BACKGROUND: The observed association between pioglitazone and bladder cancer could be causal or because of bias in the design of prior studies. We hypothesize that proteinuria testing may lead to detection bias if routine test results for proteinuria lead to a full urinalysis. METHODS: We reanalyzed patients with diabetes mellitus within Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Logistic and Cox regression adjusted for age, sex, race, and smoking were used to assess the association of proteinuria testing with pioglitazone use, subsequent full urinalysis, and diagnosis with bladder cancer. RESULTS: Patients treated with pioglitazone were more likely than others with diabetes to undergo testing for proteinuria (p < 0.001). The odds of positive tests for proteinuria were higher among pioglitazone-treated patients (OR = 1.41, 95%CI 1.36-1.46). A positive proteinuria test was associated with increased odds of completing a urinalysis in the following 6 months (OR = 1.78, 95%CI 1.73-1.85). Negative and positive proteinuria test results were inversely (hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95%CI 0.52-0.75) and positively associated (HR 2.45, 95%CI 2.12-2.82) with bladder cancer risk, respectively. Adjustment for negative and positive proteinuria testing reduced the magnitude of association between pioglitazone and bladder cancer by only 5 to 10% (ever-exposed HR: from 1.06 to 1.01 and >4 years exposure HR: from 1.38 to 1.28). CONCLUSIONS: Proteinuria testing may be a confounder in studies of pioglitazone and bladder cancer but does not fully explain the association between pioglitazone and bladder cancer in this cohort. Optimal adjustment for proteinuria testing likely requires knowledge of the test result.
BACKGROUND: The observed association between pioglitazone and bladder cancer could be causal or because of bias in the design of prior studies. We hypothesize that proteinuria testing may lead to detection bias if routine test results for proteinuria lead to a full urinalysis. METHODS: We reanalyzed patients with diabetes mellitus within Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Logistic and Cox regression adjusted for age, sex, race, and smoking were used to assess the association of proteinuria testing with pioglitazone use, subsequent full urinalysis, and diagnosis with bladder cancer. RESULTS:Patients treated with pioglitazone were more likely than others with diabetes to undergo testing for proteinuria (p < 0.001). The odds of positive tests for proteinuria were higher among pioglitazone-treated patients (OR = 1.41, 95%CI 1.36-1.46). A positive proteinuria test was associated with increased odds of completing a urinalysis in the following 6 months (OR = 1.78, 95%CI 1.73-1.85). Negative and positive proteinuria test results were inversely (hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95%CI 0.52-0.75) and positively associated (HR 2.45, 95%CI 2.12-2.82) with bladder cancer risk, respectively. Adjustment for negative and positive proteinuria testing reduced the magnitude of association between pioglitazone and bladder cancer by only 5 to 10% (ever-exposed HR: from 1.06 to 1.01 and >4 years exposure HR: from 1.38 to 1.28). CONCLUSIONS:Proteinuria testing may be a confounder in studies of pioglitazone and bladder cancer but does not fully explain the association between pioglitazone and bladder cancer in this cohort. Optimal adjustment for proteinuria testing likely requires knowledge of the test result.
Authors: Elizabeth M Garry; John B Buse; Jennifer L Lund; Virginia Pate; Til Stürmer Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2017-08-08 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: Ben Boursi; Bruce J Giantonio; James D Lewis; Kevin Haynes; Ronac Mamtani; Yu-Xiao Yang Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2016-03-25 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Elizabeth M Garry; John B Buse; Mugdha Gokhale; Jennifer L Lund; Matthew E Nielsen; Virginia Pate; Til Stürmer Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: Lawrence H Young; Catherine M Viscoli; Gregory G Schwartz; Silvio E Inzucchi; Jeptha P Curtis; Mark J Gorman; Karen L Furie; Robin Conwit; Erica S Spatz; Anne Lovejoy; J Dawn Abbott; Daniel L Jacoby; Daniel M Kolansky; Frederick S Ling; Steven E Pfau; Walter N Kernan Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ruth Brauer; Krishnan Bhaskaran; Nishi Chaturvedi; David T Dexter; Liam Smeeth; Ian Douglas Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Daniel Levin; Samira Bell; Reijo Sund; Sirpa A Hartikainen; Jaakko Tuomilehto; Eero Pukkala; Ilmo Keskimäki; Ellena Badrick; Andrew G Renehan; Iain E Buchan; Samantha L Bowker; Jasjeet K Minhas-Sandhu; Zafar Zafari; Carlo Marra; Jeffrey A Johnson; Bruno H Stricker; Andrè G Uitterlinden; Albert Hofman; Rikje Ruiter; Catherine E de Keyser; Thomas M MacDonald; Sarah H Wild; Paul M McKeigue; Helen M Colhoun Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2014-12-07 Impact factor: 10.122