David J Margolis1, Ole Hoffstad, Brian L Strom. 1. Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, PA 19104, USA. margo@mail.med.upenn.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: Data on cardiovascular outcomes among treated diabetics have been inconsistent. Our goal was to compare cardiovascular outcomes associated with different treatments for diabetes. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of diabetic patients at least 40 years of age treated in general practices participating in The Health Information Network (THIN) data system between 2002 and 2006. Our primary outcome was serious atherosclerotic vascular disease of the heart. RESULTS: Among all diabetics (N = 63 579), the fully adjusted hazard ratios of association with our outcome were 1.2 (1.1, 1.3) for insulin, 1.03 (0.97, 1.09) for sulfonylureas, 0.8 (0.7, 0.8) for biguanide, 1.2 (0.99, 1.5) for meglitinide, 0.5 (0.5, 0.6) for thiazolidinediones, and individually 0.6 (0.5, 0.6) for rosiglitazone, and 0.5 (0.4, 0.7) for pioglitazone. Among those individuals newly diagnosed and treated for diabetes after 2002 (N = 13 576), the adjusted hazard ratios of association with our outcome were 2.4 (2.0, 2.9) for insulin, 1.4 (1.2, 1.7) for sulfonylureas, 0.5 (0.4, 0.5) for biguanide, 0.9 (0.4, 2.1) for meglitinide, 0.8 (0.7, 1.0) for thiazolidinediones, and individually 0.8 (0.6, 1.0) for rosiglitazone, and 0.9 (0.6, 1.4) for pioglitazone. Risk increased as total duration of therapy increased for insulin, sulfonylureas, and biguanide, but decreased with duration for rosiglitazone and pioglitazone. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, insulin was associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction. Its risk increased with longer use, and risk emerged with longer use of sulfonylureas and biguanide. Conversely, a protective effect emerged with longer use of rosiglitazone or pioglitazone.
PURPOSE: Data on cardiovascular outcomes among treated diabetics have been inconsistent. Our goal was to compare cardiovascular outcomes associated with different treatments for diabetes. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of diabeticpatients at least 40 years of age treated in general practices participating in The Health Information Network (THIN) data system between 2002 and 2006. Our primary outcome was serious atherosclerotic vascular disease of the heart. RESULTS: Among all diabetics (N = 63 579), the fully adjusted hazard ratios of association with our outcome were 1.2 (1.1, 1.3) for insulin, 1.03 (0.97, 1.09) for sulfonylureas, 0.8 (0.7, 0.8) for biguanide, 1.2 (0.99, 1.5) for meglitinide, 0.5 (0.5, 0.6) for thiazolidinediones, and individually 0.6 (0.5, 0.6) for rosiglitazone, and 0.5 (0.4, 0.7) for pioglitazone. Among those individuals newly diagnosed and treated for diabetes after 2002 (N = 13 576), the adjusted hazard ratios of association with our outcome were 2.4 (2.0, 2.9) for insulin, 1.4 (1.2, 1.7) for sulfonylureas, 0.5 (0.4, 0.5) for biguanide, 0.9 (0.4, 2.1) for meglitinide, 0.8 (0.7, 1.0) for thiazolidinediones, and individually 0.8 (0.6, 1.0) for rosiglitazone, and 0.9 (0.6, 1.4) for pioglitazone. Risk increased as total duration of therapy increased for insulin, sulfonylureas, and biguanide, but decreased with duration for rosiglitazone and pioglitazone. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, insulin was associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction. Its risk increased with longer use, and risk emerged with longer use of sulfonylureas and biguanide. Conversely, a protective effect emerged with longer use of rosiglitazone or pioglitazone.
Authors: Charles M Gerrits; Mondira Bhattacharya; Shivaji Manthena; Robert Baran; Alfonso Perez; Stuart Kupfer Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: James D Lewis; Rita Schinnar; Warren B Bilker; Xingmei Wang; Brian L Strom Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: John A Dormandy; Bernard Charbonnel; David J A Eckland; Erland Erdmann; Massimo Massi-Benedetti; Ian K Moules; Allan M Skene; Meng H Tan; Pierre J Lefèbvre; Gordon D Murray; Eberhard Standl; Robert G Wilcox; Lars Wilhelmsen; John Betteridge; Kåre Birkeland; Alain Golay; Robert J Heine; László Korányi; Markku Laakso; Marián Mokán; Antanas Norkus; Valdis Pirags; Toomas Podar; André Scheen; Werner Scherbaum; Guntram Schernthaner; Ole Schmitz; Jan Skrha; Ulf Smith; Jan Taton Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-10-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Andrea L Neimann; Daniel B Shin; Xingmei Wang; David J Margolis; Andrea B Troxel; Joel M Gelfand Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2006-09-25 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Joel M Gelfand; Andrea L Neimann; Daniel B Shin; Xingmei Wang; David J Margolis; Andrea B Troxel Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-10-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Josef Coresh; Ethan Balk; Annamaria T Kausz; Adeera Levin; Michael W Steffes; Ronald J Hogg; Ronald D Perrone; Joseph Lau; Garabed Eknoyan Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-07-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Erland Erdmann; John A Dormandy; Bernard Charbonnel; Massimo Massi-Benedetti; Ian K Moules; Allan M Skene Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-04-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Elisabetta Patorno; Amanda R Patrick; Elizabeth M Garry; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Victoria G Gillet; Dorothee B Bartels; Elvira Masso-Gonzalez; John D Seeger Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2014-09-12 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Carlos E Mendez; Rebekah J Walker; Christian R Eiler; Basem M Mishriky; Leonard E Egede Journal: Postgrad Med Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: G Schernthaner; A H Barnett; D J Betteridge; R Carmena; A Ceriello; B Charbonnel; M Hanefeld; R Lehmann; M T Malecki; R Nesto; V Pirags; A Scheen; J Seufert; A Sjohölm; A Tsatsoulis; R DeFronzo Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2010-03-31 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Stanley S Schwartz; Solomon Epstein; Barbara E Corkey; Struan F A Grant; James R Gavin; Richard B Aguilar Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 19.112