Dataset Information

Pioglitazone after Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) are at increased risk for future cardiovascular events despite current preventive therapies. The identification of insulin resistance as a risk factor for stroke and myocardial infarction raised the possibility that pioglitazone, which improves insulin sensitivity, might benefit patients with cerebrovascular disease. METHODS:In this multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 3876 patients who had had a recent ischemic stroke or TIA to receive either pioglitazone (target dose, 45 mg daily) or placebo. Eligible patients did not have diabetes but were found to have insulin resistance on the basis of a score of more than 3.0 on the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) index. The primary outcome was fatal or nonfatal stroke or myocardial infarction. RESULTS:By 4.8 years, a primary outcome had occurred in 175 of 1939 patients (9.0%) in the pioglitazone group and in 228 of 1937 (11.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the pioglitazone group, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.93; P=0.007). Diabetes developed in 73 patients (3.8%) and 149 patients (7.7%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.69; P<0.001). There was no significant between-group difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.17; P=0.52). Pioglitazone was associated with a greater frequency of weight gain exceeding 4.5 kg than was placebo (52.2% vs. 33.7%, P<0.001), edema (35.6% vs. 24.9%, P<0.001), and bone fracture requiring surgery or hospitalization (5.1% vs. 3.2%, P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS:In this trial involving patients without diabetes who had insulin resistance along with a recent history of ischemic stroke or TIA, the risk of stroke or myocardial infarction was lower among patients who received pioglitazone than among those who received placebo. Pioglitazone was also associated with a lower risk of diabetes but with higher risks of weight gain, edema, and fracture. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00091949.).

SUBMITTER: Kernan WN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4887756 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pioglitazone after Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.

Kernan Walter N WN Viscoli Catherine M CM Furie Karen L KL Young Lawrence H LH Inzucchi Silvio E SE Gorman Mark M Guarino Peter D PD Lovejoy Anne M AM Peduzzi Peter N PN Conwit Robin R Brass Lawrence M LM Schwartz Gregory G GG Adams Harold P HP Berger Leo L Carolei Antonio A Clark Wayne W Coull Bruce B Ford Gary A GA Kleindorfer Dawn D O'Leary John R JR Parsons Mark W MW Ringleb Peter P Sen Souvik S Spence J David JD Tanne David D Wang David D Winder Toni R TR

The New England journal of medicine 20160217 14

<h4>Background</h4>Patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) are at increased risk for future cardiovascular events despite current preventive therapies. The identification of insulin resistance as a risk factor for stroke and myocardial infarction raised the possibility that pioglitazone, which improves insulin sensitivity, might benefit patients with cerebrovascular disease.<h4>Methods</h4>In this multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 3876 patients who ha ...[more]

PMID: 26886418

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The IRIS trial (Insulin Resistance Intervention After Stroke) demonstrated that pioglitazone reduced the risk for both cardiovascular events and diabetes mellitus in insulin-resistant patients. However, concern remains that pioglitazone may increase the risk for heart failure (HF) in susceptible individuals. METHODS:In IRIS, patients with insulin resistance but without diabetes mellitus were randomized to pioglitazone or placebo (1:1) within 180 days of an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack and followed for ?5 years. To identify patients at higher HF risk with pioglitazone, we performed a secondary analysis of IRIS participants without HF history at entry. HF episodes were adjudicated by an external review, and treatment effects were analyzed using time-to-event methods. A baseline HF risk score was constructed from a Cox model estimated using stepwise selection. Baseline patient features (individually and summarized in risk score) and postrandomization events were examined as possible modifiers of the effect of pioglitazone. Net cardiovascular benefit was estimated for the composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, and hospitalized HF. RESULTS:Among 3851 patients, the mean age was 63 years, and 65% were male. The 5-year HF risk did not differ by treatment (4.1% pioglitazone, 4.2% placebo). Risk for hospitalized HF was low and not significantly greater in pioglitazone compared with placebo groups (2.9% versus 2.3%, P=0.36). Older age, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, obesity, edema, high C-reactive protein, and smoking were risk factors for HF. However, the effect of pioglitazone did not differ across levels of baseline HF risk (hazard ratio [95% CI] for pioglitazone versus placebo for patients at low, moderate, and high risk: 1.03 [0.61-1.73], 1.10 [0.56-2.15], and 1.08 [0.58-2.01]; interaction P value=0.98). HF risk was increased in patients with versus those without incident myocardial infarction in both groups (pioglitazone: 31.4% versus 2.7%; placebo: 25.7% versus 2.4%; P<0.0001). Edema, dyspnea, and weight gain in the trial did not predict HF hospitalization but led to more study drug dose reduction with a lower mean dose of pioglitazone versus placebo (29±17 mg versus 33±15 mg, P<0.0001). Pioglitazone reduced the composite outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction, or hospitalized HF (hazard ratio, 0.78; P=0.007). CONCLUSIONS:In IRIS, with surveillance and dose adjustments, pioglitazone did not increase the risk of HF and conferred net cardiovascular benefit in patients with insulin resistance and cerebrovascular disease. The risk of HF with pioglitazone was not modified by baseline HF risk. The IRIS experience may be instructive for maximizing the net benefit of this therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00091949.

