Rosiglitazone not so rosy?

Dr. Steve Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic published a study that suggests that the pre-diabetes and diabetes drug, rosiglitazone, may increase likelihood of heart attack by 43%.

I say "suggests" because the analysis was something called a "meta-analysis", a re-examination of data obtained by pooling unrelated studies and reanalyzing the data. Strengths of this sort of analysis: Sometimes trends that are not evident in smaller studies finally become evident in the larger numbers of participants obtained through pooling of data. Downside: Any statistician will tell you that a meta-analysis can only suggest an association, it cannot prove it.

Nonetheless, we are talking about people's lives. As they say, if you are taking this drug, also known by the brand name, Avandia, then talk to your doctor. I think that this is sound advice, as there are a number of factors to weigh in decision making. For instance, how far along the diabetic path are you? Have you had negative experiences with other agents?

It will, unfortunately, be months to years before confirmatory evidence on this question become available. In the meantime, Nissen will accuse the drug industry of pushing drugs through the FDA approval process without full safety data. GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of Avandia, will counter with claims of weak data, the existing trials not confirming Nissen's findings, etc. We've seen it before.

My take on this is to step back and look at the broad picture. Do we need yet another reason to say that it's far better to maintain normal body weight, dramatically reduce reliance on processed carbohydrates and wheat, exercise, and following other insulin-sensitizing strategies, rather than rely on insulin-sensitizing drugs? (That's what rosiglitazone is supposed to do.) Metabolic syndrome, also known as pre-diabetes, or diabetes is present to various degrees in two thirds of all adults I meet. Nearly all of it is self-inflicted. Nearly all of it is curable with the above lifestyle strategies if undertaken early enough in the process.

A 190 lb, 5 foot 2 inch woman, or a 220 lb, 5 foot 10 inch man, both of whom are surprised that they have pre-diabetes really need to get a grip on reality and health. To me, it's no surprise that drugs do not reverse all the nasty manifestations of lifestyle gone berserk. It should also come as no surprise that the complex, chaotic physiologic mess created by metabolic syndrome and pre-diabetes is not perfectly managed by adding one drug.

Comments (3) -

  • Mike

    5/23/2007 8:39:00 PM |

    The FDA should have fully analyzed the data before granting approval to Rosiglitazone. It is my opinion that all drug test data should be public domain on all approved drugs or medical equipment (stents, pace makers, etc.). That is the only way that a patient can truly give informed consent to using them.

  • Nancy

    5/23/2007 10:50:00 PM |

    Yeah, probably most of the time it is self-inflicted except when you look at the nutritional recommendations and grain heavy diet being pushed by the US government, and even the ADA (!) the whole idea that grains are so darned healthy is probably responsibile for a lot of the diabetes in our society.

  • Anne

    5/24/2007 11:04:00 AM |

    Rosiglitazone has also been associated with macular edema. This improves when people discontinue the drug. It is also thought to increase the risk of bone fracture.

Loading
The first lawsuit?

The first lawsuit?


The closing arguments in actor John Ritter's wrongful death lawsuit are over and the two doctors charged with negligence cleared, five years after his death from a dissection (tear of the inner lining) of the thoracic aorta. The family sought $67 million in damages, claiming that the aortic dissection was misdiagnosed as a heart attack and that the enlarged aorta should have been reported to Mr. Ritter two years earlier during a full body scan.

The AP story can be viewed at http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gmv6HnJJPBee2gWgEYResT5m6YkAD8VDF9CO0


Well, perhaps this is the start of a trend. Up until now, it has been commonplace for doctors to ignore many of the important findings on heart scans, full body scans, and similar direct-to-the-public imaging services. For instance, similar to John Ritter's case, enlarged thoracic aortas are commonly ignored. I'd even say that as a rule they are ignored. I have seen many patients in consultation who have had large aortas identified on heart scans, yet nothing--not a thing--was done about it. While the doctors escaped a lawsuit this time, it might not happen a second time.

I truly hope that Mr. Ritter's unfortunate experience and the consequent lawsuit do not trigger the usual defensive medicine response of resorting to major procedural "solutions."

