New use of rosiglitazone decreased following publication of a meta-analysis suggesting harm. Effects of rosiglitazone on plasma brain natriuretic peptide levels and myocardial performance index in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Beneficial effects of rosiglitazone on novel cardiovascular risk factors in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Rosiglitazone preserves islet beta-cell function of adult-onset latent autoimmune diabetes in 3 years follow-up study. A prospective randomized trial comparing the clinical and endocrinological outcome with rosiglitazone versus laparoscopic ovarian drilling in patients with polycystic ovarian disease resistant to ovulation induction with clomiphene citrate. Rosiglitazone produces a greater reduction in circulating platelet activity compared with gliclazide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus--an effect probably mediated by direct platelet PPARgamma activation. Rosiglitazone treatment increases subcutaneous adipose tissue glucose uptake in parallel with perfusion in patients with type 2 diabetes: a double-blind, randomized study with metformin. Effect of rosiglitazone versus insulin on the pancreatic beta-cell function of subjects with type 2 diabetes. Once- and twice-daily dosing with rosiglitazone improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Effects of rosiglitazone and metformin on inflammatory markers and adipokines: decrease in interleukin-18 is an independent factor for the improvement of homeostasis model assessment-beta in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. Endocrine and metabolic effects of rosiglitazone in overweight women with PCOS: a randomized placebo-controlled study. A double-blind randomized study comparing the effects of continuing or not continuing rosiglitazone + metformin therapy when starting insulin therapy in people with Type 2 diabetes. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? A randomized trial of the effects of rosiglitazone and metformin on inflammation and subclinical atherosclerosis in patients with type 2 diabetes. A comparison of the effects of rosiglitazone and glyburide on cardiovascular function and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.
It is uncertain whether meta-analyses lead to changes in prescribing practices. We studied trends in the prescribing of glucose-lowering therapy before and after the publication of a meta-analysis suggesting harm from rosiglitazone.
                We examined the prescription records of all residents of Ontario, Canada, aged > or = 66 years. For each week between January and December 2007, we identified new users of five categories of glucose-lowering medications: rosiglitazone, pioglitazone, metformin, glibenclamide (glyburide) and insulin. The effect of the meta-analysis was assessed using interventional autoregressive integrated moving-average models.
                Following the release of the meta-analysis, there was a sudden decline in new users of rosiglitazone (P = 0.01), mirrored by a nearly identical but transient increase in new users of pioglitazone (P < 0.001). There was also a net decline in new users of thiazolidinediones as a class (P < 0.001). The number of new users of other glucose-lowering medications did not change.
                A highly-publicized meta-analysis regarding rosiglitazone's potential harms led to an abrupt decline in new users of the drug, as well as a transient surge in new use of pioglitazone. Thiazolidinediones (TZD) have become a powerful tool for lowering insulin resistance. The problem of cardiovascular adverse events including fluid retention and risk of heart failure should be well known and recognised. We aimed to evaluate the long-term effects of rosiglitazone on cardiac function and fluid dynamics. Forty-six type 2 diabetic patients were randomised to treatment with rosiglitazone or metformin or to a control group. There are no significant differences between the groups in the duration of diabetes, HbA1c, plasma brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels, body mass index and myocardial performance indexes (MPIs) before the treatment. After three and six months all these parameters were repeated. Rosiglitazone increased plasma BNP levels and worsened MPIs 3 months after the start of treatment. Also left ventricular end-systolic volume increased and weight gain was observed. But these results were statistically non-significant (all p>0.05). When we continued rosiglitazone treatment to six months the increase in BNP levels became soft and statistically significant improvements were seen in MPIs (p<0.01). Also left ventricular end-systolic volume decreased significantly (p=0.004) and weight gain was stopped. In patients with type 2 diabetes, TZD treatment might have slight adverse effects on ventricular contractility and fluid dynamics at the beginning of the therapy. However, these changes seem to stabilise in the long term. Impaired exercise capacity, adiponectin, MMPs and TIMPs have all been implicated in the development of cardiovascular disease. The aim of our study was to determine the effects of rosiglitazone on these factors in diabetic patients.
