HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Skyler, J. S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Skyler, J. S. Related Collections Related Article Social Bookmarking                What's this?

PROactive: A Sad Tale of Inappropriate Analysis and Unjustified Interpretation

The first 300 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The results of the Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial in Macrovascular Events (PROactive) study¹ have stimulated much discussion in both the diabetes and cardiovascular communities. The official commentary of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) was published in Diabetes Care² and is reprinted in this issue of Clinical Diabetes (p. 66). Previously, I offered a different view of PROactive in another ADA publication, DOC News,³ from which this commentary is adapted. My earlier comments generated a flood of e-mails, a few of which claimed I was a naysayer or curmudgeon, but the majority of which expressed agreement with my views. Other commentaries have been published by Yki-Järvinen⁴ as an accompanying article in the same issue of Lancet in which the PROactive study appeared, Freemantle⁵ in the British Medical Journal, and Ceriello⁶ in Diabetic Medicine. These commentaries focus on different points, but there are a number of commonalities among them.

PROactive was a much-anticipated study because it was the first large study to be reported that was designed to determine whether the potential theoretical benefits of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor- (PPAR-) agonists (in this case pioglitazone) on endothelial function and cardiovascular risk markers might indeed result in fewer macrovascular disease (atherosclerosis) events in patients with type 2 diabetes. That anticipation was driven by a considerable amount of hype and by the 2004 publication of the study's design and baseline data in Diabetes Care.⁷ An entire hour was allocated for the PROactive presentation on 12 September 2005 during the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Athens, Greece, and the presentation was webcast worldwide.⁸ The publication of the study's results in Lancet occurred < 1 month later.¹

PROactive researchers had enrolled 5,238 patients at 321 sites in 19 European countries, with . . . [Full Text of this Article]

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

Related Article:

Commentary on the Results and Clinical Implications of the PROactive Study

Robert Rizza, Robert Henry, and Richard Kahn
Clin. Diabetes 2006 24: 66-68. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. J. Betteridge, R. A. DeFronzo, and R. J. Chilton PROactive: time for a critical appraisal Eur. Heart J., April 2, 2008; 29(8): 969 - 983. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. I. Misbin Lessons From the Avandia Controversy: A new paradigm for the development of drugs to treat type 2 diabetes Diabetes Care, December 1, 2007; 30(12): 3141 - 3144. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. S. Beaser and P. Levy A Work in Progress, but a Useful Construct Circulation, April 3, 2007; 115(13): 1812 - 1818. [Full Text] [PDF]

				The PROactive Study Executive Committee and Data a Competing Perspectives on PROactive Clin. Diabetes, January 1, 2007; 25(1): 3 - 3. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. W Mccallum and M. Fisher Review: Comparing cardiovascular outcomes in diabetes studies The British Journal of Diabetes & Vascular Disease, May 1, 2006; 6(3): 111 - 118. [Abstract] [PDF]