Dataset Information

Pioglitazone and bladder cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Current evidence about the association between pioglitazone and bladder cancer risk remains conflict. We aimed to assess the risk of bladder cancer associated with the use of pioglitazone and identify modifiers that affect the results. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 25 August 2016 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that evaluated the association between pioglitazone and bladder cancer risk. Conventional and cumulative meta-analyses were used to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). A restricted spline regression analysis was used to examine the dose-response relationship with a generalized least-squares trend test. We included two RCTs involving 9114 patients and 20 observational studies (n = 4,846,088 individuals). An increased risk of bladder cancer in patients treated with pioglitazone versus placebo was noted from RCTs (OR, 1.84; 95%CI, 0.99 to 3.42). In observational studies, the increased risk of bladder cancer was slight but significant among ever-users of pioglitazone versus never-users (OR, 1.13; 95%CI, 1.03 to 1.25), which appeared to be both time- (P = 0.003) and dose-dependent (P = 0.05). In addition, we observed the association differed by region of studies (Europe, United States, or Asia) or source of funding (sponsored by industry or not). Current evidence suggests that pioglitazone may increase the risk of bladder cancer, possibly in a dose- and time-dependent manner. Patients with long-term and high-dose exposure to pioglitazone should be monitored regularly for signs of bladder cancer.

SUBMITTER: Tang H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5911601 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Physical activity may protect against bladder cancer through several biologic pathways, such as enhanced immune function and decreased chronic inflammation. Physical activity may also indirectly prevent bladder cancer by reducing obesity. A sizeable number of epidemiologic studies have examined the association between physical activity and bladder cancer, but the available evidence has not yet been formally summarised using meta-analysis. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of English-language studies published from January 1975 through November 2013. We followed the PRISMA guidelines and used a random effects model to estimate the summary risk estimates for the association between physical activity and bladder cancer. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies with 5,402,369 subjects and 27,784 bladder cancer cases were included. High vs low levels of physical activity were related to decreased bladder cancer risk (summary relative risk (RR)=0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.74-0.98; I(2)=83%; P-value for heterogeneity across all studies<0.001). Results were similar for cohort studies (RR=0.89, 95% CI=0.80-1.00; I(2)=64%) and case-control studies (RR=0.71, 95% CI=0.43-1.16; I(2)=87%; P-value for difference=0.108) and they were comparable for women (RR=0.83, 95% CI=0.73-0.94; I(2)=0%) and men (RR=0.92, 95% CI=0.82-1.05; I(2)=67; P-value for difference=0.657). Findings were also comparable for recreational (RR=0.81, 95% CI=0.66-0.99; I(2)=77%) and occupational physical activity (RR=0.90, 95% CI=0.76-1.0; I(2)=76%; P-value for difference=0.374), and they were largely consistent for moderate (RR=0.85, 95% CI=0.75-0.98; I(2)=76%) and vigorous activity (RR=0.80, 95% CI=0.64-1.00;I(2)=87%; P-value for difference=0.535). CONCLUSIONS: Physical activity is associated with decreased risk of bladder cancer. Further studies are required to assess the relations of intensity, frequency, duration, and timing in life of physical activity to bladder cancer risk.

Project description:The association between opium use and bladder cancer has been investigated in many studies, with varying reporting results reported. This study aims to estimate the total odds ratio for the association between bladder cancer and opium consumption using meta-analysis.The study was designed according to PRISMA guidelines. Two independent researchers searched for the relevant studies using PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, OVID, Embase, and Google Scholar. After systematic screening of the studies identified during the first step, Cochrane risk of bias tool was determined for the selected studies. The case-control and the cohort studies were investigated to assess risk of bladder cancer due to opium use. In addition, the cross-sectional studies were analysed separately to assess frequency of opium consumption. These estimates were combined using the inverse variance method. Fixed or random effect models were applied to combine the point odds ratios. The heterogeneity between the primary results was assessed using the Cochran test and I-square index. The suspected factors for heterogeneity were investigated using meta-regression models. An Egger test was conducted to identify any probable publication bias. Forest plots illustrated the point and pooled estimates. All analyses were performed using Stata version 14 software and RevMan version 5.3.We included 17 primary studies (11 case-control, one cohort and five cross-sectional) in the final meta-analysis. The total odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for developing bladder cancer by opium use alone, and concurrent use of opium and cigarettes were estimated as 3.85 (3.05-4.87) and 5.7 (1.9-16.3) respectively. The odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for opium use with or without cigarette smoking was estimated as 5.3 (3.6-7.7).This meta-analysis showed that opium use similar to cigarette smoking and maybe with similar mechanisms can be a risk factor for bladder cancer. It is therefore expected to be a risk factor for other cancers.

Dataset Information

Pioglitazone and bladder cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets