Key result
Rosiglitazone was associated with a similar risk of sudden cardiac arrest and ventricular arrhythmia compared to pioglitazone (HR 0.91) in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Why the study?
Differential selectivity of thiazolidinediones for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors in the myocardium may cause disparate arrhythmogenic effects, prompting examination of their real-world effects on sudden cardiac arrest and ventricular arrhythmia.
Does rosiglitazone compared to pioglitazone increase the risk of sudden cardiac arrest and ventricular arrhythmia in adults with type 2 diabetes?
Cohort (n=379,598)
Yes
Does rosiglitazone compared to pioglitazone increase the risk of sudden cardiac arrest and ventricular arrhythmia in adults with type 2 diabetes?
In a large real-world cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone were associated with similar risks of sudden cardiac arrest and ventricular arrhythmia.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May reassure on arrhythmia risk equivalence in T2D; leaves open randomized confirmation.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leonard et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Type 2 diabetes mellitus (n=379,598). Rosiglitazone vs. Pioglitazone was evaluated on Outpatient-originating sudden cardiac arrest and ventricular arrhythmia precipitating hospital presentation (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75-1.10). Rosiglitazone was associated with a similar risk of sudden cardiac arrest and ventricular arrhythmia compared to pioglitazone (HR 0.91) in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: