BACKGROUND: Studies investigating bladder cancer risk in pioglitazone-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus patients report conflicting results. Previous meta-analyses on this topic utilized publications prior to 2013. More long-term observational studies have been published since then. We reviewed the accumulated evidence and updated findings from previous meta-analyses. METHODS: This meta-analysis was based on a systematic review of peer-reviewed observational studies published prior to September 30, 2016. Eligible studies were identified using a specified MEDLINE search. References from included studies and from previous meta-analyses were screened for additional records. Meta-analysis hazards ratios were derived using a random-effects model. Several sensitivity analyses including hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis with country-specific effects were conducted. RESULTS: Of 363 identified records, 23 studies were included in this review and 18 in the actual meta-analyses. For bladder cancer outcome, the estimated effect size for ever vs. never use of pioglitazone was 1.16 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04-1.28]. In the cumulative dose and duration analyses, highest effect was observed in the highest/longest exposure group, but substantial heterogeneity was present. In the sensitivity analysis, only studies adjusted for lifestyle-related factors were included and the frequentist effect size was 1.18 (95% CI, 1.00-1.40, p = 0.054). However, the risk was not verified in the Bayesian framework with an effect size of 1.17 [95% credible interval (CrI), 0.94-1.54]. CONCLUSIONS: In line with previous meta-analyses, we observed a small but statistically significant association between ever (vs. never) use of pioglitazone and bladder cancer risk; however, causality is not established and alternative explanations cannot be ruled out.
BACKGROUND: Studies investigating bladder cancer risk in pioglitazone-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus patients report conflicting results. Previous meta-analyses on this topic utilized publications prior to 2013. More long-term observational studies have been published since then. We reviewed the accumulated evidence and updated findings from previous meta-analyses. METHODS: This meta-analysis was based on a systematic review of peer-reviewed observational studies published prior to September 30, 2016. Eligible studies were identified using a specified MEDLINE search. References from included studies and from previous meta-analyses were screened for additional records. Meta-analysis hazards ratios were derived using a random-effects model. Several sensitivity analyses including hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis with country-specific effects were conducted. RESULTS: Of 363 identified records, 23 studies were included in this review and 18 in the actual meta-analyses. For bladder cancer outcome, the estimated effect size for ever vs. never use of pioglitazone was 1.16 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04-1.28]. In the cumulative dose and duration analyses, highest effect was observed in the highest/longest exposure group, but substantial heterogeneity was present. In the sensitivity analysis, only studies adjusted for lifestyle-related factors were included and the frequentist effect size was 1.18 (95% CI, 1.00-1.40, p = 0.054). However, the risk was not verified in the Bayesian framework with an effect size of 1.17 [95% credible interval (CrI), 0.94-1.54]. CONCLUSIONS: In line with previous meta-analyses, we observed a small but statistically significant association between ever (vs. never) use of pioglitazone and bladder cancer risk; however, causality is not established and alternative explanations cannot be ruled out.
Authors: Ralph A DeFronzo; Devjit Tripathy; Dawn C Schwenke; MaryAnn Banerji; George A Bray; Thomas A Buchanan; Stephen C Clement; Robert R Henry; Howard N Hodis; Abbas E Kitabchi; Wendy J Mack; Sunder Mudaliar; Robert E Ratner; Ken Williams; Frankie B Stentz; Nicolas Musi; Peter D Reaven Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-03-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ralph A Defronzo; Maryann Banerji; George A Bray; Thomas A Buchanan; Stephen Clement; Robert R Henry; Abbas E Kitabchi; Sunder Mudaliar; Nicolas Musi; Robert Ratner; Peter D Reaven; Dawn Schwenke; Frankie B Stentz; Devjit Tripathy Journal: BMC Endocr Disord Date: 2009-07-29 Impact factor: 2.763
Authors: Mohammed Eslam; Shiv K Sarin; Vincent Wai-Sun Wong; Jian-Gao Fan; Takumi Kawaguchi; Sang Hoon Ahn; Ming-Hua Zheng; Gamal Shiha; Yusuf Yilmaz; Rino Gani; Shahinul Alam; Yock Young Dan; Jia-Horng Kao; Saeed Hamid; Ian Homer Cua; Wah-Kheong Chan; Diana Payawal; Soek-Siam Tan; Tawesak Tanwandee; Leon A Adams; Manoj Kumar; Masao Omata; Jacob George Journal: Hepatol Int Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 6.047
Authors: Alvaro Santos-Laso; María Gutiérrez-Larrañaga; Marta Alonso-Peña; Juan M Medina; Paula Iruzubieta; María Teresa Arias-Loste; Marcos López-Hoyos; Javier Crespo Journal: Biomedicines Date: 2021-12-26