Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23868339›Full record

ReviewDrug safety2013

Scientific Evidence and Controversies About Pioglitazone and Bladder Cancer: Which Lessons Can Be Drawn?

Jean-Luc Faillie, Pierre Petit, Jean-Louis Montastruc, Dominique Hillaire-Buys

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drug safety, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Anti-inflammatory mechanisms of the vascular smooth muscle PPARγ.Journal of smooth muscle research = Nihon Heikatsukin Gakkai kikanshi · 2021
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Understanding drug preferences, different perspectives.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2015
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Usage of pioglitazone at Medanta, the Medicity.Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolism · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jean-Luc FaillieDépartement de Pharmacologie Médicale et Toxicologie, Centre Régional de PharmacoVigilance, CHRU Montpellier, 371 avenue du Doyen Gaston Giraud, 34295 Montpellier, France. jl-faillie@chu-montpellier.fr
Pierre PetitDépartement de Pharmacologie Médicale et Toxicologie, Centre Régional de PharmacoVigilance, CHRU Montpellier, 371 avenue du Doyen Gaston Giraud, 34295, Montpellier, France.
Jean-Louis MontastrucService de Pharmacologie Médicale et Clinique, Centre Midi-Pyrénées de PharmacoVigilance, de PharmacoEpidémiologie et d'Informations sur le Médicament, Equipe de PharmacoEpidémiologie INSERM U1027, Faculté de Médecine et CHU, Université Paul-Sabatier, Toulouse, France.
Dominique Hillaire-BuysDépartement de Pharmacologie Médicale et Toxicologie, Centre Régional de PharmacoVigilance, INSERM U1058, Faculté de Médecine et CHRU, Montpellier, France.
Hôpital Arnaud de Villeneuve · FRHôpital Lapeyronie · FRInserm · FRLaboratoire Epidémiologie et Analyses en Santé Publique : Risques, Maladies Chroniques et Handicaps · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pioglitazone, a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPAR) agonist, has been authorized for the management of type 2 diabetes since 1999 in the US and since 2000 in Europe. Since then, the risk of bladder cancer associated with pioglitazone use has been a serious concern. Following a warning from the Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits de Santé (Afssaps) [the French Agency for the Safety of Health Products], use of pioglitazone was suspended in France and Germany in June 2011. Elsewhere, restrictions on prescriptions were implemented, though for both the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration, the risk-benefit ratio remains favourable. Since the development of pioglitazone, its risk assessment has suffered from several inaccuracies such as its alleged specificity for the male rat, untrustworthy selective agonism for PPARγ and mistaken risk evaluation in the large PROactive trial (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events), where one case with a benign tumour in the placebo group was counted as a cancer case. It took until 2011 for the epidemiological data to be sufficiently numerous and conclusive to initiate application of safety measures. Today, the increased risk of bladder cancer associated with pioglitazone seems to be real, but the absolute risk is relatively low. However, in the context of weak efficacy in an extensive population of patients exposed to pioglitazone, the risk-benefit balance is now difficult to assess, and prescription restrictions do not ensure safety. For future risk management, the authors propose several suggestions, which involve an increasing role of health authorities and academic organizations.

Indexed as

AnimalsEuropeHumansPharmacoepidemiologyPioglitazoneRisk AssessmentThiazolidinedionesUnited StatesUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsPioglitazoneThiazolidinediones

Identifiers

PMID23868339
OpenAlexW2021188237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.