A better response would be to 1) identify the problem--enlarged aorta in this case, 2) identify the causes, then 3) correct the causes. It does not necessarily mean that a major procedure like replacing the aorta (a horrendous surgery, by the way) needs to be pursued each and every time.

It is possible that Mr. Ritter's lawsuit is just the first. Over the next several years, it could trigger an avalanche of lawsuits for all the neglected findings on tests like heart scans, body scans, and other imaging methods that are gaining expanded direct-to-consumer access.


Images courtesy Wikipedia.

Comments (1) -

  • Anonymous

    3/16/2008 2:32:00 PM |

    I wondered about the cases outcome.  Looks like Rittter's physicians dodged a bullet this time.  Hopefully others will not be as lucky next time.

Loading
It's the score, stupid

It's the score, stupid

Sal has had 3 heart scans. (He was not on the Track Your Plaque program.) His scores:

March, 2006: 439

April, 2007: 573

October, 2009: 799

Presented with the 39% increase from April, 2007 to October, 2009, Sal's doctor responded, "I don't understand. Your LDL cholesterol is fine."

This is the sort of drug-driven, cholesterol-minded thinking that characterizes 90% of primary care and cardiologists' practices: "Cholesterol is fine; therefore, you must be fine, too."

No. Absolutely not.

The data are clear: Heart scan scores that continue to increase at this rate predict high risk for cardiovascular events. Unfortunately, when my colleagues hear this, they respond by scheduling a heart catheterization to prevent heart attack--a practice that has never been shown to be effective and, in my view, constitutes malpractice (i.e., performing heart procedures in people with no symptoms and with either no stress test or a normal stress test).

It's the score, stupid! It's not the LDL cholesterol. Pay attention to the increasing heart scan score and you will know that the disease is progressing at an alarming rate. Accepting this fact will set you and your doctor on the track to ask "Why?"

That's when you start to uncover all the dozens of other reasons that plaque can grow that have nothing to do with LDL cholesterol or statin drugs.

Comments (4) -

  • Dexter

    11/15/2009 5:43:29 PM |

    Even more evidence that CVD confusion reigns supreme among PCPs.

    http://www.theheart.org/article/1020935.do

  • Roger

    11/15/2009 5:52:16 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    In June you kindly profiled my "near-miss" CT angiogram, where I had to take charge and make sure I was getting only a CT calcium score scan.

    The good news was that my score was a zero.  I can't really explain that; while I was a vegetarian for many years, I also ate too many refined carbs and until recently was carrying a few too many pounds. There is heart disease in my family.  I am 54 years old.

    Is it genes, luck, or inadvertantly prudent lifestyle?   How often should folks with low scores be re-tested?  I know you probably cover this at TYP but I'm sure the blog readers would also find it informative.  Thanks again for reporting my story.

    Roger

  • Dr. William Davis

    11/15/2009 11:31:13 PM |

    Hi, Roger--

    Genes enter into the equation in a big way. Lifestyle is important, but it is not everything.

    For people starting with a score of zero, I generally suggest waiting 3-5 years before thinking about another scan.

  • Jenny Light

    11/16/2009 5:00:14 PM |

    I'll second the motion about catherizations being malpractice!

    My mom died three years ago in a cath lab!  After having chest pains after a chemical stress test, she was hospitalized overnight and the next day had a catherization with two stents implanted.  

    Something went wrong during the procedure, and an artery was torn. She became unconscious, she stopped breathing, and they were unable to insert a breathing tube.  They did an emergency tracheotomy but it was too late.  No cardiac surgeon was in the facility at the time.

    The cardiologists explination to us was that "she had very small arteries".

    I would think it would be reasonable for a patient to request that a cardiac surgeon be "in the house" during this procedure.

    My dad about hit the roof when he saw the cause of death listed on her death certificate as "myocardial infraction". He requested that the coroner check the circumstances, after which he changed the cause to "cardio-pulmenary arrest due to long term heart disease".  Sorry, but it should have read: "Due to complications during catherization procedure".  

