We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Editor's Correspondence |

Analytical Issues Regarding Rosiglitazone Meta-analysis—Reply

Steven E. Nissen, MD; Kathy Wolski, MPH
Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(2):179-180. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.509.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


In reply

The letter by Claggett and Wei focuses on the statistical methods used to perform our meta-analysis of the cardiovascular (CV) safety of rosiglitazone.1 Specifically, these authors question the robustness of the P values and propose alternative statistical methods that yield higher P values. The purpose of any meta-analysis is not to perform every possible statistical approach to the data, but rather to characterize the pattern of outcomes associated with the studied treatment. We believe strongly that authors should prespecify the methods used and stick closely to the selected approach, which we did. The Peto and Mantel Haenszel methods are time-honored analytic approaches that have been used by many other authors. Regarding the robustness of the data, it must be understood that rosiglitazone has been marketed for 11 years. During that period, the drug maker carefully avoided performing any high-quality CV outcomes studies, thereby limiting the availability of CV safety data. Importantly, the majority of clinical trials used in our analysis were unpublished and available only because of a court settlement requiring the company to publicly disclose clinical trial findings. We were forced to use study-level data, not patient-level data, in our analyses. Accordingly, the most important limitations of our meta-analysis relate to the behavior of the drug maker in avoiding CV safety studies, not the statistical methods used to analyze the available clinical trials. The use of study-level data is a more serious limitation than the precise statistical methods used to calculate P values. Fortunately, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had access to patient-level data, enabling use of more robust time-to-event methods. The FDA analysis of patient-level data reported a hazard ratio (HR) for myocardial infarction of 1.80 (95% CI, 1.03-3.25).2 Sensitivity analyses using the end point of myocardial ischemia yielded a significant HR of 1.34 (95% CI, 1.07-1.70). Strikingly, the FDA reviewer also reanalyzed the RECORD trial, reporting an HR for myocardial infarction of 1.38 (95 CI, 0.99-1.93), which was very similar to our findings using the Peto odds ratio.2 Given the FDA findings, we believe that our reported odds ratios and P values accurately represent the hazards of rosiglitazone. In 2010, the FDA's July 14 Advisory Committee agreed, voting overwhelmingly that rosiglitazone increases the risk of ischemic CV events and recommending either withdrawal of the drug from the market or severe restrictions on its availability.

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





January 24, 2011
Steven E. Nissen, MD; Kathy Wolski, MPH
Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(2):179-180. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.509.
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

3 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles