4.5 Article

Pioglitazone and bladder cancer: a propensity score matched cohort study

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 75, Issue 1, Pages 254-259

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04325.x

Keywords

bladder cancer; cohort study; pioglitazone

Funding

  1. Takeda pharmaceuticals
  2. MRC [G106/1249] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [G106/1249] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM To examine whether exposure to pioglitazone use is associated with increased incidence of bladder cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHOD A cohort study was done in the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) between 2001 and 2010. Two hundred and seven thousand seven hundred and fourteen patients aged =40 years with type 2 diabetes were studied (23 548 exposed to pioglitazone and 184 166 exposed to other antidiabetic medications but not pioglitazone). The association between pioglitazone and risk of bladder cancer was assessed by a Cox regression model. A propensity score matched analysis was done in a group of patients without missing baseline characteristics data. RESULTS Sixty-six and 803 new cases of bladder cancer occurred in the pioglitazone and other group, respectively (rates of 80.2 (95% CI 60.8, 99.5) and 81.8 (95% CI 76.2, 87.5) per 100 000 person-years respectively). Pioglitazone did not increase the risk of bladder cancer significantly compared with the other antidiabetic drugs treatment group, (adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.16, 95% CI 0.83, 1.62). In a matched propensity score analysis in which both groups had similar baseline characteristics (17 249 patients in each group), the adjusted HR was 1.22 (95% CI 0.80, 1.84). CONCLUSION The results suggest that pioglitazone may not be significantly associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available