Dataset Information

Insulin glargine and cancer risk in patients with diabetes: a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

The role of insulin glargine as a risk factor for cancer is controversial in human studies. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the relationship between insulin glargine and cancer incidence.

Methods

All observational studies and randomized controlled trials evaluating the relationship of insulin glargine and cancer risk were identified in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and the Chinese Biomedical Medical Literature Database, through March 2012. Odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated with a random-effects model. Confidence in the estimates of the obtained effects (quality of evidence) was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

Results

A total of 11 studies including 448,928 study subjects and 19,128 cancer patients were finally identified for the meta-analysis. Insulin glargine use was associated with a lower odds of cancer compared with non-glargine insulin use (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98, P = 0.03; very low-quality evidence). Glargine did not increase the odds of breast cancer (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.46, P = 0.966; very low-quality evidence). Compared with non-glargine insulin, no significant association was found between insulin glargine and prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer and respiratory tract cancer. Insulin glargine use was associated with lower odds of other site-specific cancer.

Conclusions

Results from the meta-analysis don't support the link between insulin glargine and an increased risk of cancer and the confidence in the estimates of the effects is very low. Further studies are needed to examine the relation between insulin glargine and cancer risk, especially breast cancer.

SUBMITTER: Tang X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3526637 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Insulin glargine and cancer risk in patients with diabetes: a meta-analysis.

Tang Xulei X Yang Lin L He Zhiyu Z Liu Jingfang J

PloS one 20121219 12

<h4>Aim</h4>The role of insulin glargine as a risk factor for cancer is controversial in human studies. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the relationship between insulin glargine and cancer incidence.<h4>Methods</h4>All observational studies and randomized controlled trials evaluating the relationship of insulin glargine and cancer risk were identified in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and the Chinese Biomedical Medical Literature Database, through March 2012. Odds ...[more]

PMID: 23284776

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:To evaluate the efficacy and safety as well as the long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine 100 U/mL (IGlar) versus insulin degludec (IDeg) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. METHODS:A systematic search of English and Chinese electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IGlar with IDeg for the treatment of T2DM was performed, followed by a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of IGlar versus IDeg. The CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and cost-effectiveness of IGlar versus IDeg. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the underlying parameter uncertainty. RESULTS:Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The IGlar group showed a statistically significant decrease in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline compared to the IDeg group (mean difference [MD] 0.08%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01-0.14%, P = 0.02). Body mass index (BMI) control was numerically better in the IGlar group than in the IDeg group (MD 0.07 kg/m2, 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.14 kg/m2, P = 0.08). In terms of hypoglycemia, the incidence of non-severe overall hypoglycemia was comparable between the IDeg and IGlar patient groups (P > 0.05), while the incidence of non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemia (relative risk [RR 0.79], 95% CI 0.70-0.90, P < 0.01) and the event rates of non-severe overall (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97, P < 0.01) and non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemia (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97, P < 0.01) were lower in the IDeg group. The incidences and event rates of both severe overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia were similar for the two groups (P > 0.05). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that IGlar is the dominant treatment option compared with IDeg, with a lifetime savings of 1004 Chinese yuan in direct medical costs and a net gain of 0.015 QALYs per patient. Both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS:IGlar is a cost-saving option with incremental effectiveness compared with IDeg for the treatment of T2DM in China. FUNDING:Sanofi China.

Project description:BackgroundChronically elevated blood glucose levels are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Many diabetes patients will eventually require insulin treatment to maintain good glycaemic control. There are still uncertainties about the optimal insulin treatment regimens for type 2 diabetes, but the long-acting insulin analogues seem beneficial. Several reviews have compared either insulin detemir or insulin glargine to NPH insulin, but research directly comparing both insulin analogues is limited.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with each other in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.Search strategyWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, online registries of ongoing trials and abstract books. Date of last search was January 2011.Selection criteriaAll randomised controlled trials comparing insulin detemir with insulin glargine with a duration of 12 weeks or longer were included.Data collection and analysisTwo authors independently selected the studies and extracted the data. Pooling of studies by means of random-effects meta-analysis was performed.Main resultsThis review examined four trials lasting 24 to 52 weeks involving 2250 people randomised to either insulin detemir or glargine. Overall, risk of bias of the evaluated studies was high. Insulin glargine was dosed once-daily in the evening. Insulin detemir was initiated once-daily in the evening with the option of an additional dose in the morning in three studies and initiated twice-daily in one study. Of randomised patients 13.6% to 57.2% were injecting insulin detemir twice-daily at the end of trial.Glycaemic control, measured by glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and HbA1c equal to or less than 7% with or without hypoglycaemia, did not differ statistically significantly between treatment groups.The results showed no significant differences in overall, nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia between treatment groups.Insulin detemir was associated with less weight gain. Treatment with insulin glargine resulted in a lower daily basal insulin dose and a lower number of injection site reactions.There was no significant difference in the variability of FPG or glucose values in 24-hour profiles between treatment groups. It was not possible to draw conclusions on quality of life, costs or mortality. Only one trial reported results on health-related quality of life and showed no significant differences between treatment groups.Authors' conclusionsOur analyses suggest that there is no clinically relevant difference in efficacy or safety between insulin detemir and insulin glargine for targeting hyperglycaemia. However, to achieve the same glycaemic control insulin detemir was often injected twice-daily in a higher dose but with less weight gain, while insulin glargine was injected once-daily, with somewhat fewer injection site reactions.

Dataset Information

Insulin glargine and cancer risk in patients with diabetes: a meta-analysis.

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Insulin glargine and cancer risk in patients with diabetes: a meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets