Table 1. Details of component studies included in the systematic review by Loke et al. [17].
| Study, Year | Country | Study Design | Data Type | Number of Participants | Risk Estimate † (95% CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk Measure | Myocardial Infarction | Heart Failure | Overall Mortality | |||||
| Bilik et al. [24], 2010 | US | Cohort | Admin/MR | R = 564, P = 334 | HR | 1.30 (0.31–5.37) | 0.69 (0.28–1.69) | — |
| Brownstein et al. [25], 2010 | US | Cohort | EMR | R = 1,879, P = 806 | RR | 1.70 (1.10–2.63) | — | — |
| Dormuth et al. [26], 2009 | Canada | Case–control | Admin | Cases = 2,244, controls = 8,903 | HR | 1.00 (0.67–1.49) | — | — |
| Graham et al. [20], 2010 | US | Cohort | Admin | R = 67,593, P = 159,978 | HR | 1.06 (0.96–1.18) | 1.25 (1.16–1.34) | 1.14 (1.05–1.24) |
| Hsiao et al. [27], 2009 | Taiwan | Cohort | Admin | R = 49,624, P = 12,010 | HR | 1.36 (1.22–1.53)* | 1.40 (1.15–1.71)* | - |
| Juurlink et al. [28], 2009 | Canada | Cohort | Admin | R = 16,951, P = 22,785 | HR | 1.05 (0.90–1.23) | 1.30 (1.15–1.45) | 1.16 (1.02–1.33) |
| Koro et al. [29], 2008 | US | Case–control | Admin | Cases = 9,870, controls = 29,610 | OR | 1.12 (0.99–1.26) | - | - |
| Lipscombe et al. [30], 2007 | Canada | Case–control | Admin | Cases = 3,695, controls = 18,351 (myocardial infarction); cases = 3,478, controls = 18,045 (heart failure); cases = 5,529, controls = 18,835 (mortality) | OR | 1.27 (1.02–1.58)* | 1.38 (1.13–1.69)* | 1.13 (0.92–1.38)* |
| Margolis et al. [31], 2008 | UK | Cohort | EMR | R = 7,282, P = 2,244 | HR | 1.00 (0.80–1.30) | — | — |
| Pantalone et al. [32], 2009 | US | Cohort | EMR | R = 1,079, P = 1,508 | HR | — | 0.84 (0.52–1.35) | 1.23 (0.79–1.92) |
| Stockl et al. [33], 2009 | US | Case–control | Admin | Cases = 1,681, controls = 6,653 | OR | 1.26 (0.79–2.00) | — | — |
| Tzoulaki et al. [34], 2009 | UK | Cohort | EMR | R = 140,082, P = 45,807 | HR | 1.34 (0.86–2.09) | 1.04 (0.75–1.44) | 1.36 (1.05–1.76) |
| Walker et al. [35], 2008 | US | Cohort | Admin | R = 57,000, P = 51,000 | HR | 1.21 (0.95–1.54) | — | — |
| Wertz et al. [36], 2010 | US | Cohort | Admin | R = 18,319, P = 18,309 | HR | 0.94 (0.75–1.18) | 1.10 (0.94–1.31) | 1.02 (0.86–1.21) |
| Winkelmayer et al. [37], 2008 | US | Cohort | Admin | R = 14,101, P = 14,260 | IRR | 1.08 (0.93–1.25) | 1.13 (1.01–1.26) | 1.15 (1.05–1.26) |
| Ziyadeh et al. [38], 2009 | US | Cohort | Admin | R = 47,501, P = 47,501 | HR | 1.41 (1.13–1.75) | — | — |
†Relative risk comparing rosiglitazone and pioglitazone use and accompanying 95% confidence intervals, as replicated to the second decimal using RevMan 5.3.
*Unadjusted estimates.
Admin, administrative data; EMR, electronic medical records; HR, hazard ratio; IRR, incidence rate ratio; MR, medical records; OR, odds ratio; P, number of pioglitazone users; R, number of rosiglitazone users; RR, rate ratio.