Content uploaded by John A Tayek
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John A Tayek on Sep 04, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Coronary Heart Disease
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
Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, MSc; Robert E. Ratner, MD; Christopher P. Cannon, MD;
Patrick W. Serruys, MD, PhD; He´ctor M. García-García, MD, MSc; Gerrit-Anne van Es, PhD;
Nikheel S. Kolatkar, MD, MPH; Barbara G. Kravitz, MS; Diane M. Miller, PhD; Chun Huang, PhD;
Peter J. Fitzgerald, MD, PhD; Richard W. Nesto, MD; and the APPROACH Study Group
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.
(Circulation. 2010;121:1176-1187.)
Key Words: atherosclerosis 䡲ultrasonography, intravascular 䡲rosiglitazone 䡲type 2 diabetes mellitus
Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a strong independent risk factor
for cardiovascular diseases,
1
and epidemiological studies
have shown that this risk is progressively related to the degree
of hyperglycemia as measured by the hemoglobin A
1C
.
2
Whereas recent trials of more intensive versus less intensive
glucose lowering with a menu of drugs did not detect a clear
cardiovascular benefit,
3,4
the observation of reduced myocar-
dial infarction and all-cause mortality in metformin-treated
obese subjects during active therapy in the United Kingdom
Prospective Diabetes study
5
and in all participants after an
additional 8.5 years of passive follow-up
6
suggests that
specific glucose-lowering drugs may have cardiovascular
benefits. Coronary atherosclerosis forms the substrate for
vulnerable plaque, which is hypothesized to precede clinical
coronary events. Coronary atherosclerosis can be directly
assessed with the use of intravascular ultrasonography
Received June 11, 2009; accepted December 7, 2009.
From the McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (H.C.G.); MedStar Research Institute, Washington, DC
(R.E.R.); Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Mass (C.P.C.); Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (P.W.S.); Cardialysis,
Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.M.G.-G., G.v.E.); GlaxoSmithKline Research and Development, King of Prussia, Pa (N.S.K., B.G.K., D.M.M., C.H.);
Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif (P.J.F.); and Lahey Clinic, Burlington, Mass (R.W.N.).
A full list of the participants in the APPROACH trial is provided in Acknowledgments.
Correspondence to Dr H.C. Gerstein, McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Department of Medicine, Room 3V38, 1200 Main St W,
Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5, Canada. E-mail gerstein@mcmaster.ca
© 2010 American Heart Association, Inc.
Circulation is available at http://circ.ahajournals.org DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.881003
1176
Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on September 4, 2019
(IVUS), and progression of IVUS-determined atherosclerosis
has been correlated with an increased risk of coronary
events.
7,8
Furthermore, reductions in IVUS-detected plaque
volume have been demonstrated in response to antihyperten-
sive
9
and lipid-lowering therapies
10–13
that also reduce the
incidence of coronary events.
Editorial see p 1165
Clinical Perspective on p 1187
Thiazolidinediones have effects on cardiovascular risk
factors, including insulin sensitivity,
14,15
inflammatory bi-
omarkers,
16
endothelial function,
17
coagulability,
16,18,19
plaque instability,
16
and blood pressure,
20
that may slow the
progression of coronary atherosclerosis. Some controlled
trials of both thiazolidinediones (rosiglitazone and pioglita-
zone) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus have suggested
a favorable effect of these agents on carotid atherosclerosis
21
and in-stent restenosis
22
; however, the applicability of these
data to native vessel coronary disease is uncertain. Moreover,
a recent large randomized trial of 1 thiazolidinedione (pio-
glitazone) demonstrated that it reduced progression of coro-
nary atherosclerosis in arteries that had not undergone inter-
vention more than glimepiride.
23
To date, comparable data
with the use of rosiglitazone have not been available.
The Assessment on the Prevention of Progression by
Rosiglitazone on Atherosclerosis in Diabetes Patients With
Cardiovascular History (APPROACH) trial was designed to
compare the effect of rosiglitazone and glipizide, agents that
reduce glucose through different mechanisms, on progression
of coronary atherosclerosis. Importantly, the trial was de-
signed to provide comparable glycemic control between
treatment arms and to evaluate the treatment effect on a
background of optimized contemporary therapy for second-
ary prevention of coronary disease including statins, anti-
platelet agents, and antihypertensive medications.
Methods
Study Design and Eligibility Criteria
A detailed description of the APPROACH trial has been published
previously.
24
APPROACH was a prospective, multicenter, double-
blind, randomized, active-controlled trial (Figure 1) of 672 patients
from 92 centers in 19 countries, who were aged 30 to 80 years with
established type 2 diabetes mellitus and who had clinically indicated
coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)
between February 2005 and January 2007. Patients were included if
they had at least 1 atherosclerotic plaque with 10% to 50% luminal
narrowing in a coronary artery that had not undergone intervention
and if their diabetes mellitus was treated with either lifestyle
approaches alone (with a hemoglobin A
1C
⬎7% and ⱕ10%) or with
oral agents comprising 1 oral agent at any dose or 2 oral agents, in
which case each was prescribed at ⱕ50% of its maximal dose (with
a hemoglobin A
1C
⬎6.5% and ⱕ8.5%). Exclusion criteria were as
follows: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in the prior 30
days; coronary artery bypass graft surgery; severe valvular heart
disease; left ventricular ejection fraction ⬍40%; any heart failure
(New York Heart Association class I to IV); uncontrolled hyperten-
sion (systolic blood pressure ⬎170 mm Hg or diastolic blood
pressure ⬎100 mm Hg); renal insufficiency (serum creatinine ⱖ1.5
mg/dL for men or ⱖ1.4 mg/dL for women); and active liver disease.
Participant safety was monitored by an Independent Data Monitoring
Committee who periodically reviewed rates of clinical outcomes
according to unmasked therapy. The study protocol and consent
forms were reviewed by the institutional review board at each site,
and all patients provided written informed consent. Study design,
implementation, and analysis were performed under the supervision
of the Steering Committee, which was composed of 7 members from
Figure 1. Disposition of APPROACH
participants.
Gerstein et al Rosiglitazone and Coronary Atherosclerosis 1177
Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on September 4, 2019
external academic institutions and 2 from the sponsor. Data analysis
was performed according to a prespecified plan that was developed
with the approval of the Steering Committee.
Management of Glycemia and Follow-Up
Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive masked rosiglita-
zone (4 mg/d) or glipizide (5 mg/d) in 1 pill. At the time of
randomization, the doses of other oral antidiabetic drugs were
reduced by 50% and were discontinued during a visit 1 month later.
At that time and after 2 and 3 months, the dose of masked study drug
was increased if tolerated and if the mean daily glucose level
calculated from the patient’s logbook of capillary tests in the 3 days
before the visit was ⱖ126 mg/dL (7.0 mmol/L). If ⬎1 titration was
required, 2 pills per day were given. Titration doses of rosiglitazone
at the first, second, and third titration were 4 mg/d (1 pill; unchanged
dose), 8 mg/d (as 2 pills with active drug in the morning and placebo
in the evening), and 4 mg BID, respectively; glipizide dosing at these
visits were 10 mg/d (1 pill), 10 mg in the morning and 5 mg in the
evening (as 2 pills), and this same dose as the third titration,
respectively. Open-label metformin (maximal total daily dose, 2550
mg) and then once-daily basal insulin or both were added after the
first 3 months if needed to maintain a hemoglobin A
1C
ⱕ7% with the
use of a glycemic titration algorithm designed to provide comparable
glycemic control between treatment groups. Nonstudy drugs were
reduced before study drugs in the event of hypoglycemia requiring
dose reductions. Unless informed consent was formally withdrawn,
all patients were followed until 18 months from randomization, and
clinical status was ascertained regardless of whether they continued
to take study medication.
IVUS Examination and Image Analysis
The longest and least angulated epicardial coronary artery that had
not undergone intervention was selected for IVUS examination.
Angiographers were instructed to choose a plaque within which there
was at least 20% stenosis by visual assessment. They were also
instructed to ensure that the region of interest was flanked by 2
anatomic landmarks that could be easily identified at follow-up (ie,
side branches). After intracoronary administration of nitroglycerin,
an ultrasound catheter (2.5F Atlantis SR Pro Imaging 40 MHz)
connected to a Galaxy G2 digital imaging console (Boston Scientific,
Natick, Mass) was advanced into the target vessel. The imaging
transducer was positioned just distal to an identifiable side branch,
and then motorized pullback of the transducer was performed at
0.5 mm/s. Follow-up IVUS examination was performed at study
completion in all patients providing informed consent (irrespective
of whether they continued to take study medication) with imaging of
the same coronary artery segment identified at the baseline exami-
nation. If a participant required cardiac catheterization for a clinical
indication between 9 and 18 months, follow-up IVUS examination
could be performed at that time instead of at study completion.
IVUS Outcomes
Core laboratory personnel (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands)
who were blinded to treatment assignment analyzed all IVUS images
using validated software (Curad, version 3.1, Wijk bij Duurstede, the
Netherlands), which facilitates detection of luminal and external
elastic membrane (EEM) boundaries in reconstructed longitudinal
planes. To obtain a smooth appearance of the vessel wall structures
in the longitudinal views, the Intelligate image-based gating method
was applied.
