Searching for the right outcome? A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled trials using carotid intima‐media thickness or pulse wave velocity to infer antiatherogenic properties of thiazolidinediones

INTRODUCTION: Recent meta-analyses cast doubt over purported beneficial effects of Peroxisome Proliferator Activated Receptor-Gamma (PPAR-gamma) receptor agonists. Thiazolidinedione (TZD) trials using surrogate outcomes to postulate an antiatherogenic paradigm have been criticised as misinformative. We conducted an independent systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled TZD studies incorporating carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) or pulse wave velocity (PWV) as primary outcome measures. The aim was to provide an evidence-based overview of TZD intervention studies using markers prospectively linked to vascular outcome in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Systematic search of known databases for TZD intervention trials using mean thickness CIMT(n = 9) and ankle-brachial PWV(n = 6) as primary outcome measures was performed. CIMT and PWV pooled weighted mean difference was calculated using a random effects model accounting for heterogeneity and publication bias. An indirect meta-analysis provided a comparison of rosiglitazone and pioglitazone effects. RESULTS: A composite of combined placebo and comparator controlled trials demonstrated a significant weighted mean difference of-0.06 mm for CIMT (95% CI-0.09 to-0.02, p = 0.001) and-0.72 ms(-1) for PWV (95% CI-1.28 to-0.16, p = 0.011) in favour of thiazolidiendione treatment. No TZD intraclass variation in CIMT (p = 0.96) or PWV (p = 0.33) change was observed. CONCLUSION: TZDs exhibit significant beneficial effects on aorto-carotid atherosclerosis when assessed using prospectively validated non-invasive techniques. Inferring clinical benefit in the absence of confirmatory outcome trials is questionable and caution should be exercised when interpreting intervention data with surrogate endpoints. TZD-induced congestive cardiac failure or other unknown PPAR-gamma adverse effects are plausible explanations for the conflicting results of intervention trials using markers of atherosclerosis and clinical event outcomes.