                Seventy individuals with Type 2 diabetes were assigned randomly to either a rosiglitazone group (8 mg/day, RG) or a control group (CG) for 6 months. All participants took gliclazide 160 mg plus metformin 1700 mg in stable dose. None of the individuals had diabetic complications or had previously participated in an exercise programme. Anthropometric parameters, VO2 peak, oxygen pulse, glycaemic indices, lipid profile, adiponectin, insulin resistance, blood pressure and serum MMP-9, TIMP-1, TIMP-2 levels were assessed at baseline and at the end of the study. After Bonferroni adjustment, a P-value < 0.017 was assumed to be statistically significant.
                Rosiglitazone treatment significantly increased VO2 peak (P < 0.0001), the duration of the exercise test (P < 0.0001), oxygen pulse (P = 0.010) and TIMP-2 levels (P = 0.008) in comparison with CG. Insulin resistance, hyperglycaemia, diastolic blood pressure and MMP-9 levels were also reduced (P < 0.017). Fat mass, lipid profile, TIMP-1 levels and MMP9 : TIMP-1 ratio were unaltered after rosiglitazone treatment. There were no significant changes in these parameters in control subjects. In univariate analysis, the rosiglitazone-induced increment of VO2 peak was associated with alterations in plasma adiponectin (r = 0.691), HOMA-IR (r = -0.782) and HbA(1c) (r = -0.676) (P < 0.017). These relationships retained significance after multiple regression analysis (P = 0.005).
                Rosiglitazone treatment increases cardiorespiratory fitness and modulates favourably serum adiponectin, MMP-9 and TIMP-2 levels. Whether these effects produce cardiovascular benefits in the long term requires further investigation. The newly developed insulin sensitizer-thiazolidinediones have the potential to downregulate inflammation and autoimmune response. The objective of this study was to observe the beneficial effects on beta-cell function in the LADA patients treated with rosiglitazone. 54 LADA patients were assigned to oral hypoglycemic agents group (GAD-Ab<175 U/mL and FCP>0.3 nmol/L) or early insulin administration group (GAD-Ab>or=175 U/mL or GAD-Ab<175 U/mL and FCP<or=0.3 nmol/L). Then, those patients were randomly assigned to receive sulfonylureas (SUs group) or rosiglitazone (RSG group) therapy, or to receive insulin alone (INS group) or rosiglitazone plus insulin (INS+RSG group). Plasma glucose, HbA1c, fasting C-peptide (FCP) and C-peptide after 2h 75-g glucose load (PCP) were determined every 6 months. The levels of PCP and delta CP were higher in RSG group compared with those in SUs group after the 18th month. The PCP level (after the 12th month) and delta CP level (after the 18th month) in INS+/-RSG group were higher than those in INS group. Rosiglitazone combined with insulin wherever or not preserved beta-cell function in LADA patients after 3 years. Rosiglitazone, an insulin sensitizing agent is used currently in women with clomiphene citrate (CC) resistant polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). Our study proposed to compare the efficacy of rosiglitazone and CC with laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) and CC in terms of biochemical effects, ovulation rate and pregnancy rate in patients of PCOS resistant to CC.
                This prospective randomised trial included 43 patients of PCOS resistant to CC. Twenty-two women were assigned to the rosiglitazone (4 mg twice daily) and CC group and other 21 patients underwent unilateral LOD and then received CC and multivitamins. The treatment continued for six cycles in both the groups. The biochemical response, ovulation rate and pregnancy rate over a follow up period of 6 months were compared.
                Treatment with rosiglitazone and CC or LOD and CC resulted in increased ovulation (80.8 vs. 81.5%) and pregnancy (50 vs. 42.8%), respectively. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of biochemical response, ovulation rate and pregnancy rate.
                To avoid the risk of adverse effects of LOD preference may be given to the use of rosiglitazone and CC therapy in patients of PCOS resistant to CC. Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with enhanced platelet activation. We conducted a randomised double-blind study to compare the effects of combination metformin and rosiglitazone or metformin and gliclazide therapy on platelet function in persons with T2DM.
