This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) View Committee Members and Investigators All Versions of this Article: j.jacc.2006.12.048v1 49/17/1772    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (40) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Erdmann, E. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Erdmann, E. Related Collections Related Article

CLINICAL RESEARCH: CLINICAL TRIAL

The Effect of Pioglitazone on Recurrent Myocardial Infarction in 2,445 Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Previous Myocardial Infarction

Results From the PROactive (PROactive 05) Study

Erland Erdmann, MD, FESC, FACC^_*,1,_*, John A. Dormandy, FRCS, DSc^,1, Bernard Charbonnel, MD^,1, Massimo Massi-Benedetti, MD^,1, Ian K. Moules, BSc (Hons)^||,2, Allan M. Skene, PhD^¶,3 on behalf of the PROactive Investigators

^_* Medizinische Klinik III der Universität zu Köln, Köln, Germany
St. George’s Hospital, London, United Kingdom
Clinique d’Endocrinologie, Hôtel Dieu, Nantes, France
University of Perugia, Medicine and Metabolic Diseases, Perugia, Italy
^|| Takeda Global Research and Development Centre (Europe) Ltd., London, United Kingdom
^¶ Nottingham Clinical Research Ltd., Nottingham, United Kingdom.

Manuscript received August 25, 2006; revised manuscript received November 2, 2006, accepted December 4, 2006.

^_* Reprint requests and correspondence: Prof. Dr. Erland Erdmann, Medizinische Klinik III der Universität zu Köln, Kerpener Str. 62, D-50937 Köln, Germany. (Email: erland.erdmann{at}uni-koeln.de).

	Abstract

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
Objectives: This analysis from the PROactive (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events) study assesses the effects of pioglitazone on mortality and macrovascular morbidity in patients with type 2 diabetes and a previous myocardial infarction (MI).

Background: People with type 2 diabetes have an increased incidence of MI compared with the general population. Those with diabetes and MI have a worse prognosis than nondiabetic patients with cardiovascular disease.

Methods: The PROactive study was a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 5,238 patients with type 2 diabetes and macrovascular disease. Patients were randomized to either pioglitazone or placebo in addition to their other glucose-lowering and cardiovascular medication. Treatment of diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension was encouraged according to the International Diabetes Federation guidelines. Patients were followed for a mean of 2.85 years. The primary end point was the time to first occurrence of macrovascular events or death. Of the total cohort, the subgroup of patients who had a previous MI (n = 2,445 [46.7%]; n = 1,230 in the pioglitazone group and n = 1,215 in the placebo group) was evaluated using prespecified and post-hoc analyses.

Results: Pioglitazone had a statistically significant beneficial effect on the prespecified end point of fatal and nonfatal MI (28% risk reduction [RR]; p = 0.045) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (37% RR; p = 0.035). There was a 19% RR in the cardiac composite end point of nonfatal MI (excluding silent MI), coronary revascularization, ACS, and cardiac death (p = 0.033). The difference in the primary end point defined in the main PROactive study did not reach significance in the MI population (12% RR; p = 0.135). The rates of heart failure requiring hospitalization were 7.5% (92 of 1,230) with pioglitazone and 5.2% (63 of 1,215) with placebo. Fatal heart failure rates were similar (1.4% [17 of the 92] with pioglitazone versus 0.9% [11 of the 63] with placebo).

Conclusions: In high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes and previous MI, pioglitazone significantly reduced the occurrence of fatal and nonfatal MI and ACS. (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events; http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00174993?order = 1; ISRCTN NCT00174993 [ClinicalTrials.gov] ).

Abbreviations and Acronyms   ACE = angiotensin-converting enzyme   ACS = acute coronary syndrome   CABG = coronary artery bypass graft   ECG = electrocardiogram   HDL = high-density lipoprotein   HF = heart failure   IDF = International Diabetes Federation   LDL = low-density lipoprotein   MI = myocardial infarction   PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention

A subanalysis from the UKPDS (United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study) looked at differences in risk factors between those with diabetes and fatal versus nonfatal MI and showed that the risk of MI being fatal in type 2 diabetes increased with increasing hemoglobin (Hb)A_1c (8). This is supported by data from DECODE (Diabetes Epidemiology: Collaborative Analysis of Diagnostic Criteria in Europe) and other studies (9,10). The cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes who have had at least 1 MI is increased further if they have coexisting dyslipidemia, arterial hypertension, or coronary artery disease (11). Current guidelines recommend aggressive management of these cardiovascular risk factors, including hyperglycemia (using glucose-lowering agents), dyslipidemia (using statins), hypertension (using angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blocker therapy), and lifestyle factors (12–15). However, there are few outcome studies that look at the effect of glucose-lowering agents on end points related to macrovascular disease.

