4.2 Article

A comparison of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone for hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction in type 2 diabetest

期刊

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY
卷 16, 期 10, 页码 1065-1071

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pds.1470

关键词

pioglitazone; rosiglitazone; myocardial infarction; pharmacoepidemiology; retrospective cohort study; observational study; PPAR-agonists

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Recent studies have raised concerns about potential increased cardiovascular (CV) risk in type 2 diabetes patients treated with some peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR-gamma) agonists. Objective To ascertain the risk of hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in type 2 diabetes patients treated with pioglitazone relative to rosiglitazone. Methodology Using data covering 2003-2006 from a large health care insurer in the US, a retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients who initiated treatment with pioglitazone or rosiglitazone. The hazard ratio (HR) of incident hospitalization for AMI after initiation of treatment with these drugs was estimated from multivariate Cox's proportional hazards survival analysis; similarly, the HR was ascertained for hospitalization for the composite endpoint of AMI or coronary revascularization (CR). Results A total of 29911 eligible patients were identified in the database; 14807 in the pioglitazone and 15 104 in the rosiglitazone group. Baseline demographics, medical history, and dispensed medications were generally well balanced between groups. The unadjusted HR for hospitalization for AMI was 0.82, 95%Cl: 0.67-1.0 1. After adjustment for baseline covariates the HR was 0.78, 95%Cl: 0.63-0.96. The aqiusted HR for the composite of AMI or CR was 0.85, 95%Cl: 0.75-0.98. Conclusion This retrospective cohort study showed that pioglitazone, in comparison with rosiglitazone, is associated with a 22% relative risk reduction of hospitalization for AMI in patients with type 2 diabetes. Copyright (C) 2007 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