25,26
The primary IVUS outcome is the change in percent
atheroma volume (PAV),
9,27
calculated as PAV⫽[⌺(EEM
CSA
⫺
LUMEN
CSA
)/⌺EEM
CSA
]⫻100, where EEM
CSA
is the external elas-
tic membrane cross-sectional area (CSA) and LUMEN
CSA
is the
luminal cross-sectional area. A secondary IVUS outcome is the
change in normalized total atheroma volume (TAV
N
), calculated as
the product of the mean atheroma area and the median segment
length in the entire population, as follows:
TAV
N
⫽[⌺(EEM
CSA
⫺LUMEN
CSA
)/N]⫻overall median
segment length.
This calculation adjusts for differing segment lengths across patients,
thereby providing equal weighting of each patient in the calculation
of atheroma volume. An additional secondary IVUS outcome is the
change in TAV in the most diseased baseline 10-mm segment. This
was calculated as the follow-up⫺baseline difference in the TAV
within the 10-mm contiguous segment with the greatest atheroma
volume at baseline. Intraobserver variability was assessed with the
use of IVUS recordings from 20 randomly selected patients. Baseline
and follow-up IVUS examinations were each analyzed twice by the
same analyst who did not know whether the baseline or follow-up
IVUS recording was being read. The mean (SD) differences were
0.09 (0.18) mm
2
for vessel area and ⫺0.02 (0.23) mm
2
for lumen
area. To evaluate variability between IVUS analysis methods, the
same patients were analyzed twice longitudinally and twice cross
sectionally.
10
The mean (SD) differences (in mm
2
) were 0.10
(0.36) mm
2
for vessel area and 0.001 (0.46) mm
2
for lumen area.
Finally, to assess variability between core laboratories, the same
patients were analyzed twice cross sectionally at different core
laboratories (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and MedStar
Research Institute, Division of Cardiology, Washington, DC). The
mean (SD) differences (in mm
2
) were 0.53 (0.37) mm
2
for vessel
area and ⫺0.07 (0.45) mm
2
for lumen area.
Clinical Cardiovascular Outcomes
Investigators submitted end point forms for any event that could
potentially represent a myocardial ischemic event or heart failure. An
independent end point committee blinded to treatment assignment
prospectively adjudicated these cardiovascular events, which in-
cluded cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death, nonfatal myo-
cardial infarction and stroke, coronary revascularization, hospitaliza-
tion for recurrent myocardial ischemia, and heart failure.
Statistical Methods
Continuous variables are expressed as mean and SD or median and
interquartile range if nonnormally distributed, with categorical vari-
ables reported as percentage. IVUS outcomes were analyzed with the
use of ANCOVA with terms for treatment group, baseline value,
geographic region, gender, entry cardiac procedure (angiography or
PCI), and prior oral antidiabetic medication. The change in PAV for
each allocated group was calculated by estimating the model-
adjusted mean change in PAV across the cohort. All Pvalues are
2-sided and not adjusted for multiple testing, with Pvalues ⱕ0.05
considered significant. A worst-rank sensitivity analysis was per-
formed as described previously to assess the potential influence on
the primary end point of randomized patients who did not complete
the follow-up IVUS examination because of a cardiovascular
event.
28
For this analysis, all patients with evaluable baseline and
follow-up IVUS examinations were assigned a rank value based on
their change in PAV (ordered from least to greatest). Patients without
a follow-up IVUS as noted above were assigned a rank value that
was worse than that of the patient with the greatest increase in PAV.
The rank value for these patients was first assigned on the basis of a
prespecified hierarchy determined by the Steering Committee ac-
counting for both clinical severity and relationship of the event to
coronary atherosclerosis, as follows (lowest to highest rank): con-
gestive heart failure, hospitalization for recurrent myocardial ische-
mia, coronary revascularization, noncardiovascular death, nonfatal
stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular death.
Within each event category, the final rank was determined by the
time to event, with earlier events assigned a worse (higher) rank. The
worst-rank analysis compared the distribution of rank values be-
tween treatment groups with the use of a univariate Wilcoxon-Mann-
Whitney test.
Analysis of the primary IVUS outcome in prespecified subgroups,
including region, angiography versus PCI, prior oral agent use (drug
naive, sulfonylurea, metformin, dual therapy), age (ⱕ60 versus ⬎60
years), gender, systolic blood pressure (ⱕ130 versus ⬎130 mm Hg),
statin use, body mass index, diabetes mellitus duration, baseline
high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, hemoglobin A
1C
, high-density
1178 Circulation March 16, 2010
Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on September 4, 2019
lipoprotein (HDL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), triglycerides, and
PAV (less than or equal to the median versus more than the median
value), was performed with the use of ANCOVA with a test for
treatment-by-subgroup interaction. The effect of treatment allocation
on time to first occurrence of the various cardiovascular outcomes
was estimated with a Cox proportional hazards model that included
terms for treatment group, region, angiography versus PCI, and prior
oral agent use.
Sample size calculations determined that 206 patients per group
with evaluable baseline and follow-up IVUS examinations were
required to provide 90% power with a 2-sided
␣
of 0.05 to detect a
treatment difference between the groups of 1.6%, with the assump-
tion of a 5.0% SD for the primary IVUS outcome. These assumptions
were based on prior IVUS studies of lipid-lowering therapies in
patients with diabetes mellitus.
10
Given prior noncompletion rates
among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in contemporary IVUS
studies ranging from 25% to 35%,
9,10,23,27
a total sample size of 634
randomized patients was required under the worst-case assumption
of a 35% noncompletion rate. All analyses were performed with the
use of SAS version 9.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Finally, to ensure
the accuracy of the analyses, data for the primary and secondary end
points were provided to an external biostatistician (Dr Todd A.
Table 1. Baseline Characteristics of Randomized Patients
Glipizide
(n⫽339)
Rosiglitazone
(n⫽333) P
Age, mean (SD), y 60.2 (9.0) 61.8 (8.4) 0.03
Male, n (%) 223 (65.8) 233 (70.0) 0.25
Current smoker, n (%) 57 (16.8) 55 (16.5) 1.00
Duration of diabetes mellitus, median (IQR), y 4.6 (1.7–8.9) 5.0 (2.2–7.9) 0.90
Hypertension, n (%) 272 (80.2) 266 (79.9) 0.92
Dyslipidemia, n (%) 227 (67.0) 232 (69.7) 0.46
Prior myocardial infarction, n (%) 82 (24.2) 81 (24.3) 1.00
Presenting condition, n (%) 130 (38.3) 128 (38.4) 1.00
Acute coronary syndrome
Elective procedure 209 (61.7) 205 (61.6)
Baseline procedure, n (%) 171 (50.4) 166 (49.8) 0.94
Coronary angiography
PCI 168 (49.6) 167 (50.2)
Medication use, n (%) 279 (82.3) 280 (84.1) 0.61
Aspirin
Other antiplatelet 195 (57.5) 196 (58.9) 0.75

-blocker 223 (65.8) 241 (72.4) 0.07
ACE inhibitor or ARB 238 (70.2) 237 (71.2) 0.80
Nitrates 137 (40.4) 125 (37.5) 0.48
Statin 262 (77.3) 248 (74.5) 0.42
Fibrate or other lipid-lowering agent 24 (7.1%) 34 (10.2%) 0.17
Weight, mean (SD), kg 83.8 (18.5) 82.0 (19.1) 0.22
Body mass index, mean (SD), kg/m
2
29.8 (5.3) 29.3 (5.5) 0.14
Blood pressure, mean (SD), mm Hg 131.0 (15.1) 127.9 (16.1) 0.004
Systolic
Diastolic 76.3 (10.0) 75.2 (10.2) 0.16
Serum creatinine, mean (SD), mg/dL 0.98 (0.22) 1.02 (0.25) 0.02
Hemoglobin A
1C
, mean (SD), % 7.2 (0.9) 7.1 (0.8) 0.08
BNP,* median (IQR), pg/mL 25 (12–53) 25 (11–58) 0.98
Fasting insulin,* median (IQR),
U/mL 13.0 (8.6–18.1) 13.0 (8.6–20.7) 0.49
LDL cholesterol, mean (SD), mg/dL 91.2 (35.5) 89.6 (35.9) 0.63
HDL cholesterol, mean (SD), mg/dL 42.7 (10.7) 42.4 (11.1) 0.77
Triglycerides, median (IQR), mg/dL 159.3 (122.1–204.9) 162.0 (122.1–211.5) 0.93
hsCRP, median (IQR), mg/L 5.4 (2.5–11.0) 4.9 (2.2–11.3) 0.54
MMP-9, median (IQR),
g/L 86.9 (43.8–195.1) 88.6 (44.1–221.6) 0.44
IQR indicates interquartile range; ACE, angiotensin-converting enzyme; ARB, angiotensin II receptor blocker; hsCRP,
high-sensitivity C-reactive protein; and MMP-9, matrix metalloproteinase-9. SI conversion factors: to convert fasting
plasma glucose to mmol/L, multiply by 0.0555; LDL and HDL cholesterol values to mmol/L, by 0.0259; triglyceride
values to mmol/L, by 0.0113; serum creatinine to
mol/L, by 88.4; fasting insulin to pmol/L, by 6.945; and c-reactive
protein to nmol/L, by 9.524.