    Not a benign procedure folks!  Ask whether drugs can perhaps be used in lieu of this invasive (and very lucritive for the hospital) action.

Loading
Fractures and vitamin D

Fractures and vitamin D

This is a bit off topic, but it's such an interesting observation that I'd like to pass it on.

Over the past several years, there have been inevitable bone fractures: People slip on ice, for instance, and fracture a wrist or elbow. Or miss a step and fracture a foot, fall off a ladder and fracture a leg.

People will come to my office and tell me that their orthopedist commented that they healed faster than usual, often faster than anyone else they've seen before. My son was told this after he shattered his hand getting slammed against the boards in hockey; his orthopedist took the screws and cast off much sooner than usual since he judged that healing had occured early. (My son was taking 8000 units vitamin D in gelcap form; I also had him take 20,000 units for several days early after his injury to be absolutely sure he had sufficient levels.)

My suspicion is that people taking vitamin D sufficient to enjoy desirable blood levels (I aim for a 25-hydroxy vitamin D level of 60-70 ng/ml) heal fractures much faster, abbreviating healing time (crudely estimated) by at least 30%.

For any interested orthopedist, it would be an easy clinical study: Enroll people with traumatic fractures, randomize to vitamin D at, say, 10,000 units per day vs. placebo, watch who heals faster gauged by, for instance, x-ray. My prediction: Vitamin D will win hands down with faster healing and perhaps more assured fusion of the fracture site.

Comments (25) -

  • River Rat

    4/26/2010 11:18:16 PM |

    Just anecdotal, but I had an experience that confirms your theory.  In the middle of a 21-day trip down the Colorado through Grand Canyon, I fell and fractured my arm.  I decided just to splint it up and continue the trip, since the pain wasn't too bad.

    By the time I got to a clinic in Flagstaff, 10 days later, the doctor said everything had healed so well I didn't even need a cast.  

    Needless to say, there is lots of free Vitamin D in the Grand Canyon in summer!  We were in the sun all day long.  Maybe it made the difference.

  • ithink

    4/27/2010 12:18:12 AM |

    probably also has to do with the fact people are calcium deficient without vitamin d.

  • DrStrange

    4/27/2010 12:51:24 AM |

    Isn't there evidence that the blood level vs benefit curve reverse itself ("U" shape) above around 60 ng/ml?  Maybe just under or at that safer???

  • mongander

    4/27/2010 2:02:11 AM |

    Last fall I was happy with my blood level of vit D, 79 ng/ml, so I reduced my daily dose from 10,000 iu to 5,000 iu.   I just got my spring test result and my level dropped 23 points to 56 ng/ml.  I'm gonna go back to 10,000 iu, except maybe during the summer when I get a lot of sun.

  • TedHutchinson

    4/27/2010 12:23:13 PM |

    How to Optimize Vitamin D Supplementation to Prevent Cancer, Based on Cellular Adaptation and Hydroxylase Enzymology" You can read Reinhold Vieth's justification for keeping 25(OH)D both high and STABLE here.
    In order to regulate any system there has to be a means of both increasing and decreasing responses.
    Where the upregulation and down regulation is performed by different substances both of which are derived from Vitamin D, it follows these have to be kept tightly controlled and always in balance.
    Sudden rise in 25(OH)D causes a period of imbalance between those forces, during which too much immunosuppression may occur.
    The further north people live the more extreme differences between Summer/winter status. It isn't surprising those flying to the tropics for short midwinter sun breaks end up catching something from recycled germs during the flight home.
    Making sure your Vitamin D needs are met daily throughout the year evens out the percentage change in levels as naturally more vitamin D3 is made in low 25(OH)D skin than when 25(OH)D is high.

    Correcting vitamin D deficiency BEFORE a winter sun break results in a lower increase in 25(OH)D.
    Less change in status = shorter period of imbalance.

    I don't have to remind readers here Ergocalciferol speeds up the catabolism of vitamin D Cholecalciferol has a longer half life. Using Vitamin D2 therefore promotes greater/faster swings in status and should be avoided.