Pioglitazone, a thiazolidinedione, is an established oral therapy for the management of type 2 diabetes. In addition to its effects on fasting and postprandial hyperglycemia, pioglitazone also increases insulin sensitivity and is known to have positive effects on high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particle size (16–21). There is some evidence to suggest that pioglitazone may also have other beneficial antiatherogenic properties, such as regulating the levels of mediators involved in inflammation and endothelial dysfunction (22). Indeed, data now suggest that combining pioglitazone with other medication for cardiovascular risk factors may have complementary effects in patients with type 2 diabetes (23–25). Therefore, it was anticipated that pioglitazone in addition to current therapy would reduce the recurrence of cardiovascular events in a population with diabetes at high risk of macrovascular events.

The PROactive (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events) study is one of a series of studies evaluating the effects of pioglitazone on the progression of atherosclerosis in patients with type 2 diabetes. It was the first large prospective study to look at the reduction in total mortality and macrovascular morbidity using thiazolidinedione. The primary composite end point included both disease (e.g., death, MI, acute coronary syndrome [ACS], and stroke) and procedure-related end points (e.g., coronary and leg revascularization). Data from the total study population showed that there was a 10% risk reduction (RR) in the primary composite end point of macrovascular events in the pioglitazone group compared with the placebo group. This did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.095) (26). However, there was a statistically significant 16% RR (p = 0.027) in the main secondary end point. This included only disease-related end points—the composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke (26). An analysis of the patients entering the study with a previous MI was prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan, as these patients tend to have the worst prognosis. We have further explored the basis of the findings using post-hoc exploratory analyses. Although this investigation includes both prespecified and post-hoc analyses, it involves one of the largest groups of patients with type 2 diabetes and previous MI to be examined in a prospective randomized study.

	Methods

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
Patients.   PROactive was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled outcome study in patients with type 2 diabetes (ages 35 to 75 years) who were at increased macrovascular risk. The study randomized 5,238 patients from 19 European countries and observed them for an average of 34.5 months. The study protocol, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and analytical methods have been described previously (26,27).

Treatments.   Patients were randomized to receive pioglitazone (increased stepwise from 15 to 30 to 45 mg within the first 2 months, depending on tolerability) or matching placebo, in addition to their existing medication for management of hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia, and hypertension. Investigators were encouraged to treat these conditions throughout the trial according to the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) Europe Guidelines (1999) (28).

The analysis presented here investigates the effects of treatment with pioglitazone versus placebo in patients who qualified for entry into the PROactive study on the basis of a previous MI 6 months or more before randomization (n = 2,445). The 6-month restriction was applied to ensure that all patients were in a stable myocardial condition before entry into the study.

End points.   The primary end point, as described by Dormandy et al. (26), was the time from randomization to the first occurrence of any of the following events: all-cause mortality, nonfatal MI (including silent infarction), nonfatal stroke, ACS, cardiac intervention (including coronary artery bypass graft [CABG], or percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]), leg revascularization, and amputation above the ankle. The main secondary end point was time to the first event of death from any cause, nonfatal MI (excluding silent MI), or nonfatal stroke. This secondary "hard" end point was analyzed because these disease-related components are the most robust and objective. Other secondary end points included time to individual components of the primary composite and time to cardiovascular death. These are the main study end points (26).

The statistical analysis plan, finalized before the unblinding of the study, prioritized this previous-MI subgroup (as well as the previous-stroke subgroup) for analysis of the following prespecified composite end points: 1) fatal or nonfatal MI (excluding silent MI), 2) cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI (excluding silent MI), and 3) cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI (excluding silent MI), or stroke. In this article, we describe these prespecified end points. Furthermore, we were interested in the outcome of ACS, which was defined by objective clinical criteria, and a further composite cardiac end point of nonfatal MI (excluding and including silent MI), coronary revascularization, ACS, or cardiac death.