*Performed in a subset of patients (B-natriuretic peptide 关BNP兴,n⫽464; fasting insulin, n⫽435.
Gerstein et al Rosiglitazone and Coronary Atherosclerosis 1179
Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on September 4, 2019
MacKenzie, Dartmouth Medical School), who independently re-
peated and confirmed all of the findings reported herein. All authors
had access to study data and take responsibility for the integrity of
the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. All authors have read
and agree to the manuscript as written.
Results
Participants
Of 1147 people who were screened, 672 (68% men) of mean
(SD) age 61 (9) years with median diabetes mellitus duration
of 4.8 years and mean hemoglobin A
1C
of 7.2% (0.9) were
randomized to either glipizide (n⫽339) or rosiglitazone
(n⫽333) from 92 sites in 19 countries (Figure 1). Baseline
characteristics by treatment group are noted in Table 1; by
chance, patients allocated to rosiglitazone versus glipizide
were slightly older and had a slightly higher serum creatinine
and lower systolic blood pressure. Because randomization
was stratified by the cardiac procedure, 50% of enrolled
patients had diagnostic coronary angiography, and 50% had a
PCI. A total of 38% presented with acute coronary syndrome,
and 76% were on statins. A total of 229 of 339 patients
(67.5%) allocated to glipizide and 233 of 333 (70%) allocated
to rosiglitazone had an evaluable baseline and follow-up
IVUS. Compared with participants who did not have 2
evaluable IVUS examinations, those who did had a slightly
lower diastolic blood pressure (P⫽0.04), were more likely to
be from South America (P⫽0.001), were less likely to be on
2 oral antidiabetic agents (P⫽0.004), and were more likely to
have had a stent inserted (P⫽0.006). An assessment of vital
status at the 18-month final visit was available in 317 patients
(93.5%) allocated to glipizide and 316 patients (94.9%)
allocated to rosiglitazone.
Patients were followed for a median of 18.6 months
(interquartile range, 18.2 to 18.9) and a mean (SD) of 16 (6)
months; patients allocated to glipizide were adherent (took
ⱖ80% and ⱕ120% of their study medications) at 90.7% of
visits, and those allocated to rosiglitazone were adherent at
92.7% of visits. Adverse effects that were either of interest on
the basis of prior studies, that occurred in ⬎5% of partici-
pants in either group, or that significantly differed in fre-
quency between groups are noted in Table 2. Compared with
patients in the glipizide group, those allocated to rosiglitazone
had less hypoglycemia and more anemia. No between-group
difference was noted in the rate of cardiovascular events (all
adjudicated) that occurred infrequently during the trial (Table
3); 5 of the cardiovascular events in the rosiglitazone group (1
revascularization, 2 nonfatal myocardial infarctions, 1 nonfa-
tal stroke, and 1 cardiovascular death) occurred within 5 days
of the baseline cardiac catheterization and were classified as
procedure related.
The mean (SD) dose of study drug for patients who had a
baseline and follow-up IVUS was 12.3 (4.3) mg for glipizide
and 6.8 (1.8) mg for rosiglitazone. Of these patients, 220
(96.1%) allocated to glipizide and 220 (94.4%) allocated to
rosiglitazone had their follow-up IVUS done ⱖ17 months
after the baseline IVUS. Figure 2 illustrates the change from
baseline in hemoglobin A
1C
, blood pressure, lipids, and
weight for each group, and Table 4 lists the postrandomiza-
tion mean or median values for these and other variables, as
well the final use of concomitant medications by treatment
group. During the first 3 months of therapy, when rosiglita-
zone or glipizide was substituted for other oral agents,
hemoglobin A
1C
levels were higher on rosiglitazone. Subse-
quently, hemoglobin A
1C
levels were the same, and the final
hemoglobin A
1C
levels did not differ between groups; how-
ever, these fluctuations led to a slightly higher average
postrandomization hemoglobin A
1C
value on rosiglitazone
compared with glipizide (7.0% versus 6.9%, respectively;
P⫽0.01). In addition, compared with patients on glipizide,
those on rosiglitazone had no significant difference in weight
or systolic blood pressure; a significantly lower postrandom-
ization diastolic blood pressure, high-sensitivity C-reactive
protein, and matrix metalloproteinase-9; and a significantly
higher postrandomization LDL cholesterol and HDL
cholesterol.
Effect on IVUS End Points
Table 5 notes the effect of allocated therapy on the primary
and secondary IVUS end points. During the course of the
study, PAV (the primary outcome) did not significantly
change from baseline in patients allocated to glipizide
(0.43%; 95% confidence interval [CI], ⫺0.22 to 1.08;
P⫽0.19) or in patients allocated to rosiglitazone (⫺0.21%;
95% CI, ⫺0.86 to 0.44; P⫽0.53). Moreover, rosiglitazone
did not significantly reduce PAV compared with glipizide
(⫺0.64%; 95% CI, ⫺1.46 to 0.17; P⫽0.12). Similar findings
were noted (1) when the data were analyzed after adjustment
for baseline differences in age, creatinine, and systolic blood
Table 2. Major Adverse Events in All Randomized Patients
Glipizide
(n⫽339)
Rosiglitazone
(n⫽333) P
Events requiring change or stop
in study medication
Peripheral edema 1 (⬍1) 2 (⬍1) 0.62
Hypoglycemia 12 (4) 0 (0) 0.0004
Peripheral edema 24 (7) 29 (9) 0.48
Severe hypoglycemia (requiring
external assistance)
3(⬍1) 0 (0) 0.25
Hypoglycemia 96 (28) 27 (8) ⬍0.0001
Bone fracture 2 (⬍1) 6 (2) 0.17
Hemoglobin decrease ⬎3
g/dL from baseline
10 (3) 26 (8) 0.006
Angina pectoris 35 (10) 31 (9) 0.70
Chest pain 17 (5) 12 (4) 0.45
Cough 22 (6) 13 (4) 0.17
Diarrhea 17 (5) 12 (4) 0.45
Dizziness 18 (5) 18 (5) 1.00
Fatigue 14 (4) 18 (5) 0.47
Headache 23 (7) 15 (5) 0.24
Hypertension 22 (6) 14 (4) 0.23
Values are number of patients with an event (%). Adverse events requiring
changes in study drug, reported in ⱖ5% of patients in either group,
significantly differed between groups or were of interest on the basis of other
studies are listed.
1180 Circulation March 16, 2010
Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on September 4, 2019
pressure (⫺0.60%; 95% CI, ⫺1.43 to 0.23; P⫽0.15) and (2)
when the data were analyzed with a worst-rank analysis
comprising 243 glipizide (72%) and 247 rosiglitazone pa-
tients (74%), in which the 28 patients (14 per group) who did
not have 2 evaluable IVUS examinations due to a cardiovas-
cular event were assigned a rank on the basis of their event as
described above (P⫽0.20). The main secondary end point of
TAV
N
did not significantly change in patients allocated to
glipizide (1.2 mm
3
; 95% CI, ⫺2.7 to 5.1; P⫽0.54). However,
it significantly decreased by 3.9 mm
3
(95% CI, ⫺7.8 to
⫺0.02; P⫽0.049) in patients allocated to rosiglitazone, and,
compared with glipizide, rosiglitazone significantly reduced
TAV
N
by 5.1 mm
3
(95% CI, ⫺10.0 to ⫺0.3; P⫽0.04).
Atheroma volume within the most diseased baseline 10-mm
segment was the other main secondary IVUS end point and
decreased from baseline by 3.6 mm
3
(95% CI, ⫺5.3 to ⫺1.8;
P⬍0.0001) in patients allocated to glipizide and by 5.3 mm
3
(95% CI, ⫺7.0 to ⫺3.5; P⬍0.0001) in patients allocated to
rosiglitazone; the effect of rosiglitazone did not significantly
differ from that of glipizide (⫺1.7 mm
3
; 95% CI, ⫺3.9 to 0.5;
P⫽0.13).
When analyzed according to prespecified subgroups (Fig-
ure 3), an interaction between treatment allocation and
diabetes mellitus duration was noted (P⫽0.005) such that
rosiglitazone reduced the PAV more than glipizide in patients
with diabetes mellitus duration longer than the median
duration of 4.9 years (ie, a 1.8% decrease versus a 0.5%
increase in those with a shorter diabetes mellitus duration).
