Rosiglitazone for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes has long been recognised as a strong, independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, a problem which accounts for approximately 70% of all mortality in people with diabetes. Prospective studies show that compared to their non-diabetic counterparts, the relative risk of cardiovascular mortality for men with diabetes is two to three and for women with diabetes is three to four. The two biggest trials in type 2 diabetes, the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) and the University Group Diabetes Program (UGDP) study did not reveal a reduction of cardiovascular endpoints through improved metabolic control. Theoretical benefits of the peroxisome proliferator activated receptor gamma (PPAR-gamma) activator rosiglitazone on endothelial function and cardiovascular risk factors might result in fewer macrovascular disease events in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of rosiglitazone in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. SEARCH STRATEGY: Studies were obtained from computerised searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials in adult people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and had a trial duration of at least 24 weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Pooling of studies by means of fixed-effects meta-analysis could be performed for adverse events only. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen trials which randomised 3888 people to rosiglitazone treatment were identified. Longest duration of therapy was four years with a median of 26 weeks. Published studies of at least 24 weeks rosiglitazone treatment in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus did not provide evidence that patient-oriented outcomes like mortality, morbidity, adverse effects, costs and health-related quality of life are positively influenced by this compound. Metabolic control measured by glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) as a surrogate endpoint did not demonstrate clinically relevant differences to other oral antidiabetic drugs. Occurrence of oedema was significantly raised (OR 2.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.83 to 2.81). The single large RCT (ADOPT - A Diabetes Outcomes Progression Trial) indicated increased cardiovascular risk. New data on raised fracture rates in women reveal extensive action of rosiglitazone in various body tissues. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: New studies should focus on patient-oriented outcomes to clarify the benefit-risk ratio of rosiglitazone therapy. Safety data and adverse events of all investigations (published and unpublished) should be made available to the public

Support of personalized medicine through risk-stratified treatment recommendations - an environmental scan of clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND: Risk-stratified treatment recommendations facilitate treatment decision-making that balances patient-specific risks and preferences. It is unclear if and how such recommendations are developed in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Our aim was to assess if and how CPGs develop risk-stratified treatment recommendations for the prevention or treatment of common chronic diseases. METHODS: We searched the United States National Guideline Clearinghouse for US, Canadian and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (United Kingdom) CPGs for heart disease, stroke, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes that make risk-stratified treatment recommendations. We included only those CPGs that made risk-stratified treatment recommendations based on risk assessment tools. Two reviewers independently identified CPGs and extracted information on recommended risk assessment tools; type of evidence about treatment benefits and harms; methods for linking risk estimates to treatment evidence and for developing treatment thresholds; and consideration of patient preferences. RESULTS: We identified 20 CPGs that made risk-stratified treatment recommendations out of 133 CPGs that made any type of treatment recommendations for the chronic diseases considered in this study. Of the included 20 CPGs, 16 (80%) used evidence about treatment benefits from randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses or other guidelines, and the source of evidence was unclear in the remaining four (20%) CPGs. Nine CPGs (45%) used evidence on harms from randomized controlled trials or observational studies, while 11 CPGs (55%) did not clearly refer to harms. Nine CPGs (45%) explained how risk prediction and evidence about treatments effects were linked (for example, applying estimates of relative risk reductions to absolute risks), but only one CPG (5%) assessed benefit and harm quantitatively and three CPGs (15%) explicitly reported consideration of patient preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Only a small proportion of CPGs for chronic diseases make risk-stratified treatment recommendations with a focus on heart disease and stroke prevention, diabetes and breast cancer. For most CPGs it is unclear how risk-stratified treatment recommendations were developed. As a consequence, it is uncertain if CPGs support patients and physicians in finding an acceptable benefit- harm balance that reflects both profile-specific outcome risks and preferences