Nissens meta analysis was criticized in a 2007 article by George Diamond et al. in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The authors concluded that Nissens analysis had excluded trials with important data on the cardiovascular profile of rosiglitazone, had inappropriately combined trials of greatly differing design, and had inappropriately excluded trials with no cardiovascular events. The authors concluded that no firm conclusion could be drawn regarding whether rosiglitazone increased or decreased cardiovascular risk. Investigators from the Cochrane Collaboration published a meta-analysis of their own on the use of rosiglitazone in Type II diabetes, concluding there was not sufficient evidence to show any health benefit for rosiglitazone. Noting the recent publication by Nissen, they repeated their meta analysis including only the trials included in the Nissen study that dealt with Type II diabetics. (The Nissen study included some trials in people with other disorders.) They did not find a statistically significant increase in cardiovascular events, but noted that all of the cardiovascular endpoints they analyzed showed a non-significant trend toward worse outcomes in the rosiglitazone arms.In July 2007 the FDA held a joint meeting of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee. FDA scientist Joy Mele presented a meta analysis examining the cardiovascular risk of rosiglitazone in completed clinical trials. The study found an overall 1.4x increase in risk of cardiovascular ischemic events relative to the control arms.
Heart attacks
The relative risk of ischemic cardiac events seen in pre-approval trials of rosiglitazone was similar to that of comparable drugs, but there was increased LDL cholesterol, LDL/HDL cholesterol ratio, triglycerides and weight.In 2005, at the insistence of the World Health Organization, GSK performed a meta-analysis of all 37 trials involving use of rosiglitazone, finding a hazard ratio of 1.29 (0.99 to 1.89). In 2006 the GSK updated the analysis, now including 42 trials and showing a hazard ratio of 1.31 (1.01 to 1.70). A large observational study comparing patients treated with rosiglitizone with patients treated with other diabetes therapies was performed at the same time and found a relative risk of 0.93 (95% C.I. 0.8 to 1.1) for those treated with rosiglitazone. The information was passed to the FDA and posted on the company website, but not otherwise published. GSK provided these analyses to the FDA, but neither the company nor the FDA warned prescribers or patients of the hazard. According to the FDA, the Agency did not issue a safety bulletin because the results of the meta analysis conflicted with those of the observational study and with the results of the ADOPT trial.A meta-analysis in May 2007 reported the use of rosiglitazone was associated with a 1.4 fold increased risk of heart attack and a numerically higher (but non-significant) increase in risk of death from all cardiovascular diseases against control. It contained 42 trials of which 27 were unpublished. Another meta analysis of 4 trials with follow-up longer than 1 year found similar results.