Discussion
In this 1.5-year trial, rosiglitazone did not reduce progression
of coronary artery plaque as measured by the primary IVUS
end point of PAV compared with glipizide. The prespecified
subgroup analyses suggesting an effect of rosiglitazone on
PAV in participants with the longest diabetes mellitus dura-
tion raise the possibility of some antiatherosclerotic effect in
this subgroup but should be viewed as hypothesis generating
because of the many subgroups tested. Similarly, the obser-
vation that rosiglitazone significantly reduced the secondary
outcome of TAV
N
does not prove that rosiglitazone reduces
Table 3. Adjudicated Clinical Cardiovascular Outcomes in All
Randomized Patients
Glipizide
(n⫽339)
Rosiglitazone
(n⫽333) P*
Composite of all-cause death, nonfatal
myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke,
coronary revascularization, or
hospitalization for myocardial ischemia
38 (11.2) 39 (11.7) 0.58
Composite of cardiovascular death,
nonfatal myocardial infarction, or
nonfatal stroke
10 (2.9) 14 (4.2) 0.31
All-cause death 7 (2.1) 8 (2.4) 0.72
Cardiovascular death 3 (0.9) 4 (1.2) 0.50
Myocardial infarction
Nonfatal 6 (1.8) 7 (2.1) 0.71
Fatal 1 (0.3) 1 (0.3) 0.89
Stroke 0.13
Nonfatal 1 (0.3) 5 (1.5)
Fatal 0 (0) 0 (0) …
Coronary revascularization 27 (8.0) 26 (7.8) 0.82
Hospitalization for myocardial ischemia 7 (2.1) 11 (3.3) 0.25
Congestive heart failure 3 (0.9) 8 (2.4) 0.14
Values are number of patients with an event (%). Noncardiovascular causes
of death for the glipizide participants include cancer (n⫽2), septic shock
(n⫽1), and spinal fracture with cord compression (n⫽1) and for the rosiglita-
zone participants include cancer (n⫽3) and chronic obstructive lung disease
(n⫽1).
*All Pvalues calculated with the use of the Cox proportional hazards model
with time to first event.
Figure 2. Effect of rosiglitazone vs glipiz-
ide on mean change in hemoglobin A
1C
,
blood pressure, weight, HDL cholesterol
(HDL-c), and LDL cholesterol (LDL-c) level
and on median change in triglyceride level
in patients with 2 evaluable IVUS mea-
sures. Pvalues refer to differences of the
change between groups. Gray bars depict
the change for the rosiglitazone group,
and black bars depict the change for the
glipizide group.
Gerstein et al Rosiglitazone and Coronary Atherosclerosis 1181
Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on September 4, 2019
atherosclerotic plaque progression more than glipizide in
light of the absence of benefit on the primary IVUS outcome.
Although not significant, the APPROACH findings are
qualitatively similar to those of a similar trial in which
another thiazolidinedione (pioglitazone) was compared with
glimepiride.
23
In that trial, pioglitazone significantly reduced
the primary outcome of PAV by 0.89% compared with
glimepiride during 18 months of therapy (P⫽0.002). The
Table 4. Postrandomization Values and Medication Use at Final Visit
Patients With Evaluable IVUS
Measurement
Glipizide
(n⫽229)
Rosiglitazone
(n⫽233) P
Continuous variables
Mean hemoglobin A
1C
(95% CI), % 6.9 (6.8–7.0) 7.0 (7.0–7.1) 0.01
Mean blood pressure (95% CI), mm Hg
Systolic 131.1 (129.6–132.6) 130.7 (129.3–132.2) 0.71
Diastolic 76.7 (75.8–77.7) 75.4 (74.5–76.4) 0.03
Mean LDL (95% CI), mg/dL 84.9 (80.7–89.1) 95.3 (91.0–99.6) 0.0001
Mean HDL (95% CI), mg/dL 45.5 (44.3–46.7) 48.7 (47.5–49.9) ⬍0.0001
Median triglycerides (95% CI), mg/dL 156.2 (150.4–164.6) 146.5 (138.9–151.3) 0.14
Median hsCRP (95% CI), mg/L 1.9 (1.7–2.1) 0.9 (0.8–1.0) ⬍0.0001
Median MMP-9 (95% CI), ug/L 56.8 (54.2–61.0) 47.9 (44.4–50.8) ⬍0.0001
Mean weight (95% CI), kg 83.6 (83.1–84.1) 84.0 (83.5–84.5) 0.22
Final visit medication use, No. (%)
Aspirin 190 (83.0) 199 (85.4) 0.52
Other antiplatelet 93 (40.6) 82 (35.2) 0.25

-blocker 152 (66.4) 158 (67.8) 0.77
ACE inhibitor or ARB 166 (72.5) 176 (75.5) 0.46
Nitrates 78 (34.1) 76 (32.6) 0.77
Statin 179 (78.2) 190 (81.5) 0.42
Fibrate or other lipid-lowering agent 27 (11.8) 35 (15.0) 0.34
Metformin 153 (66.8) 152 (65.2) 0.77
Any insulin 21 (9.2) 14 (6.0) 0.22
Pvalues pertain to between-group differences in variables after randomization and in medication use at the final
visit. hsCRP indicates high-sensitivity C-reactive protein; MMP-9, matrix metalloproteinase-9; ACE, angiotensin-
converting enzyme; and ARB, angiotensin II receptor blocker.
Table 5. IVUS End Points
Mean Value of IVUS
Measurement (SD)
Glipizide Rosiglitazone
Treatment Difference
(95% CI)Baseline Follow-Up Change* (95% CI) Baseline Follow-Up Change* (95% CI)
Mean (SD) PAV† 40.6 (11.0) 41.0 (11.2) 0.43 (⫺0.22, 1.08) 40.4 (11.8) 40.2 (11.4) ⫺0.21 (⫺0.86, 0.44) ⫺0.64 (⫺1.46, 0.17)§
Mean (SD) TAV
N
,mm
3
‡232.8 (115.2) 233.2 (116.5) 1.2 (⫺2.68, 5.08) 226.1 (100.6) 221.6 (100.7) ⫺3.9 (⫺7.82, ⫺0.02)㛳⫺5.12 (⫺9.98, ⫺0.26)¶
Mean (SD) atheroma
volume in the most
diseased 10-mm
segment, mm
3
‡
75.6 (32.6) 72.2 (33.3) ⫺3.6 (⫺5.31, ⫺1.80)# 71.0 (30.0) 66.0 (30.7) ⫺5.3 (⫺7.04, ⫺3.51)# ⫺1.7 (⫺3.93, 0.49)
Mean (SD) total vessel
volume, mm
3
609.4 (311.8) 603.1 (304.3) ⫺4.6 (⫺11.40, 2.27) 555.1 (298.0) 547.2 (298.2) ⫺8.1 (⫺14.9, ⫺1.32)** ⫺3.6 (⫺12.15, 5.02)
Mean (SD) total lumen
volume, mm
3
359.7 (195.7) 353.5 (192.2) ⫺4.9 (⫺11.88, 2.05) 332.7 (192.4) 328.7 (191.9) ⫺4.6 (⫺11.52, 2.34) 0.3 (⫺8.40, 9.05)
*Change from baseline for each allocated group was estimated with the use of ANCOVA with terms for treatment group, baseline value, geographic region, gender,
entry cardiac procedure (angiography or PCI), and prior oral antidiabetic medication.
†Primary IVUS outcome.
‡Key IVUS secondary outcomes.
§P⫽0.12.
㛳P⫽0.049.
¶P⫽0.04.
#P⬍0.0001.
**P⫽0.02.
Similar Pvalues were obtained for the primary and key secondary outcomes when reanalyzed with a nonparametric test on rank-transformed data. The treatment
difference in PAV between the 21 glipizide and 28 rosiglitazone participants who both had a clinical outcome and a final evaluable IVUS was ⫺0.24% (95% CI, ⫺3.66,
3.18; P⫽0.89).
1182 Circulation March 16, 2010
Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on September 4, 2019
absence of a significant effect of rosiglitazone in this study
may be due to the fact that the PAV in the glipizide control
group only increased modestly with time. These observations
and reports of similar beneficial effects of these 2 drugs on
carotid intima-media thickness
21,29
and the need for revascu-
larization after PCI
30
suggest that they have similar effects on
atherosclerosis. Whether they have similar or different effects
on cardiovascular outcomes remains uncertain, especially in
light of recent meta-analyses relative to the cardiovascular
safety of rosiglitazone.
31–37
The effect of these drugs on
cardiovascular outcomes can only be assessed by directly
comparing them with each other and with placebo in a large
head-to-head cardiovascular outcome trial. Such a trial (Thia-
zolidinedione Intervention With Vitamin D Evaluation
[TIDE]) is now under way (http://www.clinical trials.gov;
Unique Identifier NCT00879970).
Strengths of this study are the large sample size, the use of
masked therapies, high adherence rates, achievement of
similar levels of cardiovascular risk factors in both groups,
and careful validated measurements of IVUS indices. These
findings are limited by the fact that 32.5% of patients
allocated to glipizide and 30% of patients allocated to
rosiglitazone did not have 2 evaluable IVUS measurements.
Moreover, the observation that patients without 2 evaluable
IVUS measurements were less likely to have had a stent
inserted at baseline and were on fewer antidiabetic agents
than those who had the 2 IVUS measurements suggests that the
patients who did have the 2 IVUS measurements were those
with more advanced atherosclerosis at baseline. However, the
findings of the worst-rank analysis, which includes 490 of the
672 randomized participants (73%) who received at least 1
dose of blinded medication and which was similar to the
Figure 3. Effect of rosiglitazone vs glipizide on the primary outcome of change in PAV according to predefined subgroups in patients
with 2 evaluable IVUS measures. Pvalues reflect the test for an interaction between the subgroups and allocation to rosiglitazone vs
glipizide. Median values are as follows: body mass index (BMI), 28.9 kg/m
2
; diabetes mellitus duration, 4.9 years; hemoglobin A
1C
,
7.1%; HDL, 42.5 mg/dL; LDL, 87.0 mg/dL; triglycerides, 165.0 mg/dL; high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), 5.2 mg/L; PAV,
41.3%. AS indicates Asia; EU, Europe, NA, North America, SA, South America; OAD, oral antidiabetic drug; SU, sulfonylurea; and BP,
blood pressure.
