Comparative effectiveness of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone in type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, and the metabolic syndrome

A meta-analysis

Susan L. Norris, Susan Carson, Carol Roberts

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective - To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone. Research design and methods - Multiple electronic databases were searched for randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of efficacy or effectiveness and for studies of any design which reported adverse events. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random effects model. Results - Eighty-seven RCTs fulfilled our inclusion criteria for efficacy or effectiveness and 42 studies examined safety or tolerability. Two head-to-head RCTs of type 2 diabetes demonstrated significant improvements in A1c in both groups at follow-up with no significant difference between groups; a third study found no significant change in A1c in either group. The Pooled estimate of effect on A1c for pioglitazone compared to placebo was -0.99% (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.18, -0.81) and for rosiglitazone was -0.92% (95% CI, -1.2, -0.64). Indirect comparison revealed no significant difference in A1c (between-drug difference -0.07% [95% CI, -0.41, 0.27]). Rosiglitazone increased total cholesterol compared to pioglitazone (net between-drug effect 13.91 mg/dl [95% CI, 1.20 to 26.62]). Both drugs increased weight by 2 to 3 kg and rates of adverse events were similar for the two drugs. Data were insufficient to assess comparative effects on health outcomes such as cardiovascular events. Conclusions - Based largely on indirect evidence, the two thiazolidinediones appear to have similar effects on glycemic control and similar side-effect profiles. Rosiglitazone may increase total cholesterol compared to pioglitazone. Studies are needed which provide direct comparisons between the two drugs, particularly for long-term health outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)127-140
Number of pages14
JournalCurrent Diabetes Reviews
Volume3
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2007

Fingerprint

rosiglitazone
pioglitazone
Prediabetic State
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Meta-Analysis
Confidence Intervals
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Randomized Controlled Trials
Cholesterol
Safety
Thiazolidinediones
Health
Research Design
Placebos
Databases
Weights and Measures

Keywords

  • Meta-analyisis
  • Oral hypoglycemic agents
  • Systematic review
  • Type 2 diabetes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
  • Endocrinology

Cite this

Comparative effectiveness of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone in type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, and the metabolic syndrome : A meta-analysis. / Norris, Susan L.; Carson, Susan; Roberts, Carol.

In: Current Diabetes Reviews, Vol. 3, No. 2, 05.2007, p. 127-140.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f1bdfc4e777644b89af11ac28d1196cf,
title = "Comparative effectiveness of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone in type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, and the metabolic syndrome: A meta-analysis",
abstract = "Objective - To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone. Research design and methods - Multiple electronic databases were searched for randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of efficacy or effectiveness and for studies of any design which reported adverse events. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random effects model. Results - Eighty-seven RCTs fulfilled our inclusion criteria for efficacy or effectiveness and 42 studies examined safety or tolerability. Two head-to-head RCTs of type 2 diabetes demonstrated significant improvements in A1c in both groups at follow-up with no significant difference between groups; a third study found no significant change in A1c in either group. The Pooled estimate of effect on A1c for pioglitazone compared to placebo was -0.99{\%} (95{\%} confidence interval [CI], -1.18, -0.81) and for rosiglitazone was -0.92{\%} (95{\%} CI, -1.2, -0.64). Indirect comparison revealed no significant difference in A1c (between-drug difference -0.07{\%} [95{\%} CI, -0.41, 0.27]). Rosiglitazone increased total cholesterol compared to pioglitazone (net between-drug effect 13.91 mg/dl [95{\%} CI, 1.20 to 26.62]). Both drugs increased weight by 2 to 3 kg and rates of adverse events were similar for the two drugs. Data were insufficient to assess comparative effects on health outcomes such as cardiovascular events. Conclusions - Based largely on indirect evidence, the two thiazolidinediones appear to have similar effects on glycemic control and similar side-effect profiles. Rosiglitazone may increase total cholesterol compared to pioglitazone. Studies are needed which provide direct comparisons between the two drugs, particularly for long-term health outcomes.",
keywords = "Meta-analyisis, Oral hypoglycemic agents, Systematic review, Type 2 diabetes",
author = "Norris, {Susan L.} and Susan Carson and Carol Roberts",
year = "2007",
month = "5",
doi = "10.2174/157339907780598216",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "3",
pages = "127--140",
journal = "Current Diabetes Reviews",
issn = "1573-3998",
publisher = "Bentham Science Publishers B.V.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative effectiveness of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone in type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, and the metabolic syndrome

