Risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality among diabetic patients prescribed rosiglitazone or pioglitazone: a meta-analysis of retrospective cohort studies
Risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality among diabetic patients prescribed rosiglitazone or pioglitazone: a meta-analysis of retrospective cohort studies
复制标题
DOI：
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.2012.23.025
复制
发表时间：
2012-12-05
影响因子：
6.1
通讯作者：
Zhai Suo-di
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chen Xin;Yang Li;Zhai Suo-di
背景罗格列酮和吡格列酮治疗糖尿病患者的心血管效应的差异尚未得到深入研究。我们进行了一项荟萃分析，以比较罗格列酮与吡格列酮治疗2型糖尿病患者的心血管不良反应的风险。方法检索科克伦图书馆、PubMed和Embase，以确定评估罗格列酮和吡格列酮心血管结局的回顾性队列研究。结果在74篇文献中，有8篇文献涉及945286例患者，符合纳入标准。荟萃分析结果显示，与吡格列酮相比，罗格列酮治疗显著增加心肌梗死的风险（风险比（RR）1.17，95%置信区间（CI）1.04-1.32; P=0.01），心力衰竭的风险（RR 1.18，95%CI 1.02-1.36; P=0.03）和总死亡率（RR 1.13，95%CI 1.08-1.20; P
Background The difference of cardiovascular effects between rosiglitazone and pioglitazone treatment for diabetic patients has not been thoroughly studied. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the risk of cardiovascular adverse effects in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with rosiglitazone compared to pioglitazone.Methods The Cochrane Library, Pub Med, and Embase were searched to identify retrospective cohort studies assessing cardiovascular outcomes with rosiglitazone and pioglitazone. Meta-analysis of retrospective cohort studies was conducted using Rev Man 5.0 software to calculate risk ratios.Results Of the 74 references identified, eight studies involving 945 286 patients fit the inclusion criteria for the analysis. The results of meta-analyses showed that, compared with pioglitazone, rosiglitazone therapy significantly increased the risk of myocardial infarction (risk ratios (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.32; P=0.01), the risk of heart failure (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02-1.36; P=0.03), and total mortality (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08-1.20; P