Gerstein et al Rosiglitazone and Coronary Atherosclerosis 1183
Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on September 4, 2019
analysis of patients with the 2 evaluable IVUS measurements,
suggest that it is unlikely that data from these individuals
would have substantively altered the findings. These findings
are also limited by the observation that rosiglitazone participants
had a higher hemoglobin A
1C
level and that glipizide-treated
patients had a lower LDL level after randomization despite
blinded adjustment of medications designed to achieve similar
levels of hemoglobin A
1C
and LDL.
In summary, this study did not prove the hypothesis that
rosiglitazone has a greater antiatherosclerotic effect than
glipizide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. However,
reduced plaque progression in the presence of more advanced
diabetes mellitus and the reduced secondary IVUS outcome
suggest that there may be a benefit in some subgroups.
Ongoing analyses will evaluate which factors relate to
changes in atherosclerosis as measured by IVUS and will
explore the effects of rosiglitazone on atherosclerosis and
plaque in more detail.
Acknowledgments
Steering Committee: R. Ratner, P. Fitzgerald (cochairs), C. Cannon,
H. Gerstein, R. Nesto, P. Serruys, G.-A. van Es, A. Zalewski.
Statistical Data and Analysis Center: Axio Research, Seattle, Wash.
L. Shemanski, A. Slee. End Point Adjudication Committee: M.
Savage (chair), H. Weitz, I. Ahmed. Independent Data Monitoring
Committee: G. Mintz, J. Lachin (cochairs), M. Abrahamson, P.
Carson, P. Jones. APPROACH Study Management Team: N. Kolat-
kar, B. Kravitz, A. Wolstenholme, K. Saarinen, R. Fowler, Janet
Hoffman, D. Steele-Norwood, R. Russell, S. Young, and former
team members Paul Aftring, Hubert Chou, Steve McMorn, Courtney
Kirsch, Bonnie Louridas, Teresa Olivieria, and Debra Mattioli.
APPROACH Statistics and Data Management Team: D. Miller, C.
Huang, C. Nguyen, L. Jahnke. Investigators—Argentina: Liliana
Grinfeld, Daniel Nul, Graciela Gili, Sandra Silveiro, Silvina Ramos,
Sonia Hermida, Hugo Torres, Estevan Zuanich, Pablo Severino,
Ramiro Costello, Silvio Severino, Pablo Czerniuk, Liliana Grinfeld,
Carlos Rojas Matas, Marcelo Halac, Alejandro Fernandez, Jose´
Gabay, Daniel Berrocal, Jorge Bluguerman, Daniel Mauro, Rodolfo
Zazzali, Oscar Carlevaro, Jorge Alvarinas, Julia Blanco, Aristo´bulo
Balestrini, Arnoldo Girotti, Mario Principato, Susana Righi, Norma
Del Hoyo, Pedro Tesone, Marcelo Mule, Jorge Belardi, Lucio
Padilla, Mariano Albertal, Fernando Cura, Carlos Dall’asta, Guill-
ermo Bortman, Pablo Czerniuk, Martin Gabriel Nicolini, Jorge
Novas, Jorge Pinzetta Martinez, Marcos Litvak, Sebastia´n Schanz
Estrada, Carlos Busso, Alejandro Cueto, Ma´ximo Senesi, Francisco
Gadaleta, Graciela Pedrale, Sandra Geraci, Carlos Wechsler, Edith
Guerra, Elsa Ramirez de Martini, Susana Llois, Hugo Londero,
Eugenio Trucco, Leandro Martinez Riera, Jose Pozzi, Silvana Solis,
Jorge Waitman, María Cabrera, Francisco Paoletti, Daniel Mercado,
Horacio Jure, Maria Pepe, Carolina Nadaya, Gabriela Morra, Jose
Tibaldi, Cecilia Luquez, Alberto Villamil, Daniel Bekier, Judith
Zilberman, Fabian Contreras, Paulo Reisin, Santiago Bruzone, Ad-
riana Osorio, Sergio Kuznicki, Natalia Souto, Daniel Rico´n, Sebas-
tian Rizzone, Maria Jimena Soutelo, Gabriel Sumay, Marcelo Ma-
suelli, Sergio Chekherdenian, Leo´n Litwak, Ventura Simonovich,
Lina Capurro, Ricardo Rey, Daniel Seinhart, Laura Brescacin, Pedro
Forcada, Oscar Montan˜a, Christian Ponce, Alberto Marani, Jose
Spolidoro, Virginia Visco, Claudia Mahfoud, Silvia Orio, Carlos
Damico, Gustavo Costa, Simon Salzberg, Gustavo Alfredo Leiva,
Miguel Oscar Payaslian, Ricardo Basile, Karina Crotto, Patricia
Gibelman, Sonia Sassone, Fernando Mario Krinsky, Pablo Perez
Balin˜o, Jorge Said Nisi, Felipe Martinez, Oscar Alfredo Allall,
Sergio Rafael Tamiozzo, Rodolfo Sarjanovich, Viviana Arias, Mar-
cela Giacometti, Marcela Giacometti, Victorino Jose´ Fuentealba,
Moises Azize, Jimena María Martinez, Pablo Nicolas Guzman,
Gabriel Sumay, Hugo Luquez. Brazil: Fa´bio de Brito, Jr, Marco
Perin, Breno Almeida, Joa˜o Sa´, Alexandre Abizaid, Luiz Tanajura,
Luiz Mattos, Amanda Sousa, Roselei Graebin, Jose´ Sousa, Galo
Andrade, Rodolfo Staico, Fausto Feres, A
´urea Chaves, Denise
Franco, Carlos Eduardo Soares, Felipe Maia, Ricardo Costa, Jose´
Ju´nior, Henry Zatz, Moyse´s Lima Filho, Geraldo Figueiredo, Jose´
Antonio Marin Neto, Ingrid Dick de Paula, Maria Cristina Freitas,
Raul dos Santos, Expedito Silva, Pedro Horta, Eulo´gio Filho, Marcio
Miname, Pedro Neto, Luiz Ce´sar, Ana Paula Chacra, Wilson Filho,
Carolina Chrisman. Canada: Jeff Pang, Harinda Wijeysundera, John
Graham, Eric Cohen, Sam Radhakrishnan, Dennis Ko, Manu Prab-
hakar, Ram Vijayaraghavan, Salim Naqvi, Ivy Fettes, Jaffer Syed,
Alexander Dick, Mina Madan, Asim Cheema, Bradley Strauss, Jason
Burstein, Thierry Charron, Tej Sheth, Michael Kutryk, Warren
Cantor, Robert Chisholm, Ruth McManus, Kumar Sridhar, David
Almond, Patrick Teefy, Madhu Natarajan, Dominic Raco, James
Velianou, Tej Sheth, David Crosby, Shamir Mehta, Michael Rokoss,
Nicholas Valettas, William Harper, Ally Prebtani. Czech Republic:
Josef Stasek, Irma Dresslerova, Pavel Polansky, Josef Bis, Dusan
Cernohorsky, Miroslav Brtko, Jan Vojacek, Jaroslav Dusek. France:
Bernard Vialettes, Catherine Mattei, Jean Louis Bonnet, Herve´Le
Breton, Anne-Marie Leguerrier, Guillaume Lecoq, Dominique Boul-
mier, Marc Bedossa, Catherine Petit, Guillaume Charpentier, David
Pesenti-Rossi, Christophe Caussin. Germany: Gabriele von Berg-
mann, Guenter Boehm, Iris Donati-Hirsch, Klaus Busch, Horst-
Michael Frick, Susanne Hoeltz, Eckart Lohr, Ludwig Merker, I.
Kreuzer, Michael Mikolaiczik, Adolf Trautmann, Raimund Erbel,
Sebastian Alexander Philipp, Igor Kordish, Dirk Boese, Stefan Sack,
Achim Gutersohn, Karl-Eugen Hauptmann, Herbert Dasch, B.
Gestrich, Anne-Marie Ley, Gerrit Schneider, Bruno Sontag, Bernd
Liesenfeld, Helmut Kuecherer, Stefan Hardt, Celine Johanssen, G.
