A review on thiazolidinediones and bladder cancer in human studies.

Chin-Hsiao Tseng
{"title":"A review on thiazolidinediones and bladder cancer in human studies.","authors":"Chin-Hsiao Tseng","doi":"10.1080/10590501.2014.877645","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is a concern of an increased risk of bladder cancer associated with the use of thiazolidinediones, a class of oral glucose-lowering drugs commonly used in patients with type 2 diabetes with a mechanism of improving insulin resistance. Human studies on related issues are reviewed, followed by a discussion on potential concerns on the causal inference in current studies. Pioglitazone and rosiglitazone are discussed separately, and findings from different geographical regions are presented. Randomized controlled trials designed for primarily answering such a cancer link are lacking, and evidence from clinical trials with available data for evaluating the association may not be informative. Observational studies have been reported with the use of population-based administrative databases, single-hospital records, drug adverse event reporting system, and case series collection. Meta-analysis has also been performed by six different groups of investigators. These studies showed a signal of higher risk of bladder cancer associated with pioglitazone, especially at a higher cumulative dose or after prolonged exposure; however, a weaker signal or null association is observed with rosiglitazone. In addition, there are some concerns on the causal inference, which may be related to the use of secondary databases, biases in sampling, differential detection, and confounding by indications. Lack of full control of smoking and potential biases related to study designs and statistical approaches such as prevalent user bias and immortal time bias may be major limitations in some studies. Overlapping populations and opposing conclusions in studies using the same databases may be of concern and weaken the reported conclusions of the studies. Because randomized controlled trials are expensive and unethical in providing an answer to this cancer issue, observational studies are expected to be the main source in providing an answer in the future. Furthermore, international comparison studies using well-designed and uniform methodology to clarify the risk in specific sexes, ethnicities, and other subgroups and to evaluate the interaction with other environmental risk factors or medications will be helpful to identify patients at risk. </p>","PeriodicalId":51085,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part C-Environmental Carcinogenesis & Ecotoxicology Reviews","volume":"32 1","pages":"1-45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10590501.2014.877645","citationCount":"35","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part C-Environmental Carcinogenesis & Ecotoxicology Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10590501.2014.877645","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 35

Abstract

There is a concern of an increased risk of bladder cancer associated with the use of thiazolidinediones, a class of oral glucose-lowering drugs commonly used in patients with type 2 diabetes with a mechanism of improving insulin resistance. Human studies on related issues are reviewed, followed by a discussion on potential concerns on the causal inference in current studies. Pioglitazone and rosiglitazone are discussed separately, and findings from different geographical regions are presented. Randomized controlled trials designed for primarily answering such a cancer link are lacking, and evidence from clinical trials with available data for evaluating the association may not be informative. Observational studies have been reported with the use of population-based administrative databases, single-hospital records, drug adverse event reporting system, and case series collection. Meta-analysis has also been performed by six different groups of investigators. These studies showed a signal of higher risk of bladder cancer associated with pioglitazone, especially at a higher cumulative dose or after prolonged exposure; however, a weaker signal or null association is observed with rosiglitazone. In addition, there are some concerns on the causal inference, which may be related to the use of secondary databases, biases in sampling, differential detection, and confounding by indications. Lack of full control of smoking and potential biases related to study designs and statistical approaches such as prevalent user bias and immortal time bias may be major limitations in some studies. Overlapping populations and opposing conclusions in studies using the same databases may be of concern and weaken the reported conclusions of the studies. Because randomized controlled trials are expensive and unethical in providing an answer to this cancer issue, observational studies are expected to be the main source in providing an answer in the future. Furthermore, international comparison studies using well-designed and uniform methodology to clarify the risk in specific sexes, ethnicities, and other subgroups and to evaluate the interaction with other environmental risk factors or medications will be helpful to identify patients at risk.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
噻唑烷二酮类药物与膀胱癌的研究进展。
噻唑烷二酮是一种口服降糖药物,常用于2型糖尿病患者,具有改善胰岛素抵抗的机制,人们担心与使用噻唑烷二酮相关的膀胱癌风险增加。对相关问题的人类研究进行了回顾,然后讨论了目前研究中对因果推理的潜在关注。分别讨论了吡格列酮和罗格列酮,并介绍了来自不同地理区域的研究结果。目前还缺乏旨在主要回答这种癌症联系的随机对照试验,而且来自临床试验的证据和评估这种联系的现有数据可能不具有信息性。使用基于人群的管理数据库、单医院记录、药物不良事件报告系统和病例系列收集进行了观察性研究。六组不同的研究人员也进行了meta分析。这些研究显示了吡格列酮与膀胱癌风险较高的信号,特别是在较高的累积剂量或长期暴露后;然而,罗格列酮观察到的信号较弱或无关联。此外,还有一些关于因果推断的担忧,这可能与二级数据库的使用、抽样偏差、差异检测和指征混淆有关。缺乏对吸烟的完全控制以及与研究设计和统计方法相关的潜在偏差,如普遍的用户偏差和不朽的时间偏差,可能是某些研究的主要限制。在使用相同数据库的研究中,重叠的人群和相反的结论可能会引起关注,并削弱研究报告的结论。由于随机对照试验在提供癌症问题的答案方面是昂贵和不道德的,因此观察性研究有望成为未来提供答案的主要来源。此外,采用精心设计和统一的方法进行国际比较研究,以澄清特定性别、种族和其他亚组的风险,并评估与其他环境风险因素或药物的相互作用,将有助于确定有风险的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>24 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part C: Environmental Carcinogenesis and Ecotoxicology Reviews aims at rapid publication of reviews on important subjects in various areas of environmental toxicology, health and carcinogenesis. Among the subjects covered are risk assessments of chemicals including nanomaterials and physical agents of environmental significance, harmful organisms found in the environment and toxic agents they produce, and food and drugs as environmental factors. It includes basic research, methodology, host susceptibility, mechanistic studies, theoretical modeling, environmental and geotechnical engineering, and environmental protection. Submission to this journal is primarily on an invitational basis. All submissions should be made through the Editorial Manager site, and are subject to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees. Please review the instructions for authors for manuscript submission guidance.
期刊最新文献
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as a potential source of carcinogenicity of mate. Enhanced generation of reactive oxygen species and photocatalytic activity by Pt-based metallic nanostructures: the composition matters. Intrinsic catalytic activity of rhodium nanoparticles with respect to reactive oxygen species scavenging: implication for diminishing cytotoxicity. Electrochemical detection and quantification of Reactive Red 195 dyes on graphene modified glassy carbon electrode. Regulation of cytochrome P450 expression by microRNAs and long noncoding RNAs: Epigenetic mechanisms in environmental toxicology and carcinogenesis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1