Observational studyThe Indian journal of medical research2017
Impact of regulatory spin of pioglitazone on prescription of antidiabetic drugs among physicians in India: A multicentre questionnaire-based observational study.
Observational study in The Indian journal of medical research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pathophysiology, phenotypes and management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Indian and Chinese populations.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2022Review
- Post-marketing safety signals: Challenges in regulatory decisions, communication & impact evaluation in developing countries.The Indian journal of medical research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
27 authors at 20 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & objectives: Pioglitazone was suspended for manufacture and sale by the Indian drug regulator in June 2013 due to its association with urinary bladder carcinoma, which was revoked within a short period (July 2013). The present questionnaire-based nationwide study was conducted to assess its impact on prescribing behaviour of physicians in India. Methods: Between December 2013 and March 2014, a validated questionnaire was administered to physicians practicing diabetes across 25 centres in India. Seven hundred and forty questionnaires fulfilling the minimum quality criteria were included in the final analysis. Results: Four hundred and sixteen (56.2%) physicians prescribed pioglitazone. Of these, 281 used it in less than the recommended dose of 15 mg/day. Most physicians (94.3%) were aware of recent regulatory events. However, only 333 (44.8%) changed their prescribing pattern. Seventeen of the 416 (4.1%) physicians who prescribed pioglitazone admitted having come across at least one type 2 diabetes mellitus patient (T2DM) who had urinary bladder carcinoma, and of these 13 said that it was in patients who took pioglitazone for a duration of more than two years. Only 7.8 per cent of physicians (n=58) categorically advocated banning pioglitazone, and the rest opined for its continuation or generating more evidence before decision could be taken regarding its use in T2DM. Interpretation & conclusions: Majority of the physicians though were aware of the regulatory changes with regard to pioglitazone, but their prescribing patterns were not changed for this drug. However, it was being used at lower than the recommended dose. There is a need for generating more evidence through improved pharmacovigilance activities and large-scale population-based prospective studies regarding the safety issues of pioglitazone, so as to make effectual risk-benefit analysis for its continual use in T2DM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.