Evaluation of in-stent restenosis in the APPROACH trial (assessment on the prevention of progression by Rosiglitazone on atherosclerosis in diabetes patients with cardiovascular history)

To determine (1) the medium-term effect of rosiglitazone and glipizide on intra-stent neointima hyperplasia, (2) restenosis pattern as assessed by intra-vascular ultrasound (IVUS) and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) in patients with T2DM and coronary artery disease. A total of 462 patients with T2DM were randomized to rosiglitazone or glipizide for up to 18 months in the APPROACH trial, and had evaluable baseline and follow-up IVUS examinations. There was no significant difference in the size of plaque behind stent between the rosiglitazone and glipizide groups at 18 months among those treated with a bare metal stent (−5.6 mm3 vs. 1.9 mm3; P = 0.61) or with a drug-eluting stent (12.1 mm3 vs. 5.5 mm3; P = 0.09). Similarly, there was no significant difference in percentage intimal hyperplasia volume between the rosiglitazone and glipizide groups at 18 months among those treated with a bare metal stent (24.1% vs. 19.8%; P = 0.38) or with a drug-eluting stent (9.8% vs. 8.3%; P = 0.57). QCA data (intra-stent late loss, intra-stent diameter stenosis or binary restenosis) were not different between the rosiglitazone and glipizide groups. This study suggests that both rosiglitazone and glipizide have a similar effect on neointimal growth at medium term follow-up, a finding that warrants investigation in dedicated randomized trials

Renal Function in Type 2 Diabetes with Rosiglitazone, Metformin, and Glyburide Monotherapy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In ADOPT (A Diabetes Outcomes Prevention Trial), initial monotherapy with rosiglitazone provided more durable glycemic control than metformin or glyburide in patients with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Herein, we examine differences in albumin excretion, renal function (estimated GFR), and BP over 5 years between treatment groups. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, and MEASUREMENTS: A total of 4351 recently diagnosed, drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes were treated and followed for up to 5 years with rosiglitazone, metformin, or glyburide and were examined with periodic assessments of albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR), modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD)-estimated GFR, and BP. RESULTS: The ACR rose slowly with metformin. It fell with rosiglitazone and less so with glyburide over the first 2 years, and then rose slowly over time. Estimated GFR (eGFR) with all therapies rose into the high normal range over the first 3 to 4 years, more so with rosiglitazone, and then declined, more so with glyburide. Systolic BP was stable over time, values with rosiglitazone being lower, and diastolic BP declined over time, more so with rosiglitazone than with metformin or glyburide. There was no difference among groups in the incidence of emergent albuminuria (ACR ≥30 mg/g), hypertension, or impaired eGFR (<60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)). CONCLUSIONS: Over a 5-year period, initial monotherapy with rosiglitazone retards the rise of ACR compared with metformin, preserves eGFR compared with glyburide, and lowers BP relative to both comparators

Effect of rosiglitazone on progression of coronary atherosclerosis in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease: the assessment on the prevention of progression by rosiglitazone on atherosclerosis in diabetes patients with cardiovascular history trial.

BACKGROUND: Rosiglitazone has several properties that may affect progression of atherosclerosis. The Assessment on the Prevention of Progression by Rosiglitazone on Atherosclerosis in Diabetes Patients With Cardiovascular History (APPROACH) study was undertaken to determine the effect of the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone on coronary atherosclerosis as assessed by intravascular ultrasound compared with the sulfonylurea glipizide. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a randomized, double-blind, controlled 18-month study in 672 patients aged 30 to 80 years with established type 2 diabetes mellitus treated by lifestyle, 1 oral agent, or submaximal doses of 2 oral agents who had at least 1 atherosclerotic plaque with 10% to 50% luminal narrowing in a coronary artery that had not undergone intervention during a clinically indicated coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary outcome was change in percent atheroma volume in the longest and least angulated epicardial coronary artery that had not undergone intervention. Secondary outcomes included change in normalized total atheroma volume and change in total atheroma volume in the most diseased baseline 10-mm segment. Rosiglitazone did not significantly reduce the primary outcome of percent atheroma volume compared with glipizide (-0.64%; 95% confidence interval, -1.46 to 0.17; P=0.12). The secondary outcome of normalized total atheroma volume was significantly reduced by rosiglitazone compared with glipizide (-5.1 mm(3); 95% confidence interval, -10.0 to -0.3; P=0.04); however, no significant difference between groups was observed for the change in total atheroma volume within the most diseased baseline 10-mm segment (-1.7 mm(3); 95% confidence interval, -3.9 to 0.5; P=0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Rosiglitazone did not significantly decrease the primary end point of progression of coronary atherosclerosis more than glipizide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary atherosclerosis. Clinical Trial Registration- http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT00116831

Measuring Quality of Care in Patients With Multiple Clinical Conditions: Summary of a Conference Conducted by the Society of General Internal Medicine

Performance measurement has been widely advocated as a means to improve health care delivery and, ultimately, clinical outcomes. However, the evidence supporting the value of using the same quality measures designed for patients with a single clinical condition in patients with multiple conditions is weak. If clinically complex patients, defined here as patients with multiple clinical conditions, present greater challenges to achieving quality goals, providers may shun them or ignore important, but unmeasured, clinical issues. This paper summarizes the proceedings of a conference addressing the challenge of measuring quality of care in the patient with multiple clinical conditions with the goal of informing the implementation of quality measurement systems and future research programs on this topic. The conference had three main areas of discussion. First, the potential problems caused by applying current quality standards to patients with multiple conditions were examined. Second, the advantages and disadvantages of three strategies to improve quality measurement in clinically complex patients were evaluated: excluding certain clinically complex patients from a given standard, relaxing the performance target, and assigning a greater weight to some measures based on the expected clinical benefit or difficulty of reaching the performance target. Third, the strengths and weaknesses of potential novel measures such change in functional status were considered. The group concurred that, because clinically complex patients present a threat to the implementation of quality measures, high priority must be assigned to a research agenda on this topic. This research should evaluate the impact of quality measurement on these patients and expand the range of quality measures relevant to the care of clinically complex patients