    Using Vitamin D3 supplements daily at amounts no greater than UVB exposed skin would naturally produce, most nearly replicates the changes in status human DNA would have evolved with.

    Apologies to Dr Vieth for assuming the copy of the paper linked to above was non-copyright and putting it online.  I think it's important the public have access to the full text rather than just my garbled version of this important paper.

  • Ned Kock

    4/27/2010 1:17:02 PM |

    Thanks Dr. Davis for the post sharing you personal experiences.

    DrStrange:

    The relationship seems to follow a U-curve pattern, with very high levels being associated with hypervitaminosis D problems.

    The levels mentioned by Dr. Davis seem well below the ones that can lead to toxicity. For example, a farmer in Puerto Rico had a level of 225 nmol/L (90 ng/mL), and had no signs of toxicity:

    http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/02/vitamin-d-levels-sunlight-age-and.html

    From the post above, toxic doses seem to start around 50,000 IU per day. That's way more than the 10,000 IU or so that we get from sun exposure.

    My only point of disagreement with Dr. Davis is about our ability to produce vitamin D from sunlight after age 40. There is research (post above too) showing that the elderly can produce as much as 80 percent vitamin D from sunlight as do 20 or 30 year olds.

  • homertobias

    4/27/2010 3:21:19 PM |

    Hi Dr.Davis.
    I just wanted you to know that THIS PRACTIONER is running her own open label trial on 5-10 people with lp(a).  I will let you know the outcome.
    I just read your trial on 45 CAC high scorers that you published in Am J of Theraputics last year.  I hear that the registration process to publish is a horrific process. I am glad you persisted,  I really wanted your raw data but...

  • Tom

    4/27/2010 6:58:50 PM |

    I hope I'm not diverting from the topic here....I'm confused about the Vit D-Calcium interaction.

    I believe I understand correctly that high Vit D levels allow the body to more effectively process calcium.

    I don't understand how calcium requirements change with increased Vit D levels.  I have a blood level of 72 (D3) and 3 (D2).  But I haven't paid attention to my calcium intake.

    Can anyone clarify the relationship between Vid D and calcium please?

    Thank you in advance.

  • DrStrange

    4/27/2010 7:00:05 PM |

    "The relationship seems to follow a U-curve pattern, with very high levels being associated with hypervitaminosis D problems."

    Not hypervitaminosis D but rather reversal of D's benefits.  I had read that above 60 ng/ml the risk of prostate cancer increased again.  Just now searching for the study found on D council site, a recent article showing the likelihood that this outcome was because the research subjects had all gotten their higher D levels from Cod liver oil and the vitiman A in that is what reversed the benefits of D, not the high levels of D!  So seems I could well have been misinformed about that.

    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/vitamin-d-vitamin-a-and-cancer.shtml

  • sonny

    4/27/2010 11:32:00 PM |

    Just threw out all multivitamins in the house after hearing about vitamin A interfering with vitamin D absorption.

  • TedHutchinson

    4/28/2010 8:27:12 AM |

    @ Dr Strange
    Tuohimaa's team claiming they have found a U shaped curve for Vitamin D is based in Tampere, Finland latitude 61N
    People at that latitude with high 25(OH)D levels have experienced a greater change in level from summer to winter or if they choose to take a winter sun break will experience further re-balancing of the immune system. Vieth argues it is the length and number of periods of imbalance that drive the effects Tuohimaa reports.

    Now we have greater availability of effective strength D3 it will be easier for people at that latitude to attain and maintain the levels that enabled the Inuit to survive long winters with over 6000iu daily vitamin D3 provided from traditional diet.

    @ Tom
    Video of Heaney explaining the calcium/vitamin D story

    The Vitamin D requirement in health and disease Heaney similar information in PDF form but in greater detail.
    Bear in mind when considering Vitamin D and Calcium absorption that other co-factors work in synergy with Vitamin D.
    Magnesium is required to power the  production of the active hormone Calcitriol that lowers PTH and magnesium also counterbalances the role of calcium as magnesium is a natural calcium channel blocker.
    Each Vitamin D Receptor requires zinc.
    Also Vitamin K2 mk4 is critical for healthy bone density transporting calcium from bloodstream to bone.

