Review Article

Should We Use PPAR Agonists to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk?

Table 3

Selected morbidity and mortality outcomes in large, long-term trials of PPAR- agonists. CHD = coronary heart disease, CVD = cardiovascular disease, MI = myocardial infarction, NR = not reported.

Event rates

PROACTIVE [40]Nonfatal MIStrokeNonfatal Total mortalityHospitalized CHFCancer
Mean F/U 2.9 yearsMI/stroke/
Type 2 diabetesany death

Placebo 5.5%4.1%13.6%7.1%4%4%
N = 2633
Pioglitazone 4.6%3.3%11.6%6.8%6%4%
N = 2605
Hazard ratio (95% CI)0.83 (0.65–1.06) 0.81 (0.61–1.07)0.84 0.96 (0.78–1.18)RR* 1.5 P = .007RR* 1.0
(0.72–0.98)
P = .03

DREAM [50]All MICVD deathStrokeNonfatal MI/stroke/ CVD deathTotal mortalityCHFDiabetes
Median F/U 3.0 years
Glucose intolerance

Placebo 0.3%0.4%0.2%0.9%1.3%0.1%25%
N = 2634
Rosiglitazone 0.6%0.5%0.3%1.2%1.1%0.5%10.6%
N = 2365
Hazard ratio (95% CI)1.66 1.20 1.39 1.39 0.91 7.03 0.38
(0.73–3.80)(0.52–2.77)(0.44–4.40)(0.55–1.49)(1.60–30.9)(0.33–0.44)
P = .2P = .7P = .6P = .2P = .7P = .01P < .0001

ADOPT [49] All MIStrokeMI/strokeCHF
Median F/U 4.0 years
Type 2 diabetes

Metformin (M) 1.5%1.3%2.8%1.3%
N = 1454
38% drop-out rate
Glyburide (G) 1.2%1.2%2.4%0.6%
N = 1441
37% drop-out rate
Rosiglitazone (R) 1.8%1.1%2.9%1.5%
N = 1456
44% drop-out rate
Hazard ratio (95% CI)R versus M R versus M R versus M R versus M 1.22 (0.66–2.26, P = .52) R versus G 2.20 (1.01–4.79, P = .05)
RR* 1.2RR* 0.85RR* 1.03
R versus G R versus G R versus G
RR* 1.5RR* 0.92RR* 1.21

RECORD [51] interimAll MICVD deathNonfatal MI/stroke/CVD deathTotal mortalityCHF
analysis
Mean F/U 3.75 years
Type 2 diabetes

Metformin/sulfonylurea 1.8%2.1%5.1%3.6%1.0%
N = 2227
10% drop-out rate
Rosiglitazone 2.2%1.7%4.9%3.3%2.1%
added on to
metformin/sulfonylurea
N = 2220
10% drop-out rate
Hazard ratio (95% CI)1.23 0.80 0.96 0.93 2.15
(0.81–1.86)(0.52–1.24)(0.74–1.24)(0.67–1.27)(1.30–3.57)
P = .34P = .32P = .74P = .63P = .003

*RR = Crude relative risk; hazard ratio not reported.