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  • 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   What's this?

	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

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