Project description:ImportanceThere is growing recognition that patients may respond differently to therapy and that the average treatment effect from a clinical trial may not apply equally to all candidates for a therapy.ObjectiveTo determine whether, among patients with an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack and insulin resistance, those at higher risk for future stroke or myocardial infarction (MI) derive more benefit from the insulin-sensitizing drug pioglitazone hydrochloride compared with patients at lower risk.Design, setting, and participantsA secondary analysis was conducted of the Insulin Resistance Intervention After Stroke trial, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pioglitazone for secondary prevention. Patients were enrolled from 179 research sites in 7 countries from February 7, 2005, to January 15, 2013, and were followed up for a mean of 4.1 years through the study's end on July 28, 2015. Eligible participants had a qualifying ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack within 180 days of entry and insulin resistance without type 1 or type 2 diabetes.InterventionsPioglitazone or matching placebo.Main outcomes and measuresA Cox proportional hazards regression model was created using baseline features to stratify patients above or below the median risk for stroke or MI within 5 years. Within each stratum, the efficacy of pioglitazone for preventing stroke or MI was calculated. Safety outcomes were death, heart failure, weight gain, and bone fracture.ResultsAmong 3876 participants (1338 women and 2538 men; mean [SD] age, 63 [11] years), the 5-year risk for stroke or MI was 6.0% in the pioglitazone group among patients at lower baseline risk compared with 7.9% in the placebo group (absolute risk difference, -1.9% [95% CI, -4.4% to 0.6%]). Among patients at higher risk, the risk was 14.7% in the pioglitazone group vs 19.6% for placebo (absolute risk difference, -4.9% [95% CI, -8.6% to 1.2%]). Hazard ratios were similar for patients below or above the median risk (0.77 vs 0.75; P = .92). Pioglitazone increased weight less among patients at higher risk but increased the risk for fracture more.Conclusions and relevanceAfter an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, patients at higher risk for stroke or MI derive a greater absolute benefit from pioglitazone compared with patients at lower risk. However, the risk for fracture is also higher.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00091949.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Insulin resistance is highly prevalent among patients with atherosclerosis and is associated with an increased risk for myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. The IRIS trial (Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke) demonstrated that pioglitazone decreased the composite risk for fatal or nonfatal stroke and MI in patients with insulin resistance without diabetes mellitus, after a recent ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. The type and severity of cardiac events in this population and the impact of pioglitazone on these events have not been described. METHODS:We performed a secondary analysis of the effects of pioglitazone, in comparison with placebo, on acute coronary syndromes (MI and unstable angina) among IRIS participants. All potential acute coronary syndrome episodes were adjudicated in a blinded fashion by an independent clinical events committee. RESULTS:The study cohort was composed of 3876 IRIS participants, mean age 63 years, 65% male, 89% white race, and 12% with a history of coronary artery disease. Over a median follow-up of 4.8 years, there were 225 acute coronary syndrome events, including 141 MIs and 84 episodes of unstable angina. The MIs included 28 (19%) with ST-segment elevation. The majority of MIs were type 1 (94, 65%), followed by type 2 (45, 32%). Serum troponin was 10× to 100× upper limit of normal in 49 (35%) and >100× upper limit of normal in 39 (28%). Pioglitazone reduced the risk of acute coronary syndrome (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.94; P=0.02). Pioglitazone also reduced the risk of type 1 MI (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.96; log-rank P=0.03), but not type 2 MI (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.91; P=0.87). Similarly, pioglitazone reduced the risk of large MIs with serum troponin >100× upper limit of normal (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.87; P=0.02), but not smaller MIs. CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with insulin resistance without diabetes mellitus, pioglitazone reduced the risk for acute coronary syndromes after a recent cerebrovascular event. Pioglitazone appeared to have its most prominent effect in preventing spontaneous type 1 MIs. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00091949.

Project description:Background and Purpose- The role of aspirin plus clopidogrel (A+C) therapy compared with aspirin monotherapy in patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke (IS) or transient ischemic attack remains uncertain. We conducted this study to determine the optimal period of efficacy and safety of A+C compared with aspirin monotherapy. Methods- Ten randomized controlled trials (15 434 patients) were selected using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (inception June 2018) comparing A+C with aspirin monotherapy in patients with transient ischemic attack or IS. The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent IS, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular mortality) and all-cause mortality. We stratified analysis based on the short- (≤1 month), intermediate- (≤3 month), and long-term (>3 month) A+C therapy. Effects were estimated as relative risk (RR) with 95% CI. Results- A+C significantly reduced the risk of recurrent IS at short-term (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.37-0.78) and intermediate-term (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90) durations. Similarly, major adverse cardiovascular event was significantly reduced by short-term (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.78) and intermediate-term (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.94) A+C therapy. However, long-term A+C did not yield beneficial effect in terms of recurrent IS (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.63-1.04) and major adverse cardiovascular events (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71-1.07). Intermediate-term (RR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.19-5.60) and long-term (RR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.36-2.56) A+C regimens significantly increased the risk of major bleeding as opposed to short-term A+C (RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 0.91-3.62). Excessive all-cause mortality was limited to long-term A+C (RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.10-1.93). Conclusions- Short-term A+C is more effective and equally safe in comparison to aspirin alone in patients with acute IS or transient ischemic attack.

Dataset Information

Pioglitazone after Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.

Publications

Pioglitazone after Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets