The revised labels restrict use to patients already taking a rosiglitazone-containing medicine or to new patients who are unable to achieve adequate glycemic control on other diabetes medications and to those, who in consultation with their healthcare provider, have decided not to take Actos (pioglitazone) or other pioglitazone-containing medicines for medical reasons.In June 2013 an FDA Advisory Committee reviewed all available data, including a re-adjudicated RECORD trial, found no evidence of increased cardiovascular risk with Avandia, and voted to remove the restrictions on Avandia marketing in the United States. In November 2013, the US FDA removed these marketing restrictions on the product. Under the FDAs instruction, Avandias maker, GlaxoSmithKline, had funded the Duke Clinical Research Institute to re-analyze the raw data from the study. At the 2010 panel, three panelists voted that the existing warnings were good enough; two were back in 2013. Seven voted to make those warnings more onerous, and five of them returned. But of the 10 who voted to restrict Avandias use, only four returned. And of the 12 who voted in 2010 to withdraw Avandia from the market, only three came back. European investigations
In 2000 a study to address the concerns regarding cardiovascular safety was requested by the EMA, and the makers agreed to perform post-marketing a long-term cardiovascular morbidity/mortality study in patients on rosiglitazone in combination with a sulfonylurea or metformin: the RECORD study.
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.