The Rosiglitazone Story -- Lessons from an FDA Advisory Committee Meeting

NEJM -- The Rosiglitazone Story -- Lessons from an FDA Advisory Committee Meeting

Observations about the rticlr

On July 30, 2007, the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convened to discuss the myocardial ischemic risk associated with rosiglitazone treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The joint committee, which I chaired, consisted of 24 experts in cardiovascular disease, epidemiology, biostatistics, and endocrinology. After lengthy discussions, we concluded that the use of rosiglitazone for the treatment of type 2 diabetes was associated with a greater risk of myocardial ischemic events than placebo, metformin, or sulfonylureas.

That conclusion was based primarily on three independently conducted meta-analyses demonstrating an increase in the relative risk of myocardial infarction, angina, or sudden death among patients taking rosiglitazone

Drugs are approved or removed from the market on the basis of evidence from randomized, controlled trials. In the FDA hearing on rosiglitazone, several meta-analyses revealed a significant increase in the risk of myocardial ischemic events among patients taking rosiglitazone. However, an interim analysis of the ongoing Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiac Outcomes and Regulation of Glycaemia in Diabetes (RECORD) trial, which was designed specifically to assess cardiovascular risk among patients receiving rosiglitazone, failed to demonstrate a similar risk.5 In addition, two large observational studies, one conducted by Tricare for the Department of Defense and one conducted by WellPoint (the largest health insurer in the United States), noted no appreciable signal of increased cardiovascular risk with either of the available thiazolidinediones. The contrasts among the levels of evidence and the results regarding the safety of rosiglitazone raised new questions about relative and absolute risks but also highlighted the weaknesses of observational studies examining events that are common and whose rates are likely to be increased only slightly by a given drug, even in a large cohort (such as that used by WellPoint, which comprised 160,000 patient records).