词

thiazolidinedione; rosiglitazone; pioglitazone; myocardial infarction; antidiabetic medication; risk

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Controversy surrounds the question whether thiazolidinediones (TZDs) increase the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This study examined risk of AMI in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who were taking TZDs or other antidiabetic medications. Methods Using a nested case-control design, a cohort of patients aged 18-84 years with T2DM and use of an oral antidiabetic medication or exenatide between January 2002 and June 2006 was identified. Cases of AMI were matched with up to four controls based on age, gender, health plan, geography, and diabetes therapy regimen. Over the 1-year pre-index period, TZD exposure was compared with no TZD exposure, after adjustment for potential confounders. Results Overall, 1681 cases were identified and matched with 6653 controls. Compared with no TZD exposure, an increased risk of AMI was not observed among TZD exposed patients (adjusted OR 1.01; 95%CI, 0.85-1.20; adjusted p = 0.98). When exposure proximity to the event was examined, the risk of AMI was significantly increased with recent rosiglitazone exposure between I and 60 days prior to the case date (adjusted OR 1.69; 95%CI, 1.18-2.44; adjusted p = 0.045) and was not significantly increased with current or remote rosiglitazone exposure or current, recent, or remote pioglitazone exposure. Conclusion TZD exposure did not increase the risk of AMI when exposure proximity was not considered. However, when evaluating exposure proximity to the event, the risk of AMI was increased with recent rosiglitazone exposure between I and 60 days prior to the case date. Copyright (C) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据