The results as published in 2009 showed non-inferiority with regard to cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death when the treatment with rosiglitazone was compared with metformin or a sulfonylurea. For myocardial infarction, there was a non-statistically significant increase in risk. In their assessment, the European regulators acknowledged weaknesses of the study, such as an unexpectedly low rate of cardiovascular events and the open-label design, which may lead to reporting bias. They found that the results were inconclusive. The European Medicines Agency recommended on 23 September 2010 that Avandia be suspended from the European market.According to a probe by the British Medical Journal in September 2010, the United Kingdoms Commission on Human Medicines recommended to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) back in July 2010, to withdraw Avandia sale because its "risks outweigh its benefits". Additionally, the probe revealed that in 2000, members of the European panel in charge of reviewing Avandia prior to its approval had concerns about the long-term risks of the drug. New Zealand
Rosiglitazone was withdrawn from the New Zealand market April 2011 because Medsafe concluded the suspected cardiovascular risks of the medicine for patients with type 2 diabetes outweigh its benefits. South Africa
A notice issued by the Medicines Control Council of South Africa on July 5, 2011, stated that it had resolved on July 3, 2011, to withdraw all rosiglitazone-containing medicines from the South African market due to safety risks. It disallowed all new prescriptions of Avandia.
In June 2010, they published a retrospective study comparing roziglitazone to pioglitazone, the other thiazolidinedione marketed in the United States and concluded rosiglitazone was associated with "an increased risk of stroke, heart failure, and all-cause mortality and an increased risk of the composite of AMI, stroke, heart failure, or all-cause mortality in patients 65 years or older". The number needed to harm with roziglitazone was sixty. Graham argued rosiglitazone caused 500 more heart attacks and 300 more heart failures than its main competitor. Two meta analyses released in 2010, one incorporating 56 trials and a second incorporating 164 trials reached conflicting conclusions. Nissen et al. found again an increased risk for heart infarction against control, but no increased risk for cardiovascular death. Mannucci et al. found no statistically significant increase in cardiac events but a significant increase in heart failure. A 2011 drug class review found an increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events.A meta-analysis of 16 observational studies released in March, 2011, compared rosiglitazone to pioglitazone, finding support for greater cardiovascular safety for pioglitazone. The meta-analysis involved 810 000 patients taking rosiglitazone or pioglitazone. The study suggests 170 excess myocardial infarctions, 649 excess cases of heart failure, and 431 excess deaths for every 100 000 patients who receive rosiglitazone rather than pioglitazone.