Skip to main content
. 2007 Jul 18;2007(3):CD006063. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006063.pub2

Phillips 2001.

Methods DURATION OF INTERVENTION: 
 26 weeks 
 DURATION OF FOLLOW‐UP: 
 26 weeks 
 RUN‐IN PERIOD: 
 4‐week placebo 
 LANGUAGE OF PUBLICATION: 
 English
Participants WHO PARTCIPATED: 
 type 2 diabetes patients 
 INCLUSION CRITERIA: 
 age 40–80 years; BMI 22–38 kg/m2; type 2 diabetes as defined by the NDDG; FPG 7.8–16.7 mmol/L (140–300 mg/dl), and fasting C‐peptide >= 0.27 nmol/L (>= 0.8 ng/ml) at the time of screening 
 EXCLUSION CRITERIA: 
 clinically significant renal disease, NYHA class III‐IV, coronary insufficiency or congestive heart failure, symptomatic diabetic neuropathy, or elevations in total bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, alanine 
 aminotransferase (ALT), or aspartate aminotransferase 2.5 times the upper limit 
 DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA: 
 NDDG 1979 
 CO‐MORBIDITIES: 
 not stated 
 CO‐MEDICATIONS: 
 not stated
Interventions NUMBER OF STUDY CENTRES: 
 65 
 COUNTRY/ LOCATION: 
 USA 
 SETTING: 
 not stated 
 INTERVENTION (DOSE/DAY): 
 I1: rosiglitazone 4 mg/day (4mg o.d) 
 I2: rosiglitazone 4 mg/day (2 mg b.i.d.) 
 I3: rosiglitazone 8 mg/day (8 mg o.d.) 
 I4: rosiglitazone 8 mg/day (4 mg b.i.d.) 
 CONTROL (DOSE/DAY): 
 placebo 
 TREATMENT BEFORE STUDY: 
 oral antihyperglycaemic agents were discontinued at least 14 days before a 4‐week placebo run‐in period
diet only (%) ‐ 
 I1: 22.1, I2: 24.7, I3: 29.3, I4: 25.1, C: 22.5 
 oral monotherapy (%) ‐ 
 I1: 61.3, I2: 55.9, I3: 54.7, I4: 64.7, C: 61.8 
 oral combination therapy (%) ‐ 
 I1: 16.6, I2: 19.4, I3: 16.0, I4: 10.2, C1: 15.6
TITRATION PERIOD: 
 none
Outcomes PRIMARY OUTCOMES: 
 change in HbA1c from baseline (end of the 4‐week placebo run‐in period) after 26 weeks of treatment 
 SECONDARY OUTCOMES: 
 the change from baseline after 26 weeks of treatment in FPG, immunoreactive insulin, C‐peptide, lipid levels
Clinical chemistry, hematology, liver enzymes, and urinalysis; HOMA
Notes AIM OF STUDY: 
 to examine the efficacy of rosiglitazone in reducing HbA1c and to evaluate the 
 therapeutic equivalence of once‐daily and twice‐daily dosing regimens.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Allocation concealment? Unclear risk B ‐ Unclear