Risk of cardiovascular events with rosiglitazone and pioglitazone treatment in over 65-year-old patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus:a meta-analysis

Chen Xin,Yang Li,Zhai Suodi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-5734.2011.02.002
2011-01-01
Abstract:Objective: To systematically evaluate the risk of cardiovascular events with rosiglitazone and pioglitazone treatment in over 65-year-old patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Methods: A search of Cochrane Library(1996 to 2010),PubMed(1966 to 2010),Embase(1966 to 2010),CJFD(1979 to 2010),CBM(1978 to 2010) and VIP(1989 to 2010) were conducted using Key words "rosiglitazone","pioglitazone","cardiovascular events","cardiovascular risk","elderly population","65 years old",and "cohort study".Retrospective cohort studies in comparison of cardiovascular events between rosiglitazone and pioglitazone in over 65-year-old patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were collected.According to the inclusion criteria,the literature was selected and assessed.The meta-analysis of data was conducted using RevMan 5.0 software.The relative risk ratio(RR) and 95% confidence interval(CI) of myocardial infarction,heart failure,and all-cause mortality due to rosiglitazone or pioglitazone treatment in over 65-year-old patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were calculated.Results: Seventy-four related articles were obtained and,after detailed screening,three retrospective cohort studies from 2008 to 2010 were located,with a total of 295 668 patients(including 104 479 receiving rosiglitazone and 191 189 receiving pioglitazone).The meta-analysis revealed the following results: the incidence rates of myocardial infarction,heart failure and total mortality in the patients receiving rosiglitazone were higher than those in the patients receiving pioglitazone,their RR(95%CI) were 1.05(0.98-1.13,P=0.17),1.22(1.05-1.40,P=0.007) and 1.14(1.08-1.21,P<0.000 01),respectively.Conclusion: The risk of heart failure and all-cause mortality is higher in rosiglitazone treatment than in pioglitazone treatment in over 65-year-old patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?