                Fifty subjects on metformin monotherapy received either rosiglitazone 4 mg or gliclazide 80 mg. HbA1c, HOMA-R, markers of platelet activation, inflammation, endothelial activation and oxidative stress were measured at baseline and after 24 weeks of treatment. Separate in vitro platelet function studies were conducted on platelets pre-incubated with rosiglitazone and gliclazide.
                A significantly greater reduction in platelet aggregation was observed in the rosiglitazone treated group compared to gliclazide. HbA1c and markers of endothelial activation were reduced to a similar extent in both groups. A significant reduction in HOMA-R, markers of inflammation and oxidative stress was only observed with rosiglitazone. Reduction in platelet aggregation with rosiglitazone correlated with reduction in oxidative stress. In the in vitro study, rosiglitazone produced significantly greater reduction in platelet aggregation compared with gliclazide.
                Greater reduction in platelet activity observed with rosiglitazone may be related to reduced oxidative stress and a possible direct PPARgamma mediated effect on platelet function. We have shown that rosiglitazone increases whole-body and adipose tissue insulin sensitivity in humans.
                The aim of this study was to further examine whether possible changes in adipose perfusion could explain increased adipose tissue glucose uptake (GU).
                Thirty-seven patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes were included.
                Patients were randomized into treatment with rosiglitazone, metformin, or placebo for 26 wk in a double-blinded trial.
                Femoral adipose flow and GU were measured with [15O]H2O, [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography during euglycemic hyperinsulinemia. Adipose masses were measured using magnetic resonance imaging.
                Metformin and rosiglitazone treatment improved glycemic control, but only rosiglitazone increased whole-body insulin sensitivity. Rosiglitazone treatment increased flow by 72% (P < 0.01) and GU by 23% (P < 0.05) and thereby decreased adipose tissue glucose extraction by 18% (P < 0.05); no changes were observed in the metformin or placebo-treated groups. When the adipose masses were taken into account, rosiglitazone treatment increased flow by 73% (P < 0.01) and GU by 24% (P < 0.05). During hyperinsulinemia, flow correlated with GU (r = 0.63; P < 0.01).
                In conclusion, s.c. GU is associated with flow in patients with type 2 diabetes. Rosiglitazone treatment enhances GU and flow but decreases glucose extraction, suggesting that perfusion may contribute to adipose tissue insulin sensitization by rosiglitazone. In a previous study, we found observational evidence of improvement in beta-cell function when rosiglitazone was added to a failing oral antihyperglycemic regimen consisting of sulfonylureas and metformin. To confirm our previous observations, we designed and performed a prospective, randomized, and controlled study.
                A total of 17 subjects with type 2 diabetes, inadequately controlled on a maximized oral antihyperglycemic double regimen of glimepiride and metformin, were randomized to the addition of rosiglitazone or insulin to their treatment regimens for a period of 6 months. At baseline and at 6 months, the following were performed: measurement of fasting plasma glucose, fasting proinsulin, and insulin levels; frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test; and glucagon stimulation test for C-peptide.
                Nine subjects were randomized to the addition of 8 mg rosiglitazone, and eight subjects were randomized to the addition of one injection of insulin (premixed 70/30) before their evening meal. The treatment groups were well matched for age, duration of diabetes, and BMI. Most important, the HbA(1c) was well matched between groups before treatment (8.7 +/- 0.3 and 9.0 +/- 0.3%; NS) and at the end of the 6 months (7.8 +/- 0.5 and 7.8 +/- 0.3%; NS). After 6 months, at the end of the study, there was a significant improvement in acute insulin response to glucose in the rosiglitazone group (+15.3 microIU x ml(-1) x 10 min(-1); P < 0.001) that led to an increase in the disposition index from 0.18 at baseline to 4.18 at 6 months (P = 0.02). Furthermore, at the end of the study, the proinsulin-to-insulin ratio had decreased in the rosiglitazone group by 36% (P = 0.03) but did not change significantly in the insulin treatment group.
                Rosiglitazone, but not insulin, induced a recovery of pancreatic beta-cell function, as evidenced by the restoration of the first-phase insulin response to glucose, improvement in the disposition index, and a decrease in the proinsulin-to-insulin ratio in subjects with type 2 diabetes in whom oral antihyperglycemic therapy failed. This improvement was independent of the correction of glucotoxicity. To determine the efficacy of rosiglitazone compared with placebo in reducing hyperglycemia.