Definitions.   The definition for nonfatal MI was survival for >24 h from onset of symptoms and, in the absence of PCI or CABG, at least 2 of the following: 1) symptoms suggestive of MI (ischemic chest pain or discomfort) lasting >30 min, 2) electrocardiographic (ECG) evidence of MI, or 3) elevation of cardiac serum markers, or following PCI or CABG if there was ECG evidence of MI. Silent MI was defined as new Q waves in 2 contiguous leads or R-wave reduction in the precordial leads without a change in axis deviation. All potential end point events were adjudicated centrally by an independent committee of clinical experts. Cardiovascular deaths were all deaths excluding those with a proven noncardiovascular cause. Cardiac death was defined as death attributable to MI or other cardiac diseases.

Procedures.   Patients were seen at months 1 and 2, then every 2 months for the first year, and every 3 months until the last visit. All patients were followed until the end of the study. Vital signs and body weight were measured at each visit. Standard ECGs were obtained at baseline, at yearly intervals, and at the last visit. Blood samples for various analyses were taken at baseline and every 6 months. Details of assays and specific methodology have been described previously (26).

Statistical analysis.   Statistical methods and power calculations have been reported previously (26,27). Time-to-event analyses were carried out by fitting proportional hazards survival models with treatment as the only covariate and previous testing of the validity of the assumption of proportional hazards. Multivariate models were used to investigate the effect of treatment after adjustment for baseline factors identified as prognostic of outcome. Variable selection was carried out using a stepwise selection algorithm and a significance level of 0.05. The study is registered as an International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN NCT00174993 [ClinicalTrials.gov] .

	Results

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
Baseline data.   Baseline data of the total study population have been published previously (26). Baseline data of the patients with type 2 diabetes and previous MI are given in Tables 1 and 2. Patient characteristics, baseline laboratory data, and previous macrovascular morbidities were well balanced between the patients in the pioglitazone group and those in the placebo group. A high proportion of patients (more than two-thirds) in both groups had other evidence of macrovascular disease (stroke, peripheral arterial obstructive disease, PCI/CABG, or ACS).

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 1 Time to Fatal/Nonfatal MI (Excluding Silent MI) Kaplan-Meier curve of the time to fatal/nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) (excluding silent MI). The solid line represents the pioglitazone group; the dashed line represents the placebo group. CI = confidence interval; HR = hazard ratio.

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 2 Time to Nonfatal MI (Excluding Silent MI), Coronary Revascularization, Acute Coronary Syndrome, or Cardiac Death (Composite Cardiac End Point) Kaplan-Meier curve of the time to nonfatal MI (excluding silent MI), coronary revascularization, acute coronary syndrome, or cardiac death (composite cardiac end point). The solid line represents the pioglitazone group; the dashed line represents the placebo group. Abbreviations as in Figure 1.

We performed multivariate analyses including other factors that could affect the likelihood of having either a recurrent MI or an event from the cardiac composite. Baseline characteristics that were significant risk factors for total MI included elevated LDL cholesterol, insulin use, and increased age. In contrast, prior revascularization reduced the risk of a MI. We found that pioglitazone was still associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.72 after adjusting for these significant risk factors (Table 6). The baseline factors that had a major impact on the cardiac composite were elevated LDL cholesterol, long duration of diabetes (10 vs. <5 years), ACE inhibitor use, and high triglyceride levels (Table 6). Similar to the total MI end point, previous revascularization reduced the risk for the cardiac composite (Table 6).

Safety and tolerability.   Details of serious adverse events in the total PROactive population are given in the paper by Dormandy et al. (26). As with the total PROactive study population, there were fewer patients with serious adverse events in the pioglitazone group versus the placebo group (580 [47.2%] vs. 620 [51.0%]) in the patients with type 2 diabetes and previous MI.

Heart failure (HF) occurred in a greater proportion of patients in the MI subgroup (11.6%) than in those without previous MI (7.0%; p < 0.0001). The HR for any HF event in the previous-MI subgroup versus those who did not have a previous MI was 1.68 (p < 0.0001). A similar significant difference was noted for the category of HF requiring hospitalization (HR = 1.75; p < 0.0001). Fatal HF occurred in 28 patients (1.1%) in the previous-MI subgroup and 19 (0.7%) in the no-previous-MI subgroup (HR = 1.66; p = 0.089). In those with a previous MI, there was an increase in serious HF (requiring hospitalization) in the pioglitazone group (Table 7); however, there was no statistically significant difference in fatal HF (1.4% in the pioglitazone group vs. 0.9% in the placebo group).

