Pioglitazone has a dubious bladder cancer risk but an undoubted cardiovascular benefit

On 8 April 2014, a US jury ordered Takeda and Eli Lilly to pay $9 bn in punitive damages after finding that they had concealed the cancer risks associated with pioglitazone. By contrast, on 28 August 2014, the long‐awaited outcome of the 10‐year Kaiser Permanente Northern California study was announced. That study was specifically designed to investigate whether patients exposed to pioglitazone were at an increased risk of bladder cancer and found no association; thus, at last, the controversial issue has been resolved. A review, in retrospect, of the story of the proposed link between pioglitazone and bladder cancer reveals flaws at every stage. In 2012, a BMJ editorial, in keeping with some other contemporary reports, stated ‘it can confidently be assumed that pioglitazone increases the risk of bladder cancer’. Examination of the information which led to such a statement shows that: 1) the pre‐clinical findings of bladder cancer in male rats is not indicative of human risk; 2) there is no association between bladder cancer and pioglitazone in randomized controlled trials, once cases that could not plausibly be related to treatment are removed; and 3) the observational studies that have suggested a link have over‐extrapolated from the data: pioglitazone‐treated patients had more risk factors for bladder cancer than those not treated with pioglitazone. Meanwhile careful study of randomized controlled trials shows evidence of cardiovascular benefit from pioglitazone in Type 2 diabetes, a condition which results, more than anything, in premature cardiovascular death and morbidity.     

Reciprocal Peer Support for Post-partum Patients with Diabetes: A Needs Assessment for the Diabetes Buddy Program

While peer support has been investigated in multiple clinical contexts, its application to the postpartum setting is unknown. The aim was to assess acceptability of a postpartum peer support program for women with diabetes. Observational survey-based needs assessment of forty low-income women with diabetes, receiving care at a major medical institution. Mean age and gravidity were 30.7 years and 3.15 ± 1.67 respectively. 45 % expressed interest in a “buddy.” There was no significant difference between groups desiring and not desiring this program. A majority of respondents desired telephone, text messaging, and in-person contacts (79.2, 72.1, 83.8 %), with 72.5 % of patients desiring diabetes-related activities during clinic waiting time. Many women desire a postpartum diabetes reciprocal peer program for support outside of clinician visits. Patients are receptive to educational services during their wait and outside of clinic time, a potentially valuable opportunity to share important health information.     

Supraclavicular lymphadenopathy following COVID-19 vaccination: an increasing presentation to the two-week wait neck lump clinic?

The first COVID-19 vaccination was given in December 2020 and there is an effort to vaccinate the international population on a massive scale. Common side effects from the vaccine include headache and tiredness. Regional lymphadenopathy has been described in relation to other vaccines. We describe two cases of supraclavicular reactive lymphadenopathy presenting in patients who had the COVID vaccination in the ipsilateral arm. Awareness of this diagnosis is important for patients presenting to the neck lump clinic.     

Conserving resources in the diagnosis of intraoral fibroepithelial polyps

Fibroepithelial polyps (FEPs) are common, benign intraoral lesions that tend to develop slowly at predictable sites, often in response to local irritation or trauma. Historical precedent often results in referral to oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) departments for biopsy, often irrespective of symptoms, and histological assessment. OMFS and pathology services are struggling to cope with an increasing workload that will potentially lead to widespread delays to diagnosis and treatment. Over the past 20 years, clinical pathways and guidance have been developed to ensure that healthcare interventions, such as the removal of third molars, tonsils, skin tags, and benign moles, are evidence-based, have a net patient benefit, and ensure the best use of finite NHS resources. However, no such guidance exists for intraoral lesions and we regard this as an oversight. We analysed the removal of 682 FEPs over a seven-year period and report sensitivities of 92.4% for a “confirmed clinical suspicion of an FEP” and 99.7% for a “confirmed clinical suspicion of a benign diagnosis”. The incidence of non-benign disease was 0.3%. Primary care dentists should be able to diagnose and monitor FEPs and refer only if symptoms are serious or in high-risk patients or sites. Adopting this practice across the UK could free up to 1825 four-hour OMFS clinics, 405 hours of consultant histopathologists’ time, and recurring savings to the NHS estimated to be in the region of £620 000/annum. We believe that the removal of FEPs should be reclassified as an “intervention not normally funded”, and the time and resources put to better use treating patients with lesions of questionable pathology.