                After a 4-week placebo run-in period, 959 patients were randomized to placebo or rosiglitazone (total daily dose 4 or 8 mg) for 26 weeks. The primary measure of efficacy was change in the HbA1c concentration.
                Rosiglitazone produced dosage-dependent reductions in HbA1c of 0.8, 0.9, 1.1, and 1.5% in the 4 mg o.d., 2 mg b.i.d., 8 mg o.d., and 4 mg b.i.d. groups, respectively, compared with placebo. Clinically significant decreases from baseline in HbA1c were observed in drug-naive patients at all rosiglitazone doses and in patients previously treated with oral monotherapy at rosiglitazone 8 mg o.d. and 4 mg b.i.d. Clinically significant decreases from baseline in HbA1c were also observed with rosiglitazone 4 mg b.i.d. in patients previously treated with combination oral therapy. Approximately 33% of drug-naive patients treated with rosiglitazone achieved HbA1c < or =7% at study end. The proportions of patients with at least one adverse event were comparable among the rosiglitazone and placebo groups. There was no evidence of hepatotoxicity in any treatment group. There were statistically significant increases in weight and serum lipids in all rosiglitazone treatment groups compared with placebo. For LDL and HDL cholesterol, the observed increase appeared to be dose related.
                Rosiglitazone at total daily doses of 4 and 8 mg significantly improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and was well tolerated. We examined the individual pharmacological effects of the addition of rosiglitazone and metformin to glimepiride on inflammatory markers and adipokines in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. We analysed the relationships between these variables, the measurements of insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function in patients treated with rosiglitazone plus glimepiride.
                One hundred twenty (120) patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized and treated with glimepiride plus rosiglitazone or glimepiride plus metformin for 12 weeks. The plasma concentrations of the inflammatory markers and adipokines were measured at baseline and after 12 weeks.
                Markers of insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function were determined by the quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI) and the homeostasis model assessment of beta-cell function (HOMA-beta), respectively. Plasma concentrations of adiponectin were measured by radioimmunoassay. Plasma concentrations of resistin, tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and interleukin-18 (IL-18) were measured using ELISA.
                Improvements in fasting insulin level, QUICKI and HOMA-beta were noted in the rosiglitazone-treated group. Only the QUICKI value improved in the metformin-treated group. Adiponectin concentrations significantly increased in the rosiglitazone-treated group after 12 weeks. Significant decreases in resistin, C-reactive protein, TNF-alpha, IL-6 and IL-18 were seen in the rosiglitazone-treated patients but not in the metformin-treated patients. The independent risk factor for the HOMA-beta change according to stepwise multivariate regression analysis was a change in IL-18.
                Rosiglitazone, but not metformin, improved the plasma concentrations of inflammatory markers and adipokines in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A decrease in IL-18 is an independent factor for the improvement of HOMA-beta in type 2 diabetes mellitus. The large volume of published randomized, controlled trials has led to a need for meta-analyses to track therapeutic advances. Performing a new meta-analysis whenever the results of a new trial of a particular therapy are published permits the study of trends in efficacy and makes it possible to determine when a new treatment appears to be significantly effective or deleterious. We describe the use of such a procedure, cumulative meta-analysis, to assess therapeutic trials among patients with myocardial infarction.
                We performed cumulative meta-analyses of clinical trials that evaluated 15 treatments and preventive measures for acute myocardial infarction.
                An example of this method is its application to the use of intravenous streptokinase as thrombolytic therapy for acute infarction. Thirty-three trials evaluating this therapy were performed between 1959 and 1988. We found that a consistent, statistically significant reduction in total mortality (odds ratios, 0.74; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.59 to 0.92) was achieved in 1973, after only eight trials involving 2432 patients had been completed. The results of the 25 subsequent trials, which enrolled an additional 34,542 patients through 1988, had little or no effect on the odds ratio establishing efficacy, but simply narrowed the 95 percent confidence interval. In particular, two very large trials, the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell'Infarto Miocardico trial in 1986 (11,712 patients) and the Second International Study of Infarct Survival trial in 1988 (17,187 patients) did not modify the already established evidence of efficacy. We used a similar approach to study the accumulating evidence of efficacy (or lack of efficacy) of 14 other therapies and preventive measures for myocardial infarction.
                Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials facilitates the determination of clinical efficacy and harm and may be helpful in tracking trials, planning future trials, and making clinical recommendations for therapy. The objective of the study was to assess the therapeutic effects of rosiglitazone in overweight women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).
                A double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted on 30 (BMI > 25 kg/m2, mean age 29.1 +/- 1.2 years) overweight women with PCOS treated with rosiglitazone or placebo for 4 months. Waist-to-hip ratios (WHRs), serum concentrations of sex hormones and binding proteins, blood glucose, serum insulin and serum C-peptide during a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), first-phase insulin secretion as determined by an intravenous glucose tolerance test (IVGTT), M values (expressing insulin sensitivity using a euglycaemic clamp) and calorimetric data were assessed at 0 and 4 months of treatment.
                Rosiglitazone improved menstrual cyclicity, increased serum sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) levels and decreased serum levels of androstenedione, 17-hydroxyprogesterone (17-OHP), dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate (DHEA-S). Glucose tolerance [expressed as AUC(glucose) during the OGTT] improved (P = 0.002) and peripheral insulin response (expressed as AUC(insulin)) decreased (P = 0.004) in the rosiglitazone group (ROSI group). M value improved in the ROSI group from 33.4 +/- 3.27 to 40.0 +/- 5.51 micromol/kg min (P = 0.04).
                Rosiglitazone, by improving menstrual cyclicity, hyperandrogenism, insulin resistance and hyperinsulinaemia, represents an alternative treatment for overweight anovulatory women with PCOS and no pregnancy desire. To compare the efficacy and safety of either continuing or discontinuing rosiglitazone + metformin fixed-dose combination when starting insulin therapy in people with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on oral therapy.
                In this 24-week double-blind study, 324 individuals with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on maximum dose rosiglitazone + metformin therapy were randomly assigned to twice-daily premix insulin therapy (target pre-breakfast and pre-evening meal glucose < or = 6.5 mmol/l) in addition to either rosiglitazone + metformin (8/2000 mg) or placebo.
                Insulin dose at week 24 was significantly lower with rosiglitazone + metformin (33.5 +/- 1.5 U/day, mean +/- se) compared with placebo [59.0 +/- 3.0 U/day; model-adjusted difference -26.6 (95% CI -37.7, -15,5) U/day, P < 0.001]. Despite this, there was greater improvement in glycaemic control [HbA(1c) rosiglitazone + metformin vs. placebo 6.8 +/- 0.1 vs. 7.5 +/- 0.1%; difference -0.7 (-0.8, -0.5)%, P < 0.001] and more individuals achieved glycaemic targets (HbA(1c) < 7.0% 70 vs. 34%, P < 0.001). The proportion of individuals reporting at least one hypoglycaemic event during the last 12 weeks of treatment was similar in the two groups (rosiglitazone + metformin vs. placebo 25 vs. 27%). People receiving rosiglitazone + metformin in addition to insulin reported greater treatment satisfaction than those receiving insulin alone. Both treatment regimens were well tolerated but more participants had oedema [12 (7%) vs. 4 (3%)] and there was more weight gain [3.7 vs. 2.6 kg; difference 1.1 (0.2, 2.1) kg, P = 0.02] with rosiglitazone + metformin.
                Addition of insulin to rosiglitazone + metformin enabled more people to reach glycaemic targets with less insulin, and was generally well tolerated. Previous studies indicate that industry-sponsored trials tend to draw proindustry conclusions.
                To explore whether the association between funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials reflects treatment effects or adverse events.
                Observational study of 370 randomized drug trials included in meta-analyses from Cochrane reviews selected from the Cochrane Library, May 2001. From a random sample of 167 Cochrane reviews, 25 contained eligible meta-analyses (assessed a binary outcome; pooled at least 5 full-paper trials of which at least 1 reported adequate and 1 reported inadequate allocation concealment). The primary binary outcome from each meta-analysis was considered the primary outcome for all trials included in each meta-analysis. The association between funding and conclusions was analyzed by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment effect, adverse events, and additional confounding factors (methodological quality, control intervention, sample size, publication year, and place of publication).
