The risk of sudden cardiac arrest and ventricular arrhythmia with rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone: real-world evidence on thiazolidinedione safety.

BACKGROUND: The low cost of thiazolidinediones makes them a potentially valuable therapeutic option for the > 300 million economically disadvantaged persons worldwide with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Differential selectivity of thiazolidinediones for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors in the myocardium may lead to disparate arrhythmogenic effects. We examined real-world effects of thiazolidinediones on outpatient-originating sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) and ventricular arrhythmia (VA). METHODS: We conducted population-based high-dimensional propensity score-matched cohort studies in five Medicaid programs (California, Florida, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania | 1999-2012) and a commercial health insurance plan (Optum Clinformatics | 2000-2016). We defined exposure based on incident rosiglitazone or pioglitazone dispensings; the latter served as an active comparator. We controlled for confounding by matching exposure groups on propensity score, informed by baseline covariates identified via a data adaptive approach. We ascertained SCA/VA outcomes precipitating hospital presentation using a validated, diagnosis-based algorithm. We generated marginal hazard ratios (HRs) via Cox proportional hazards regression that accounted for clustering within matched pairs. We prespecified Medicaid and Optum findings as primary and secondary, respectively; the latter served as a conceptual replication dataset. RESULTS: The adjusted HR for SCA/VA among rosiglitazone (vs. pioglitazone) users was 0.91 (0.75-1.10) in Medicaid and 0.88 (0.61-1.28) in Optum. Among Medicaid but not Optum enrollees, we found treatment effect heterogeneity by sex (adjusted HRs = 0.71 [0.54-0.93] and 1.16 [0.89-1.52] in men and women respectively, interaction term p-value = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Rosiglitazone and pioglitazone appear to be associated with similar risks of SCA/VA.

Does diabetes prevention translate into reduced long-term vascular complications of diabetes?

The global epidemic of type 2 diabetes has prompted numerous studies and public health efforts to reduce its development. A variety of interventions, including lifestyle modifications and pharmacological agents directed at ameliorating the major risk factors for type 2 diabetes, are of proven efficacy in reducing the development of type 2 diabetes in people with impaired glucose tolerance. While prevention of the hyperglycaemia characteristic of diabetes is arguably an important, clinically relevant outcome, a more compelling outcome with greater clinical significance is the prevention or reduction of the relatively diabetes-specific microvascular and less-specific cardiovascular disease (CVD) complications associated with diabetes. These complications cause the majority of morbidity and excess mortality associated with diabetes. Any reduction in diabetes should, logically, also reduce the occurrence of its long-term complications; however, most diabetes prevention trials have not been of sufficient duration to allow such an evaluation. The limited long-term data, largely from the Da Qing Diabetes Prevention Study (DQDPS) and the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) and their respective follow-up studies (DQDPOS and DPPOS), suggest a reduction in microvascular complications and amelioration of CVD risk factors. Only the DQDPOS and Study to Prevent Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus (STOP-NIDDM) studies have shown a reduction in CVD events and only DQDPOS has demonstrated a decrease in CVD and overall mortality. While these limited data are promising, whether diabetes prevention directly reduces complication-related morbidity and mortality remains unclear. Longer follow-up of prevention studies is needed to supplement the limited current clinical trial data, to help differentiate the effects of diabetes prevention itself from the means used to reduce diabetes development and to understand the balance among benefits, risks and costs of prevention.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of glimepiride combined with other drugs in the treatment of diabetes.

The goal of diabetic drug treatment is to stabilize the blood sugar for a long time to close to the normal level, to correct the metabolic disorder and eliminate the symptoms. At present, glimepiride has become commonly used drugs for the treatment of diabetes with obesity. Compared with metformin, acarbose and rosiglitazone, glimepiride has different mechanisms of drug action, clinical combination showed synergistic hypoglycemic effect, good clinical curative effect. So, we use three treatments to study as group A (glimepiride and metformin); group B (glimepiride and acarbose); Group C (glimepiride and rosiglitazone). From the analysis of drug economics, glimepiride and metformin scheme is better, has the lowest cost per unit cost effect. From the comparison of scheme is efficient, the best curative effect is rosiglitazone plus glimepiride, effective rate as 96.7%. At the same time, the drug can be rationally used to reduce the occurrence of some drug-induced diseases and adverse drug reactions.