  • Kent

    4/28/2010 8:13:45 PM |

    There has been at least one study done. Here's one with guinea pigs.
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/w734p41874205516/

    This is another area where common sence and experience shouldn't really require a study to initiate this course of action. Example; I saw the other day there was a "study" done on children that proved that what they saw on TV affected their actions. I'm sure many parents are glad that study "finally" came through!

  • Jason

    4/28/2010 9:40:56 PM |

    New study on grains:

    http://www.lef.org/news/LefDailyNews.htm?NewsID=9615&Section=Nutrition

    "Published research shows eating two to four serves of wholegrain foods a day can reduce the risk of heart disease by as much as 40 percent - equal to the effect of cholesterol lowering drugs,"

  • Tom

    4/29/2010 1:03:42 PM |

    To TED,

    Thank you Ted for the information.  The Heaney video was very interesting and worthwhile.  It's interesting that he says optimal D3 for calcium absorbtion is between 80 and 120 nmol.  I'm at 70 nmol and thought I was fine!
    The video is well worth watching.

    nevertheless, I'm still trying to understand how much calcium I should be taking, assuming I get my D3 to 80 or so.

    Your remarks about Magnesium, etc. are helpful.  Thank you.  But again, I struggle with how much?  

    Tom

  • Daniel

    4/30/2010 4:23:49 PM |

    Ted,
    Another explanation, this one from Cannell, for the U curve found in Scandinavia is cod liver oil.  

    People with the highest vit D levels may be consuming enormous amounts of cod liver oil and, thus, vitamin A.

    Excess retinol may thwart the action of vit D by competing for certain nuclear receptors.

  • P90X Results

    5/3/2010 9:57:44 AM |

    This is very useful information of Obesity. You can find more information about how to prevent heart diseases. I am very excited about your post, it's really amazing.

  • Tom

    5/3/2010 10:45:10 PM |

    To Ted,

    Thank you once more for this information.

    I just read that calcium has been implicated in Prostrate cancer.  have you heard anything about this?

  • Anonymous

    7/28/2010 5:01:59 PM |

    Do you know if anything helps for soft tissue injuries? I am still not fully recovered from a foot injury 5 months after the acute phase. The orthopedist expected it to take 4 weeks to heal and I'm a little concerned about how long it will take.

  • Troy @ shipping quote

    12/31/2010 5:44:10 AM |

    The above blog post is quite informative. Having good information related to bones and its requirements. I was not knowing that Vit D is so important for our bones. But good to know about that. Want to ask what are the natural resources of Vit D in our daily diet?

  • CatinaAgilar6368@hotmail.com

    1/1/2011 12:48:29 PM |

    Quite an informative blog post. I know that inadequate amount of vitamin D in diet can lead to osteoporosis, which is a brittle bone disease. But are there any side effects of excessive intake of vitamin D.

  • Nevil - same day courier

    3/22/2011 12:13:49 PM |

    Great post William, my friend is really having some bone problem, so this information will be quite useful for him. Looking forward for more post on the same topic.

  • Hal

    5/7/2011 4:11:01 PM |

    I know someone who was in a car accident that resulted in very serious fractures of one arm and wrist.  He is in his late 60's and his injuries were not healing.  

    I came to know this person about 6 months after the accident.   He was taking about 2 grams of  calcium per day thinking that this would help his bones, perhaps because the doctor told him to talk more calcium, but no supplemental  Vitamin D.   I told him that the should be taking at least 5000UI D3  per day pointing out that Walmart has 5000UI gel caps for cheap ($5 per 100 at that time) and that he was likely taking too much calcium.  He started taking more D3 although I am not sure how much since I didn't want to be pushy.  

    It has been about 9 months now since he started taking more D3 and his injuries have healed and he has had surgery to remove most of the plates and screws that had been put in place.    Was D3 the reason for this?    I don't know but I am sure that it didn't hurt either.

Loading