	Discussion

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
PROactive was the first prospective, double-blind outcome study to look specifically at the effects of a glucose-lowering agent, pioglitazone, on the secondary prevention of macrovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. The patients included in this subanalysis of the study all had previous MI and thus were at a very high risk for a subsequent macrovascular event. The results indicate that pioglitazone reduces the risk of adverse cardiac outcomes, including MI, in these patients.

Optimal management of patients with diabetes and MI requires a multifactorial approach to delay or prevent progression of macrovascular disease. Antiplatelet agents, ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and lipid-altering agents have all been shown to decrease long-term mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in patients with coronary artery disease. However, prevention of these outcomes with glucose-lowering agents in patients with type 2 diabetes has not been demonstrated in large-scale studies (with the exception of a significant improvement in macrovascular events in a small subgroup analysis of 342 newly diagnosed obese patients with diabetes treated with metformin in the UKPDS) (29).

The effect of pioglitazone was investigated because, in addition to lowering blood glucose, it has a number of cardiovascular effects that are considered to be beneficial in atherosclerotic disease. Of special interest are pioglitazone’s effects on lipid levels (increasing HDL cholesterol, lowering triglycerides, and beneficially changing the composition of LDL particles) and blood pressure and its regulation of levels of mediators involved in inflammation and endothelial dysfunction (e.g., C-reactive protein) (16–22,26,30). In fact, it has been shown (31,32) that one of the widely accepted indicators of coronary atherosclerosis and risk of cardiovascular events, intima-media thickness of the carotid artery, is decreased by pioglitazone. Therefore, there was good reason to consider the use of pioglitazone in patients with macrovascular disease and diabetes. The main results of the PROactive study showed a significant RR of the disease-related end points of all-cause mortality, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke in these patients (26). Here, we confirm through a subgroup analysis that intervention with pioglitazone is also beneficial in especially high-risk patients.

Key findings.   The addition of pioglitazone to existing medication for management of hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia, and hypertension reduced the risk of the end point of a recurrent fatal/nonfatal MI in patients with type 2 diabetes and MI by 28% (p = 0.045). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of event rates were 5.3% in the pioglitazone group and 7.2% in the placebo group at 3 years. There was also a significant benefit in preventing ACS in these high-risk patients treated with pioglitazone (37% reduction in risk; p = 0.035). In addition, we looked at a composite cardiac end point (nonfatal MI, coronary revascularization, ACS, and cardiac death) and found that there was a statistically significant 19% decrease in risk (p = 0.034). All of the other end points trended similarly, but did not reach the conventional level of 0.05 for statistical significance.

Although pioglitazone treatment also resulted in improvements in HDL cholesterol and triglycerides, the specific mediators of pioglitazone’s benefit with regard to cardiac outcomes are unknown, and this study was not designed to determine the mechanisms of cardioprotection.

This particular high-risk subgroup with a MI at the entry into the study would be prone to develop HF as a consequence. There was an increase in reports of serious HF leading to hospitalization (7.5% vs. 5.2%) in the pioglitazone group, but the rate of fatal HF was similar in the 2 groups (1.4% with pioglitazone vs. 0.9% with placebo). A recent analysis of more than 23,000 patients does not support the view that pioglitazone may cause HF (33). The higher relative HF risk shown in the pioglitazone group in PROactive does not appear to be related specifically to the prior myocardial function impairment present in the previous-MI subgroup. The proportion of reports of any HF and serious HF in this MI subgroup were higher than those in the no-previous-MI subgroup, regardless of treatment group. There were increased risks of 68% for any HF event and 75% for HF leading to hospitalization in the previous-MI subgroup relative to the no-previous-MI subgroup (both p < 0.0001).

Study limitations.   The main limitation of this analysis is that it includes both prespecified and post-hoc end points. It is an analysis of a subgroup of a larger study, and randomization was not stratified by history of MI. Nevertheless, the sample size is substantial, and the 2 treatment groups within this subgroup were very well balanced at baseline. Furthermore, these data represent one of the largest groups of patients with type 2 diabetes and previous MI randomized as part of a diabetes outcome trial.

Although the protocol specified that investigators follow the IDF Europe guidelines and the executive committee reinforced that, not all of the patients were treated accordingly. For example, according to the guidelines, all of the patients should have been receiving a statin. At baseline, approximately 50% of patients received a statin. By 3 years this had risen to 63%. Recent surveys also show that, in current practice, there is an underuse of statins in people with cardiovascular disease and/or diabetes, with 22% to 55% usage in European countries (34–38). However, the beneficial effect of pioglitazone in this previous-MI subgroup was independent of baseline use of a statin based on a multivariate analysis.

The time period of the study was relatively short, considering the chronic nature of treatment. The benefit of pioglitazone is clear from the Kaplan-Meier curves for both time to fatal/nonfatal MI and time to the composite cardiac end point. If the study duration had been longer, continued divergence of the curves (if it occurred) would have strengthened our findings.

Conclusions.   In this analysis of a subgroup of high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes and a previous MI from a large prospective study, pioglitazone appears to be effective in reducing the risk of recurrent MI and other serious cardiovascular events.

	Appendix

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
For a list of the PROactive Investigators, please see the online version of this article.

	Acknowledgments

 
The authors would like to thank Richard Cairns for his contribution and all of the PROactive Investigators.

	Footnotes

 
This study was funded by Takeda Europe R&D Centre Ltd., London, United Kingdom, and Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.

¹ Drs. Erdmann, Dormandy, Charbonnel, and Massi-Benedetti have served as consultants to, and/or received travel expenses and payments for speaking at meetings from, Takeda.

² Mr. Moules is an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

³ Dr. Skene is the managing director of Nottingham Clinical Research Limited, which was contracted by Takeda.

