Skip to main content

Table 2 Recurrent ischemic stroke and secondary safety outcomes of patients with and without use of pioglitazone

From: Pioglitazone and PPAR-γ modulating treatment in hypertensive and type 2 diabetic patients after ischemic stroke: a national cohort study

OutcomePioglitazone (n = 3189)Non-pioglitazone (n = 6378)Pioglitazone vs. non-pioglitazone
SHR (95% CI)p-value
Primary analysis: propensity score matching
 Recurrent ischemic stroke, n (%)598 (18.8)1273 (20.0)0.91 (0.84, 0.99)0.033
Sensitivity analysis: IPTW
 Recurrent ischemic stroke, %19.021.20.89 (0.80, 0.99)0.025
Secondary outcomes
 Acute myocardial infarction, n (%)119 (3.7)265 (4.2)0.79 (0.65, 0.97)0.021
 Hospitalization for heart failure, n (%)200 (6.3)410 (6.4)0.99 (0.85, 1.15)0.867
 All-cause mortality, n (%)560 (17.6)1158 (18.2)0.94 (0.83, 1.06)0.320
 Cardiovascular death, n (%)362 (11.4)731 (11.5)0.95 (0.81, 1.11)0.523
 Bladder cancer, n (%)10 (0.31)11 (0.17)1.34 (0.62, 2.88)0.456
  1. SHR subdistribution hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, IPTW inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting
  2. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05