After the Headlines, What Is the Real Avandia Story?
ORLANDO, Fla., July 4, 2010— -- Controversy continues to surround Avandia -- a drug used to treat type 2 diabetes that has been linked to heart failure. As a result, a question that emerged here at the American Diabetes Association meeting was whether the class of drug, called "thiazolidinediones," which includes Avandia and its cousin, Actos, should be prescribed at all.
But contradictory studies on the drugs' effects have complicated the issue. During a single day here at the ADA meeting, one researcher linked Avandia with cardiovascular harm, another with cardiovascular benefit, and a third suggested Actos was better.
In an update to his 2007 study that prompted concerns about the drug, Dr. Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic reported a 28 to 39 percent relative risk for heart attacks in patients taking Avandia. Those numbers, published online in the Archives of Internal Medicine, stemmed from a review of 56 previously published studies, also known as a meta-analysis.
This update supports the "totality of information" against Avandia, Nissen said. But not everyone saw it as an end to the debate.
The ADA, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have refused to take sides. They would rather let the U.S. Food and Drug Administration decide what to do, but acknowledge that clinicians may be uncomfortable prescribing Avandia.
"Why would we use a drug that might be harmful, even though it's not conclusive when there are so many other choices?" said Dr. David Nathan of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
The package insert for Avandia warns about dose-related edema (swelling), an average weight gain of 3.5 kg after four years and anemia -- problems that have plagued Avandia and Actos users along with increased fracture risk. Both drugs also carry a black-box warning about the risk of heart failure.
"The first question is not whether to switch someone from Avandia to Actos, but whether they should be on either one at all," said Dr. Lee Green of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who called the evidence convincing enough for him.
