Targeting Pioglitazone Hydrochloride Therapy After Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack According to Pretreatment Risk for Stroke or Myocardial Infarction

Abstract

IMPORTANCE There 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.OBJECTIVE To 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.INTERVENTIONS Pioglitazone 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. RESULTS Among 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 REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00091949

NAFLD and increased risk of cardiovascular disease: clinical associations, pathophysiological mechanisms and pharmacological implications

“…Another meta-analysis investigating the effect of pioglitazone on risk of CVD events showed a benefit with pioglitazone in both patients with prediabetes (or insulin resistance) and those with T2DM [121]. Recent evidence also showed that pioglitazone decreased risk of stroke or myocardial infarction in patients without T2DM but with insulin resistance after previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack [122,123]. A large umbrella review recently confirmed that pioglitazone significantly decreased risk of major CVD events but increased risk of heart failure [124].…”

Personalized evidence based medicine: predictive approaches to heterogeneous treatment effects

“…It is also important to examine whether treatment related harms vary across risk strata because the treatment burden might not be constant across strata defined by outcome risk. When the two dimensions of risk are highly correlated (when high risk patients are also at greatest risk of treatment related harms), it becomes more difficult to segregate treatment favorable patients from treatment unfavorable ones 99100. Thus, to facilitate the interpretation of benefit-harm trade-offs, important treatment related harms should be reported at the same level of disaggregation (that is, in each of the risk strata) as the primary outcome.…”

Dysglycemia-Based Chronic Disease: An American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists Position Statement

“…Rather, initiating DBCD management at earlier Stage 1 DBCD Insulin Resistance or Stage 2 DBCD Prediabetes can more effectively reduce disease progression, symptom burden, unhealthy population metrics, and overall health care costs. In fact, there is considerable scientific evidence that validate earlier intervention in high-risk individuals, including prediabetes, to reduce CVD (177)(178)(179)(180). This new paradigm brings into focus health policy, the built environment, lifestyle medicine, and a philosophical position to restrain overmedicalization.…”