	References

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 

1. Haffner SM, Lehto S, Rönnemaa T, Pyörälä K, Laakso M. Mortality from coronary heart disease in subjects with type 2 diabetes and in nondiabetic subjects with and without prior myocardial infarction N Engl J Med 1998;339:229-234.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Kannel WB, McGee DL. Diabetes and glucose tolerance as risk factors for cardiovascular disease: the Framingham study Diabetes Care 1979;2:120-126.[Abstract]
3. Stamler J, Vaccaro O, Neaton JD, Wentworth D, Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group Diabetes, other risk factors, and 12-yr cardiovascular mortality for men screened in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Diabetes Care 1993;16:434-444.[Abstract]
4. Abbott RD, Donahue RP, Kannel WB, Wilson PW. The impact of diabetes on survival following myocardial infarction in men vs womenThe Framingham Study. JAMA 1988;260:3456-3460.[Abstract]
5. Cho E, Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, Hu FB. The impact of diabetes mellitus and prior myocardial infarction on mortality from all causes and from coronary heart disease in men J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40:954-960.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Herlitz J, Karlson BW, Edvardsson N, Emanuelsson H, Hjalmarson A. Prognosis in diabetics with chest pain or other symptoms suggestive of acute myocardial infarction Cardiology 1992;80:237-245.[ISI][Medline]
7. Miettinen HBD, Lehto S, Salomaa V, et al. The FINMONICA Myocardial Infarction Register Study Group Impact of diabetes on mortality after the first myocardial infarction Diabetes Care 1998;21:69-75.[Abstract]
8. Stevens RJ, Coleman RL, Adler AI, Stratton IM, Matthews DR, Holman RR. Risk factors for myocardial infarction case fatality and stroke case fatality in type 2 diabetesUKPDS 66. Diabetes Care 2004;27:201-207.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. The DECODE Study Group Consequences of the new diagnostic criteria for diabetes in older men and womenDECODE Study (Diabetes Epidemiology: Collaborative Analysis of Diagnostic Criteria in Europe). Diabetes Care 1999;22:1667-1671.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Laakso M, Lehto S. Epidemiology of risk factors for cardiovascular disease in diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance Atherosclerosis 1998;137:S65-S73.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
11. Moejko-Pastewka B, Taton J, Haczynski J, Strojek K, Ametov AS, Milicevic Z. Retrospective analysis of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus after the first acute myocardial infarction Acta Diabetol 2003;40(Suppl 2):S354-S357.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
12. American Diabetes Association Clinical practice recommendations 2002 Diabetes Care 2002;25(Suppl 1):S1-S147.[CrossRef][Medline]
13. Third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final reportNational Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) Circulation 2002;106:3143-3421.[Free Full Text]
14. Smith Jr. SC, Blair SN, Bonow RO, et al. AHA/ACC scientific statement: AHA/ACC guidelines for preventing heart attack and death in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: 2001 update: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology Circulation 2001;104:1577-1579.[Free Full Text]
15. World Health Organization Definition, diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus and its complications: report of a WHO consultation. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1999.
16. Betteridge DJ, Vergès B. Long-term effects on lipids and lipoproteins of pioglitazone versus gliclazide addition to metformin and pioglitazone versus metformin addition to sulphonylurea in the treatment of type 2 diabetes Diabetologia 2005;48:2477-2481.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
17. Charbonnel B, Schernthaner G, Brunetti P, et al. Long-term efficacy and tolerability of add-on pioglitazone therapy to failing monotherapy compared with addition of gliclazide or metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes Diabetologia 2005;48:1093-1104.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
18. Derosa G, Cicero AFG, Gaddi A, et al. Metabolic effects of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone in patients with diabetes and metabolic syndrome treated with glimepiride: a twelve-month, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled, parallel-group trial Clin Ther 2004;26:744-754.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
19. Lawrence JM, Reid J, Taylor GJ, Stirling C, Reckless JP. Favorable effects of pioglitazone and metformin compared with gliclazide on lipoprotein subfractions in overweight patients with early type 2 diabetes Diabetes Care 2004;27:41-46.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20. Peters Harmel AL, Kendall DM, Buse JB, Boyle PJ, Marchetti A, Lau H. Impact of adjunctive thiazolidinedione therapy on blood lipid levels and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes Curr Med Res Opin 2004;20:215-223.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
21. Schernthaner G, Matthews D, Charbonnel B, Hanefeld M, Brunetti P. Efficacy and safety of pioglitazone versus metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a double-blind, randomized trial J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004;89:6068-6076.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22. Staels B. PPAR and atherosclerosis Curr Med Res Opin 2005;21(Suppl 1):S13-S20.
23. Lewin AJ, Kipnes MS, Meneghini LF, et al. Simvastatin/Thiazolidinedione Study Group Effects of simvastatin on the lipid profile and attainment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals when added to thiazolidinedione therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial Clin Ther 2004;26:379-389.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
24. Berhanu P, Kipnes MS, Khan MA, et al. Effects of pioglitazone on lipid and lipoprotein profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes and dyslipidaemia after treatment conversion from rosiglitazone while continuing stable statin therapy Diab Vasc Dis Res 2006;3:39-44.[Medline]
25. Hanefeld M, Marx N, Pfützner A, et al. Anti-inflammatory effects of pioglitazone and/or simvastatin in high cardiovascular-risk patients with elevated high sensitivity-CRP: the PIOSTAT study J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:290-297.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
26. Dormandy JA, Charbonnel B, Eckland EJ, et al. Secondary prevention of macrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the PROactive Study (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events): a randomised controlled trial Lancet 2005;366:1279-1289.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
27. Charbonnel B, Dormandy J, Erdmann E, Massi-Benedetti M, Skene A. The Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial in Macrovascular Events (PROactive): can pioglitazone reduce cardiovascular events in diabetes? Study design and baseline characteristics of 5,238 patients Diabetes Care 2004;27:1647-1653.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
28. European Diabetes Policy Group 1999 A desktop guide to Type 2 diabetes mellitus Diabetic Med 1999;16:716-730.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
29. 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.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
30. Füllert S, Schneider F, Haak E, et al. Effects of pioglitazone in nondiabetic patients with arterial hypertension: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002;87:5503-5506.[Abstract]
31. Koshiyama H, Shimono D, Kuwamura N, Minamikawa J, Nakamura Y. Inhibitory effect of pioglitazone on carotid arterial wall thickness in type 2 diabetes J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001;86:3452-3456.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32. Langenfeld MR, Forst T, Hohberg C, et al. Pioglitazone decreases carotid intima-media thickness independently of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitusResults from a controlled randomized study. Circulation 2005;111:2525-2531.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
33. Karter AJ, Ahmed AT, Liu J, Moffet HH, Parker MM. Pioglitazone initiation and subsequent hospitalization for congestive heart failure Diabetic Med 2005;22:986-993.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
34. Autier P, Creplet J, Vansant G, et al. The impact of reimbursement criteria on the appropriateness of ‘statin’ prescribing Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehab 2003;10:456-462.[CrossRef]
35. Bennett KE, Williams D, Feely J. Under-prescribing of cardiovascular therapies for diabetes in primary care Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2003;58:835-841.[ISI][Medline]
36. EUROASPIRE Study Group A European Society of Cardiology survey of secondary prevention of coronary heart disease: principal results Eur Heart J 1997;18:1569-1582.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
37. Komajda M, Lapeurta P, Hermans N, et al. Adherence to guidelines is a predictor of outcome in chronic heart failure: the MAHLER survey Eur Heart J 2005;26:1653-1659.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
38. Wei L, Ebrahim S, Bartlett C, Davey PD, Sullivan FM, MacDonald TM. Statin use in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in primary care: cohort study and comparison of inclusion and outcome with patients in randomized trials BMJ 2005;330:821-825.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Beysen, E. J. Murphy, H. Nagaraja, M. Decaris, T. Riiff, A. Fong, M. K. Hellerstein, and P. J. Boyle A pilot study of the effects of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone on de novo lipogenesis in type 2 diabetes J. Lipid Res., December 1, 2008; 49(12): 2657 - 2663. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. B. Giorda, A. Avogaro, M. Maggini, F. Lombardo, E. Mannucci, S. Turco, S. S. Alegiani, R. Raschetti, M. Velussi, E. Ferrannini, et al. Recurrence of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Epidemiology and risk factors Diabetes Care, November 1, 2008; 31(11): 2154 - 2159. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Odom, B. Williamson, and L. Carter Rosiglitazone and pioglitazone in the treatment of diabetes mellitus Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., October 1, 2008; 65(19): 1846 - 1850. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L. Rosenzweig, E. Ferrannini, S. M. Grundy, S. M. Haffner, R. J. Heine, E. S. Horton, and R. Kawamori Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Type 2 Diabetes in Patients at Metabolic Risk: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., October 1, 2008; 93(10): 3671 - 3689. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				U. Khanderia, R. Pop-Busui, and K. A Eagle Thiazolidinediones in Type 2 Diabetes: A Cardiology Perspective Ann. Pharmacother., October 1, 2008; 42(10): 1466 - 1474. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. J. Betteridge, R. A. DeFronzo, and R. J. Chilton PROactive: time for a critical appraisal Eur. Heart J., April 2, 2008; 29(8): 969 - 983. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Glitazones in type 2 diabetes: an update DTB, April 1, 2008; 46(4): 25 - 29. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. K. McGuire and S. E. Inzucchi New Drugs for the Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus: Part I: Thiazolidinediones and Their Evolving Cardiovascular Implications Circulation, January 22, 2008; 117(3): 440 - 449. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Erdmann and R. G. Wilcox Weighing up the cardiovascular benefits of thiazolidinedione therapy: the impact of increased risk of heart failure Eur. Heart J., January 1, 2008; 29(1): 12 - 20. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. H Barnett Thiazolidinediones and cardiovascular outcomes The British Journal of Diabetes & Vascular Disease, January 1, 2008; 8(1): 45 - 49. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Kanda, S. Wakino, K. Hayashi, and J. Plutzky Cardiovascular Disease, Chronic Kidney Disease, and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Proceeding with Caution at a Dangerous Intersection J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., January 1, 2008; 19(1): 4 - 7. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Lewanczuk and P. W. Armstrong Physiologic Straws in the Wind: In Which Direction Do They Bend? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., November 20, 2007; 50(21): 2059 - 2060. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Erdmann, J. A. Dormandy, B. Charbonnel, M. Massi-Benedetti, I. K. Moules, A. M. Skene, and PROactive Investigators Reply J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 23, 2007; 50(17): 1706 - 1706. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. M. Riche and K. M. Dale A Perspective on Coronary Revascularization in the PROactive 05 Study J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 23, 2007; 50(17): 1705 - 1706. [Full Text] [PDF]

				Z. T. Bloomgarden The Avandia Debate Diabetes Care, September 1, 2007; 30(9): 2401 - 2408. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Westerbacka PROactive in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Previous Myocardial Infarction: Swinging the Sword of Damocles? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 1, 2007; 49(17): 1781 - 1782. [Full Text] [PDF]