T2 - A meta-analysis

AU - Norris, Susan L.

AU - Carson, Susan

AU - Roberts, Carol

PY - 2007/5

Y1 - 2007/5

N2 - Objective - To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone. Research design and methods - Multiple electronic databases were searched for randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of efficacy or effectiveness and for studies of any design which reported adverse events. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random effects model. Results - Eighty-seven RCTs fulfilled our inclusion criteria for efficacy or effectiveness and 42 studies examined safety or tolerability. Two head-to-head RCTs of type 2 diabetes demonstrated significant improvements in A1c in both groups at follow-up with no significant difference between groups; a third study found no significant change in A1c in either group. The Pooled estimate of effect on A1c for pioglitazone compared to placebo was -0.99% (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.18, -0.81) and for rosiglitazone was -0.92% (95% CI, -1.2, -0.64). Indirect comparison revealed no significant difference in A1c (between-drug difference -0.07% [95% CI, -0.41, 0.27]). Rosiglitazone increased total cholesterol compared to pioglitazone (net between-drug effect 13.91 mg/dl [95% CI, 1.20 to 26.62]). Both drugs increased weight by 2 to 3 kg and rates of adverse events were similar for the two drugs. Data were insufficient to assess comparative effects on health outcomes such as cardiovascular events. Conclusions - Based largely on indirect evidence, the two thiazolidinediones appear to have similar effects on glycemic control and similar side-effect profiles. Rosiglitazone may increase total cholesterol compared to pioglitazone. Studies are needed which provide direct comparisons between the two drugs, particularly for long-term health outcomes.

AB - Objective - To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone. Research design and methods - Multiple electronic databases were searched for randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of efficacy or effectiveness and for studies of any design which reported adverse events. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random effects model. Results - Eighty-seven RCTs fulfilled our inclusion criteria for efficacy or effectiveness and 42 studies examined safety or tolerability. Two head-to-head RCTs of type 2 diabetes demonstrated significant improvements in A1c in both groups at follow-up with no significant difference between groups; a third study found no significant change in A1c in either group. The Pooled estimate of effect on A1c for pioglitazone compared to placebo was -0.99% (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.18, -0.81) and for rosiglitazone was -0.92% (95% CI, -1.2, -0.64). Indirect comparison revealed no significant difference in A1c (between-drug difference -0.07% [95% CI, -0.41, 0.27]). Rosiglitazone increased total cholesterol compared to pioglitazone (net between-drug effect 13.91 mg/dl [95% CI, 1.20 to 26.62]). Both drugs increased weight by 2 to 3 kg and rates of adverse events were similar for the two drugs. Data were insufficient to assess comparative effects on health outcomes such as cardiovascular events. Conclusions - Based largely on indirect evidence, the two thiazolidinediones appear to have similar effects on glycemic control and similar side-effect profiles. Rosiglitazone may increase total cholesterol compared to pioglitazone. Studies are needed which provide direct comparisons between the two drugs, particularly for long-term health outcomes.

KW - Meta-analyisis

KW - Oral hypoglycemic agents

KW - Systematic review

KW - Type 2 diabetes

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34248647627&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34248647627&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2174/157339907780598216

DO - 10.2174/157339907780598216

M3 - Article

VL - 3

SP - 127

EP - 140

JO - Current Diabetes Reviews

JF - Current Diabetes Reviews

SN - 1573-3998

IS - 2

ER -