                Conclusions in trials, classified into whether the experimental drug was recommended as the treatment of choice or not.
                The experimental drug was recommended as treatment of choice in 16% of trials funded by nonprofit organizations, 30% of trials not reporting funding, 35% of trials funded by both nonprofit and for-profit organizations, and 51% of trials funded by for-profit organizations (P<.001; chi2 test). Logistic regression analyses indicated that funding, treatment effect, and double blinding were the only significant predictors of conclusions. Adjusted analyses showed that trials funded by for-profit organizations were significantly more likely to recommend the experimental drug as treatment of choice (odds ratio, 5.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-14.4) compared with trials funded by nonprofit organizations. This association did not appear to reflect treatment effect or adverse events.
                Conclusions in trials funded by for-profit organizations may be more positive due to biased interpretation of trial results. Readers should carefully evaluate whether conclusions in randomized trials are supported by data. Metformin and rosiglitazone both improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus, however may possess different anti-inflammatory and anti-atherosclerotic properties. We investigated the effects of these medications on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) and carotid artery intima-media thickness (CIMT) to determine their relative potential to reduce cardiovascular risk independent of their antihyperglycemic actions.
                Ninety-two subjects with suboptimally controlled diabetes mellitus (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] >7.0%) were assigned to therapy with either rosiglitazone 4 mg once daily or metformin 850 mg twice daily for 24 weeks. The primary end point was the change in hsCRP after 24 weeks. The change in CIMT was prespecified as a secondary end point.
                Metformin and rosiglitazone treatment led to similar significant improvements in glycemic control (HbA1c -1.08% in the rosiglitazone group and -1.18% in the metformin group, P = nonsignificant). High-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels decreased by an average of 68% in the rosiglitazone group (5.99 +/- 0.88 to 1.91 +/- 0.28 mg/L, P < .001), compared with a nonsignificant 4% reduction in hsCRP with metformin (5.69 +/- 0.83 to 5.46 +/- 0.92 mg/L; P = nonsignificant). Maximal CIMT progressed in the metformin group (+0.084 +/- 0.038 mm), whereas regression of maximal CIMT was observed in the rosiglitazone group (-0.037 +/- 0.031 mm; P = .02 for the between group comparison). Similar changes were observed for mean CIMT. The change in hsCRP and maximal CIMT were related in a multivariable model controlling for changes in HbA1c and lipid parameters (r = .31; P = .01).
                Rosiglitazone, compared to metformin, induced a prompt and profound reduction in hsCRP levels independent of its effect on glycemia. This change was associated with regression of CIMT after 24 weeks. This open-label, active-controlled study investigated the cardiac safety and antihyperglycemic effect of rosiglitazone (RSG) in patients with type 2 diabetes.
                Of the 203 patients randomly assigned to RSG (4 mg b.i.d.) or glyburide (GLB) (titrated to achieve optimal glycemic control for the first 8 weeks only to limit the risk of hypoglycemia; mean 10.5 mg/day), 118 had an echocardiogram performed at week 52. Left ventricular (LV) mass index, ejection fraction, and left ventricular end-diastolic volume were assessed by M-mode echocardiography at baseline and weeks 12, 28, and 52; 24-h ambulatory blood pressure was assessed at baseline and at weeks 28 and 52. Glycemic control was assessed by measuring fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and HbA(1c).
                Neither treatment produced an increase in LV mass index that exceeded 1 SD. Ejection fraction did not change in either group. Both groups had clinically insignificant increases in LV end-diastolic volume. RSG, but not GLB, caused a statistically significant reduction in ambulatory diastolic blood pressure. Both treatments reduced HbA(1c) and FPG.
                A total of 52 weeks of therapy with RSG (4 mg b.i.d.) did not adversely affect cardiac structure or function in patients with type 2 diabetes and produced significant and sustained reductions in hyperglycemia. Decreases in ambulatory diastolic blood pressure with RSG were superior to those with GLB.
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.