You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 300 No. 7, August 20, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Related letters
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Cardiovascular System, Other
 •Nutritional and Metabolic Disorders
 •Nutritional and Metabolic Disorders, Other
 •Cardiovascular System
 •Prognosis/ Outcomes
 •Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction
 •Drug Therapy
 •Drug Therapy, Other
 •Endocrine Diseases
 •Diabetes Mellitus
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Pioglitazone vs Glimepiride in the PERISCOPE Trial—Reply

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In Reply: Dr Fresco comments that the primary end point showed progression in the pioglitazone treatment group for patients not treated with statins. We disagree and recommend caution in interpretation of subgroup data. In the pioglitazone group, the 95% CI for the primary end point for the subgroup not receiving statins ranged from –0.45 to 2.29. The lower limit of the CI being less than 0 was consistent with the overall study results. In any clinical trial, results in subgroups are considered hypothesis-generating at best because when multiple groups are assessed, the likelihood of an apparent difference occurring by chance alone is substantial. In this case, we think that even more caution is required. There were only 29 patients in the glimepiride group who did not receive statins and only 25 in the pioglitazone group. We did not stratify for statin use because we expected nearly all patients to receive . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Steven E. Nissen, MD
nissens@ccf.org

Stephen J. Nicholls, MD, PhD; Kathy Wolski, MPH
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine
Cleveland Clinic
Cleveland, Ohio



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Comparison of Pioglitazone vs Glimepiride on Progression of Coronary Atherosclerosis in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The PERISCOPE Randomized Controlled Trial
Steven E. Nissen, Stephen J. Nicholls, Kathy Wolski, Richard Nesto, Stuart Kupfer, Alfonso Perez, Horacio Jure, Robert De Larochellière, Cezar S. Staniloae, Kreton Mavromatis, Jacqueline Saw, Bo Hu, A. Michael Lincoff, E. Murat Tuzcu, and for the PERISCOPE Investigators
JAMA. 2008;299(13):1561-1573.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED LETTERS

Pioglitazone vs Glimepiride in the PERISCOPE Trial
Claudio Fresco
JAMA. 2008;300(7):787.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Pioglitazone vs Glimepiride in the PERISCOPE Trial
Rahman Shah
JAMA. 2008;300(7):787-788.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2008 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.