Mehtälä Juha, Khanfir Houssem, Bennett Dimitri, Ye Yizhou, Korhonen Pasi, Hoti Fabian
EPID Research Oy, Metsänneidonkuja 12, 02130 Espoo, Finland.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Cambridge, MA USA.
Diabetol Int. 2018 Jun 14;10(1):24-36. doi: 10.1007/s13340-018-0360-4. eCollection 2019 Jan.
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.
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.
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, = 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].
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.
关于吡格列酮治疗的2型糖尿病患者膀胱癌风险的研究结果相互矛盾。此前关于该主题的荟萃分析使用的是2013年之前发表的文献。自那时以来,有更多的长期观察性研究发表。我们回顾了积累的证据,并更新了此前荟萃分析的结果。
本荟萃分析基于对2016年9月30日前发表的同行评审观察性研究的系统评价。使用特定的MEDLINE检索来识别符合条件的研究。对纳入研究和此前荟萃分析的参考文献进行筛查以获取更多记录。采用随机效应模型得出荟萃分析风险比。进行了多项敏感性分析,包括具有国家特定效应的分层贝叶斯荟萃分析。
在363条识别出的记录中,本综述纳入了23项研究,实际荟萃分析纳入了18项研究。对于膀胱癌结局,曾使用与从未使用吡格列酮相比的估计效应量为1.16[95%置信区间(CI),1.04 - 1.28]。在累积剂量和持续时间分析中,在最高/最长暴露组中观察到最高效应,但存在显著异质性。在敏感性分析中,仅纳入了针对生活方式相关因素进行调整的研究,频率学派效应量为1.18(95%CI,1.00 - 1.40,P = 0.054)。然而,在贝叶斯框架下风险未得到验证,效应量为1.17[95%可信区间(CrI),0.94 - 1.54]。
与此前的荟萃分析一致,我们观察到曾(与从未)使用吡格列酮与膀胱癌风险之间存在小但具有统计学意义的关联;然而,因果关系尚未确立,且不能排除其他解释。