Korosoglou, Alexander Hansen, Raffi Bekeredjian, Andreas
Muegge, Harald Klein, Antje Wagner, Tusgut Brodherr, Michael
Lindstaedt, Alfried Germing, Eckard Rau, Christian Stute, Johannes
Brachmann, Harald Rittger, Klaus-Juergen Gutleben, Guido
Ritscher, Kai Koegler, Hasan Alawi, Ilka Simon-Wagner, Georg
Plassmann, Dirk Weber, Martin List. Hong Kong: John Sanderson,
Cheuk-Man Yu, Pui Wai Lee, Juliana Chan, Eugene Wu, Norman
Chan, Wing Bun Chan, Alice Kong, Leo Kum, Edmond Wong,
Wilson Chan, Linda Lam, Wai-Hong Chen, Stephen Lee, Wing-Sun
Chow, Annette Tso, Pui-Yin Lee, Chu-Pak Lau, Raymond Miu,
Ryan Ko, Chi Sang Hung, Man Wo Tsang, Tai Pang Ip, Shing Chung
Siu, Wai-Hong Chen, Michael Lee, Chiu Lai Fu, Steven LI, Duncan
Ho, Cheung Hei Choi, Sau Cheung Tiu, Kam Tim Chan. India: Ajit
Mullasari, Arpandev Bhattacharyya, Rajiv Passey, Balram Bhargava,
Anil Dhall, Naveen Aggrawal, Sachin Khandelwal, M.K. Garg, N.K.
Mahesh, Naveen Aggrawal, Anupam Goel, Ashok Seth, Dhiraj
kapoor, Rajesh Saxena, Praveen Kumar Chandra. Italy: Giorgio
Morocutti, Laura Tonutti, Guglielmo Bernardi, Claudio Noacco,
Leonardo Spedicato, Patrizia Presbitero, Stefano Genovese, Silvia
Rebuzzini, Dennis Zavalloni Parenti. Korea: Hyo-Soo Kim, HyunJae
Kang, Bon-Kwon Koo, Young Min Cho, Sang Ho Jo, Hae Sung
Kim, Soo Lim, Hyun-Jae Kang, Jin Wook Chung, Kyong Soo Park,
Eun-Jung Lee, You Jin Lee, Mi-Yeon Kang, Cheol-Whan Lee, Cheol-
Whan Lee, Young Hak Kim, Jung-Min Koh, DongHoon Choi, Bong-
Soo Cha, Yang Soo Jang, Se-Eun Park, SeungJea Tahk, Byoung Joo
Choi, Joon-Han Shin, Soo-Jin Kang, So-Yeon Choi, Hong-Seok Lim,
Myoung Ho Yoon, Hae-Jin Kim, Dae-Jung Kim, Kwan-Woo Lee.
Latvia: Valdis Pirags, Andrejs Erglis, Irina Kutajeva, Agnis Zvaig-
zne, Karlis Trusinskis, Indulis Kumsars, Sanda Jegere, Dace Son-
dore, Inga Narbute, Sandra Steina, Inga Balcere, Rota Ritenberga.
Mexico: Guillermo Gonzalez-Galvez, Emilia Susana Pelayo-Orozco,
Blanca Leticia Sa´nchez-Michel, Armando García-Castillo, Fernando
Lavalle-Gonza´lez, Violeta Imelda Gallardo-Montejano, Arturo
Abundes-Velasco. The Netherlands: H.R. Michels, R.S.W. Entjes, B.
Bravenboer, K. Krasznai, P.W. Serruys, Martin van der Ent, A.H.
Bootsma, P.C. Smits, L.J.D.M. Schelfhout. Poland: Henryk
Wysocki, Agnieszka Rutkowska, Dagmara Przymuszala, Mieczys-
law Dziarmaga, Janusz Tarchalski, Agnieszka Trawczynska, Jan
Peruga, Ewa Mazurek, Malgorzata Sporna, Aleksander Jachniewicz,
Adam Witkowski, Lukasz Kalinczuk, Jerzy Pregowski, Bozena
Norwa-Otto, Andrzej Ciszewski, Zbigniew Chmielak, Witold
1184 Circulation March 16, 2010
Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on September 4, 2019
Ruzyllo, Pawel Buszman, Agata Gruszka, Leszek Stachaczyk, Mar-
cin Debinski, Stanislaw Trznadel, Aleksander Zurakowski, Krzysz-
tof Milewski. Russian Federation: Ludmila Nedosugova, Bagrat
Alekyan, Simon Matskeplishvili, Yuriy Buziashvili, Inna Klefor-
tova, Samson Madoyan, Igor Shuvaev, Dzhamshed Kamardinov,
Marat Aripov, Nino Tsereteli, Elvina Tugeeva, Natalya Trubitsina,
Leonid Kokov, Andrey Ardashev, Svetlana Voloshko, Andrey Sha-
varov, Dmitriy Mangutov, Elena Potekhina, Vasiliy Chestukhin,
Anna Sibyakina, Alexander Pokatilov, Alexey Mironkov. Spain:
Carlos Macaya, Luis Azcona Varela, M
a
Luz Capote Toledo,
Fernando Alfonso Manterola, Manuel Sabate´, Alfonso Sua´rez, A
´ngel
Díaz, Javier Goicolea, Jose´ Ramo´ n Domínguez Puente, Raymundo
Ocaranza Sa´nchez, Juan Francisco Oteo, Alberto Simal, Arturo
García Touchard, Víctor Castro, Amadeo Betriu, Mo´nica Masotti,
Rafael Ruiz, Sergio Rueda, Enric Esmatjes, Vicente Mainar, Juan
Miguel Ruiz Nodar, Javier Pineda, Jose´ Valencia, Pascual Bordes,
O
´scar Moreno, Antonio Pico, Alberto Berenguer, Enric Domingo,
Josep Guindo, Adriana Soto, Jorge Mesa, Eladio Jose´ Losada
Grande, Inocencio Anivarro, Juan A
´ngel, Edgardo Kaplinsky, Ima-
nol Otaegui, Bruno García del Blanco, Nuria Batalla, Antonio
Espolita, In˜igo Lozano, Ce´sar Morís, Pablo Avanzas, Juan Ronda´n
Murillo, Concepcio´n Sua´rez Sua´rez, Elías Delgado, Angel Cequier,
Joan Antoni Gomez Hospital, Francesc Jara, Jaume Maristany,
Marcelo Jime´nez, Eduard Montanya, Emili Iraculis, Jose´ María
Herna´ndez, María Jose´ Pico´ n, Juan Alonso Briales, Manuel Jime´nez
Navarro, Araceli Frutos García, Pilar Carrillo, Vicente Bertomeu,
Francisco Jose´ Pomares Go´ mez, Jose´ Ramo´ n Domínguez Escribano,
Ramo´n Lo´pez Palop, Fina Mauri, Andreu Nubiola Calonge, Vicente
Valle Tudela, Gerardo Aguilar, Oriol Rodríguez Leor, Eduardo
Ferna´ndez Nofredias. Sweden: Bertil Wennerblom, Thomas Hedner,
Inga-Britt Kling, Eva Dahl, Per Albertsson, Lars Grip, Asa Dahl,
Staffan Svensson, Stanko Skrtic, Farshad Tahmasebiepour, Tage
Nilsson, Karin Astrom Olsson, Marie Escar, Thomas Hedner, Bjorn
Wahlstrand, Go¨ran Matejka, Per Tornvall, Kerstin Hoglund, Camilla
Hage, Eva Arnqvist-Gustafsson. Thailand: Srun Kuanprasert, Am-
pica Mangklabruks, Supawan Buranapin, Kaset Chimplee, Natapong
Kosachunhanun, Padiporn Vasinanukorn, Sarat Sunthornyothin,
Surapun Sitthisook, Jarkarpun Chaipromprasit, Sompongse Suwan-
walaikorn. United States: Steven Bailey, Bogdana Ioana Balas,
Barbara Walz, Ralph DeFronzo, Devang Patel, Marc Feldman,
Robert Chilton, Umesh Arora, Michael Ball, Catherine Bain, Greg-
ory Eisner, Matthew French, Edward Fry, John Fry, Jack Hall, James
Hermiller, Zachary Hodes, Elaine Moen, Charles Orr, Kirk Parr,
Thomas Peters, Ali Rizvi, Donald Rothbaum, Charles Taylor, James
VanTassel, Joseph Barrera, Daniel Kulick, Arthur Loussararian,
Mim Mulford, Venkatesh Nadar, Stanley Lewin, Renu Joshi, Robert
Chadband, Harold Settle, Michael Simpson, Michael Rowland,
Robert Foster, Van Reeder, Andrew Kronenberg, Andrew Brian,
Brian Snoddy, Rachel Wilkinson, Arthur Chernoff, Catherine Gar-
rison, Dennis Morris, Catherine Anastasopoulou, Shahriar Yazdan-
far, Robert Chow, Robert Ferrera, Robert Schott, Linda Morrow,
Sailesh Shah, Burritt Haag, Kamal Shoukri, Michael LeMay, Mar-
garet Sharron, Ayesha Parvoz, Vasantha Reddy, Vilma Carlone,
Marc Schweiger, Ibitoro Osakwe, Dominica Kelley, Gregory Guigli-
ano, Satyendra Giri, Gopal Gododia, Shashin Desai, Nikhita Dhruv,
Rajesh Desai, Theodore Heierman, Nancy Parker, Lucia Lilien,
Laura Bryan, Henry Lui, Keith Atkins, Eie Hage-Korbin, Michelle
Magee, Robert Ratner, Asha Thomas, Angela Silverman, Wayman
Cheatham, Gabriel Uwaifo, Debra Wells, Ron Waksman, Jennifer
Holst, Kenneth Kent, John Laird, Augusto Pichard, Lowell Satler,
John Sharretts, William Suddath, Marc Mitchell, Scott Eberly, Allen
Geltzer, Thomas Amidon, Christopher Kozlowski, James Leggett,
Joseph Doucette, Neal Perlmutter, Jorge Calles-Escandon, Talal
Baki, William Little, Robert Applegate, Michael Kutcher, Sanjay
Gandhi, Renato Santos, George Dangas, Mark Apfelbaum, Michael
Collins, Daniel Donovan, Edward Kreps, Martin Leon, Roxana
Mehran, Jeffrey Moses, Issam Moussa, Leroy Rabbani, Gregg Stone,
Hal Wasserman, Judah Weinberger, Giora Weisz, Charles Whit-
comb, Jason Rogers, Thomas Aoki, Todd Brown, Ann Munson, Jon
Resar, Julie Miller, Alan Heldman, Kathleen Citro, Mary Ellen
Ehlers, Jan Houghton, William Georgitis, Christopher Lang, David
Kinnard, Steven Resnick, Albert Tseng, William Herzog, Michael
Silverman, George Groman, Keith Friedman, Alexander Chud-
novsky, Gebreye Rufael, Marie Gregory, Stephen Hippler, Craig
Kurtz, Alan Chu, Robert Crawford, Ronald Rabjohns, David Best,
Darrel Gumm, John Rashid, Barry Clemson, S. Craig Kurtz, Paul
Schmidt, Stephen Schneider, Alpesh Patel, Jai Agarwal, Sheri
Funderburk, Mark Moshiyakhov, Lilliana Cohen, Abel Moreyra,
Gretchen Perilli, Anthony Lombardo, Shelley Greenhaus, Lisa Mo-
tivalli, Tudor Vaganescu, William Schafranek, Pirouz Parang, Ajay
Chander, Anthony Messina, Syed Hussassian, Chirag Shah, Louis
Amorosa, Rita Louard, Ray Matthews, Thomas Shook, Steven
Burstein, Guy Mayeda, David Shavelle, Mariola Ficinski, Jane
Reusch, Irene Schauer, Sarah Bull, John Messenger, Cecilia Wang,
Rocio Pereira, Ivan Casserly, Stacey Mitchell, Kylie Carson, Barbara
Watson, Paul Rosenblit, Reynaldo Mulingtapang, John Sullebarger,
Robyn Aydelott, Nancy Grove, Huy Khuu, Beth Major, Manuel
Sainz de la Pena, John Sullebarger, Fadi Martar, Marc Taylor,
Anthony Morrison, Joel Strom, Reynaldo Mulingtapang, Tywaun
Tillman, MaryAnn Yarborough, Helen Taylor, Cynthia Williams,
Benjamin Rosin, Laryenth Lancaster, Veronica Piziak, David Rob-
ertson, Charles Wilmer, Charles Wickliffe, Kenneth Taylor, Spencer
King, III, William Jacobs, Mina Jacob, John Hurst, Jr, Harold
Carlson, Charles Brown, III, William Blincoe, William Ballard,
Scott Anderson, John Tayek, David Shavelle, Matthew Budoff, Gul
Khawar, Edward Kosinski, Jeffrey Lins, Jay Zdunek, Alexander
Kalenak, Tammy Outly, Richard Begg, Minn Mach, Daniel Eisen-
berg, Roger On, Joseph Lee, Eric Lee, A. Farfel, Khakloun Sroujieh,
Augusta Silva, Bharat Shah, Boris Larreta, Sako Chen, Douglas
Schreck, David Sato, Barry Rosen, William Gifford, Shawna
Weisler, Tony DeMartini, Norman Soler, Linda L McCall, Romesh
Kahdori, Gabor Matos, Frank Aguirre, Vincent Zuck, Wilfred Lam,
Raymond Kacich, Ziad Issa, John Gill, Mansura Ghani, Chandhiran
Rangaswamy, Nasar Nallamothu, Brian Miller, James Leibsohn, Beth
Lalande, Catherine Zyniecki, John Patterson, Michael Sollenberger,
David Bohle, Jaime Zapata, Davidson Givens, Charles Harris, John
McCabe, Usman Khawaja, Gary Reynaldo, Gregory Ledger, Thomas
Rossiter, Anthony Giglio, Kelvin VanOsdol, David Cochran, Donald
Myears, Robert Merritt, John Hawkins, Osvaldo Brusco, Srikanth
Damaraju, John Pappas, Greg Arsenis, R. Kiesz, Thomas Rossiter,
Alexander Shepherd, Krishnaswami Vijayaraghavan, W. Scott Rob-
ertson, Fuad Ibrahim, Alan Tenaglia, Mehrdad Saririan, Bradley
Oswood, Leslie Barnett-Avery.
Sources of Funding
This study was supported by GlaxoSmithKline. The sponsor partic-
ipated in the design of the study and provided logistical support
during the trial. Monitoring of the study was performed by the
sponsor, which also maintained the trial database. Statistical analyses
of the primary and secondary end points were independently per-
formed by both the sponsor and an independent academic statisti-
cian, and the results were cross-checked. Manuscript development
was led by the corresponding author in collaboration with the other
authors. Authors employed by the sponsor reviewed the manuscript
and suggested changes, but the final decision on content was retained
by the academic authors.
Disclosures
Dr Gerstein has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer
Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and
Sanofi-Aventis and grants from GlaxoSmithKline, King, Merck,
Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr Ratner has received grants
from AstraZeneca, Bayhill Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim,
GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Takeda, and Ver-
alight; served as an advisor to Amylin, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly,
GlaxoSmithKline, Lifescan, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis,
Sirtris, Takeda, and Tethys; and holds stock (⬎$10 000 value) in
Abbott, Johnson and Johnson, and Merck. Dr Cannon has received
grants from Accumetrics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi
Partnership, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and the Merck/Schering
Gerstein et al Rosiglitazone and Coronary Atherosclerosis 1185
Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on September 4, 2019
Plough Partnership and served as advisor to and holds an equity
position in Automedics Medical Systems. Drs Serruys, van Es,
García-García, and Fitzgerald received honoraria from GlaxoSmith-
Kline. Dr Nesto has served on speakers’ bureaus for GlaxoSmithK-
line and Takeda and served as an advisor to GlaxoSmithKline. Drs
Kolatkar, Miller, and Huang and B.G. Kravitz are employed by and
own stock in GlaxoSmithKline.
References
1. Huxley R, Barzi F, Woodward M. Excess risk of fatal coronary heart
disease associated with diabetes in men and women: meta-analysis of 37
prospective cohort studies. BMJ. 2006;332:73–78.
2. Selvin E, Marinopoulos S, Berkenblit G, Rami T, Brancati FL, Powe NR,
Golden SH. Meta-analysis: glycosylated hemoglobin and cardiovascular
disease in diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:421– 431.
3. ADVANCE Collaborative Group, Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J,
Neal B, Billot L, Woodward M, Marre M, Cooper M, Glasziou P,
Grobbee D, Hamet P, Harrap S, Heller S, Liu L, Mancia G, Mogensen
CE, Pan C, Poulter N, Rodgers A, Williams B, Bompoint S, de Galan BE,
Joshi R, Travert F. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes
in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2560 –2572.
4. Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group, Gerstein
HC, Miller ME, Byington RP, Goff DC Jr, Bigger JT, Buse JB, Cushman
WC, Genuth S, Ismail-Beigi F, Grimm RH Jr, Probstfield JL, Simons-
Morton DG, Friedewald WT. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in
type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2545–2559.
5. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Effect of intensive
blood glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight
patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). Lancet. 1998;352:854 – 865.
6. Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Matthews DR, Neil HA. 10-Year
follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med.
2008;359:1577–1589.
7. Ricciardi MJ, Meyers S, Choi K, Pang JL, Goodreau L, Davidson CJ.
Angiographically silent left main disease detected by intravascular ultra-
sound: a marker for future adverse cardiac events. Am Heart J. 2003;146:
507–512.
8. von Birgelen C, Hartmann M, Mintz GS, van Houwelingen KG, Dep-
permann N, Schmermund A, Bo¨ se D, Eggebrecht H, Neumann T, Go¨ ssl
M, Wieneke H, Erbel R. Relationship between cardiovascular risk as
predicted by established risk scores versus plaque progression as
measured by serial intravascular ultrasound in left main coronary arteries.
Circulation. 2004;110:1579 –1585.
9. Nissen SE, Tuzcu EM, Libby P, Thompson PD, Ghali M, Garza D,
Berman L, Shi H, Buebendorf E, Topol EJ; CAMELOT Investigators.
Effect of antihypertensive agents on cardiovascular events in patients
with coronary disease and normal blood pressure: the CAMELOT study:
a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;292:2217–2225.
10. Nissen SE, Tuzcu EM, Schoenhagen P, Brown BG, Ganz P, Vogel RA,
Crowe T, Howard G, Cooper CJ, Brodie B, Grines CL, DeMaria AN;
REVERSAL Investigators. Effect of intensive compared with moderate
lipid-lowering therapy on progression of coronary atherosclerosis: a ran-
domized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;291:1071–1080.
11. Okazaki S, Yokoyama T, Miyauchi K, Shimada K, Kurata T, Sato H,
Daida H. Early statin treatment in patients with acute coronary syn-
drome: demonstration of the beneficial effect on atherosclerotic
lesions by serial volumetric intravascular ultrasound analysis during
half a year after coronary event: the ESTABLISH Study. Circulation.
2004;110:1061–1068.
12. Schartl M, Bocksch W, Koschyk DH, Voelker W, Karsch KR, Kreuzer
J, Hausmann D, Beckmann S, Gross M. Use of intravascular
ultrasound to compare effects of different strategies of lipid-lowering
therapy on plaque volume and composition in patients with coronary
artery disease. Circulation. 2001;104:387–392.
13. Takagi T, Yoshida K, Akasaka T, Hozumi T, Morioka S, Yoshikawa
J. Intravascular ultrasound analysis of reduction in progression of
coronary narrowing by treatment with pravastatin. Am J Cardiol. 1997;
79:1673–1676.
14. Tiikkainen M, Hakkinen AM, Korsheninnikova E, Nyman T, Makimattila
S, Yki-Jarvinen H. Effects of rosiglitazone and metformin on liver fat
content, hepatic insulin resistance, insulin clearance, and gene expression
in adipose tissue in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes. 2004;53:
2169 –2176.
15. Kahn SE, Haffner SM, Heise MA, Herman WH, Holman RR, Jones NP,
Kravitz BG, Lachin JM, O’Neill MC, Zinman B, Viberti G; ADOPT
Study Group. Glycemic durability of rosiglitazone, metformin, or gly-
buride monotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2427–2443.
16. Haffner SM, Greenberg AS, Weston WM, Chen H, Williams K, Freed
MI. Effect of rosiglitazone treatment on nontraditional markers of car-
diovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Circulation.
2002;106:679 – 684.
17. Natali A, Baldeweg S, Toschi E, Capaldo B, Barbaro D, Gastaldelli A,
Yudkin JS, Ferrannini E. Vascular effects of improving metabolic control
with metformin or rosiglitazone in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004;
27:1349 –1357.
18. Derosa G, Gaddi AV, Piccinni MN, Ciccarelli L, Salvadeo S, Peros E,
Ghelfi M, Ferrari I, Cicero AF. Antithrombotic effects of rosiglitazone-
metformin versus glimepiride-metformin combination therapy in patients
with type 2 diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome. Pharmacotherapy.
2005;25:637– 645.
19. Kelly AS, Thelen AM, Kaiser DR, Gonzalez-Campoy JM, Bank AJ.
Rosiglitazone improves endothelial function and inflammation but not
asymmetric dimethylarginine or oxidative stress in patients with type 2
diabetes mellitus. Vasc Med. 2007;12:311–318.
20. Qayyum R, Adomaityte J. A meta-analysis of the effect of thiazo-
lidinediones on blood pressure. J Clin Hypertens. 2006;8:19 –28.
21. Mazzone T, Meyer PM, Feinstein SB, Davidson MH, Kondos GT,
D’Agostino RB Sr, Perez A, Provost JC, Haffner SM. Effect of piogli-
tazone compared with glimepiride on carotid intima-media thickness in
type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2006;296:2572–2581.
22. Rosmarakis ES, Falagas ME. Effect of thiazolidinedione therapy on
restenosis after coronary stent implantation: a meta-analysis of ran-
domized controlled trials. Am Heart J. 2007;154:144 –150.
23. Nissen SE, Nicholls SJ, Wolski K, Nesto R, Kupfer S, Perez A, Jure H,
De Larochellie` re R, Staniloae CS, Mavromatis K, Saw J, Hu B, Lincoff
AM, Tuzcu EM; PERISCOPE Investigators. Comparison of pioglitazone
vs glimepiride on progression of coronary atherosclerosis in patients with
type 2 diabetes: the PERISCOPE randomized controlled trial. JAMA.
2008;299:1561–1573.
24. Ratner RE, Cannon CP, Gerstein HC, Nesto RW, Serruys PW, Van Es
GA, Kolatkar NS, Kravitz BG, Zalewski A, Fitzgerald PJ; APPROACH
Study Group. Assessment on the Prevention of Progression by Rosigli-
tazone on Atherosclerosis in Diabetes Patients With Cardiovascular
History (APPROACH): study design and baseline characteristics. Am
Heart J. 2008;156:1074 –1079.
25. De Winter SA, Hamers R, Degertekin M, Tanabe K, Lemos PA, Serruys
PW, Roelandt JR, Bruining N. Retrospective image-based gating of
intracoronary ultrasound images for improved quantitative analysis: the
Intelligate method. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2004;61:84 –94.
26. Rodriguez-Granillo GA, Vos J, Bruining N, García-García HM, de
Winter S, Ligthart JM, Deckers JW, Bertrand M, Simoons ML, Ferrari R,
Fox KM, Remme W, De Feyter PJ; Investigators of the EUROPA Study.
Long-term effect of perindopril on coronary atherosclerosis pro-
gression (from the Perindopril’s Prospective Effect on Coronary Ath-
erosclerosis by Angiography and Intravascular Ultrasound Evaluation
[PERSPECTIVE] study). Am J Cardiol. 2007;100:159 –163.
27. Nissen SE, Nicholls SJ, Sipahi I, Libby P, Raichlen JS, Ballantyne CM,
Davignon J, Erbel R, Fruchart JC, Tardif JC, Schoenhagen P, Crowe T,
Cain V, Wolski K, Goormastic M, Tuzcu EM; ASTEROID Investigators.
Effect of very high-intensity statin therapy on regression of coronary
atherosclerosis: the ASTEROID trial. JAMA. 2006;295:1556 –1565.
28. Lachin JM. Worst-rank score analysis with informatively missing obser-
vations in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1999;20:408 – 422.
29. Stocker DJ, Taylor AJ, Langley RW, Jezior MR, Vigersky RA. A ran-
domized trial of the effects of rosiglitazone and metformin on inflam-
mation and subclinical atherosclerosis in patients with type 2 diabetes. Am
Heart J. 2007;153:445– 446.
30. Riche DM, Valderrama R, Henyan NN. Thiazolidinediones and risk of
repeat target vessel revascularization following percutaneous coronary
intervention: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:384 –388.
31. Nissen SE, Wolski K. Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial
infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med. 2007;
356:2457–2471.
32. Singh S, Loke YK, Furberg CD. Long-term risk of cardiovascular events
with rosiglitazone: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2007;298:1189 –1195.
33. Shuster JJ, Jones LS, Salmon DA. Fixed vs random effects metaanalysis
in rare event studies: the rosiglitazone link with myocardial infarction and
cardiac death. Stat Med. 2007;26:4375– 4385.
1186 Circulation March 16, 2010
Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on September 4, 2019
34. Lago RM, Singh PP, Nesto RW. Congestive heart failure and cardiovas-
cular death in patients with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes given thia-
zolidinediones: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Lancet.
2007;370:1129 –1136.
35. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA briefing document. Joint
meeting of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Com-
mittee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Com-
mittee, July 30, 2007. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/
ac/07/briefing/2007-4308b1-02-fda-backgrounder.pdf. Accessed May
21, 2009.
36. Friedrich JO, Beyene J, Adhikari NKJ. Rosiglitazone: can meta-analysis
accurately estimate excess cardiovascular risk given the available data?
Re-analysis of randomized trials using various methodologic approaches.
BMC Res Notes. 2009;2:5.
37. Mannucci E, Monami M, Di Bari M, Lamanna C, Gori F, Gensini GF,
Marchionni N. Cardiac safety profile of rosiglitazone: a comprehensive
meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Int J Cardiol. Mar 26, 2009.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2009.01.064. Available at: http://www.
internationaljournalofcardiology.com/article/S0167-5273%2809%2900133-
8/fulltext/. Accessed September 12, 2009.
CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE
The thiazolidinedione class of drugs has many favorable metabolic and vascular anatomic effects in people with type 2
diabetes mellitus. Whereas the Assessment on the Prevention of Progression by Rosiglitazone on Atherosclerosis in
Diabetes Patients With Cardiovascular History (APPROACH) trial did not show a clear reduction in coronary
atherosclerosis versus glipizide, its results are consistent with other studies of rosiglitazone and pioglitazone that did
suggest reduced carotid and coronary atherosclerosis. Moreover, the large randomized outcomes trials of the thiazo-
lidinediones that have been completed to date are consistent with the hypothesis that (1) pioglitazone may reduce
cardiovascular outcomes compared with placebo and (2) the effect of rosiglitazone on cardiovascular outcomes is similar
to that of metformin and to that of sulfonylureas. With the exception of fluid retention and pulmonary edema, these trial
findings support the importance of clearly testing the cardiovascular effects of both of these drugs within 1 trial. The
Thiazolidinedione Intervention With Vitamin D Evaluation (TIDE) trial is a large placebo-controlled trial of 16 000
participants that is currently assessing the cardiovascular effects of both thiazolidinediones versus placebo when added to
current therapy. It will also clearly evaluate whether either of the 2 thiazolidinediones differ with respect to cardiovascular
outcomes and will clearly determine whether either or both of these drugs prevents, promotes, or has a neutral effect on
serious cardiovascular outcomes.
Gerstein et al Rosiglitazone and Coronary Atherosclerosis 1187
Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on September 4, 2019