Dataset Information

Incretin treatment and risk of pancreatitis in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised studies.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To investigate the risk of pancreatitis associated with the use of incretin-based treatments in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov.

Eligibility criteria

Randomised and non-randomised controlled clinical trials, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, and case-control studies of treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus compared with placebo, lifestyle modification, or active anti-diabetic drugs.

Data collection and analysis

Pairs of trained reviewers independently screened for eligible studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. A modified Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials and a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies were used to assess bias. We pooled data from randomised controlled trials using Peto odds ratios, and conducted four prespecified subgroup analyses and a post hoc subgroup analysis. Because of variation in outcome measures and forms of data, we describe the results of observational studies without a pooled analysis.

Results

60 studies (n=353,639), consisting of 55 randomised controlled trials (n=33,350) and five observational studies (three retrospective cohort studies, and two case-control studies; n=320,289) were included. Pooled estimates of 55 randomised controlled trials (at low or moderate risk of bias involving 37 pancreatitis events, raw event rate 0.11%) did not suggest an increased risk of pancreatitis with incretins versus control (odds ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 2.17). Estimates by type of incretin suggested similar results (1.05 (0.37 to 2.94) for GLP-1 agonists v control; 1.06 (0.46 to 2.45) for DPP-4 inhibitors v control). Analyses according to the type of control, mode, duration of treatment, and individual incretin agents suggested no differential effect by subgroups, and sensitivity analyses by alternative statistical modelling and effect measures did not show important differences in effect estimates. Three retrospective cohort studies (moderate to high risk of bias, involving 1466 pancreatitis events, raw event rate 0.47%) also did not suggest an increased risk of pancreatitis associated with either exenatide (adjusted odds ratios 0.93 (0.63 to 1.36) in one study and 0.9 (0.6 to 1.5) in another) or sitagliptin (adjusted hazard ratio 1.0, 0.7 to 1.3); a case-control study at moderate risk of bias (1003 cases, 4012 controls) also suggested no significant association (adjusted odds ratio 0.98, 0.69 to 1.38). Another case-control study (1269 cases, 1269 controls) at moderate risk of bias, however, suggested that the use of either exenatide or sitagliptin was associated with significantly increased odds of acute pancreatitis (use within two years v no use, adjusted odds ratio 2.07, 1.36 to 3.13).

Conclusions

The available evidence suggests that the incidence of pancreatitis among patients using incretins is low and that the drugs do not increase the risk of pancreatitis. Current evidence, however, is not definitive, and more carefully designed and conducted observational studies are warranted to definitively establish the extent, if any, of increased risk.

SUBMITTER: Li L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3987051 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and Aims: Patients who have an episode of acute pancreatitis (AP) frequently develop diabetes mellitus (DM) over time. The reported incidence of DM after AP varies depending on the severity, etiology and the extent of pancreatic necrosis during AP. We performed a systematic review to determine the incidence of new-onset DM after AP episode (s), and compared the rate of DM in AP patients based upon different disease characteristics. Methods: A total of 31 relevant studies with 13894 subjects were collected from Medline, Embase, and Web of Science. Stata 15 software was used for data analyses in the meta-analysis. Results: The random-effects pooled incidence was 23.0% for DM (95% CI 16.0-31.0%) and 15.0% (95% CI 9.0-23.0%) for DM treated with insulin. We noted substantial heterogeneity in incidence estimates for DM and DM treated with insulin (I 2 = 95.61 and 71.78%; both p < 0·001). The DM incidence was higher in the populations that had a severe AP (SAP) episode than in those with mild acute pancreatitis (MAP) (39 vs. 14%). Patients that displayed pancreatic necrosis during the AP attack(s) had a higher frequency of DM than those without necrosis (37 vs. 11%). In addition, the pooled incidence of DM was higher after alcoholic compared to biliary AP (28 vs. 12%). The incidence of insulin use after SAP and alcoholic AP was 21 and 18%, respectively, with very low heterogeneities. According to duration of follow-up, the pooled rate of DM and insulin use within 5 years after AP was 20 and 14%, while the rate associated with follow-up duration of more than 5 years was elevated to 37 and 25%, respectively. On meta-regression, year of publication, male proportion, age at DM test, and duration of follow-up were neither positively nor negatively associated with the incidence of DM and DM treated with insulin in patients who had a prior AP attack. Conclusion: Patients with AP developed DM after discharge from hospital with a frequency of about 23%. SAP, alcoholic AP and acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) were associated with increased incidence of DM. Assessments of severity, etiology, and pancreatic necrosis are critical for predicting DM development after AP.

Project description:Objective To assess the impact of incretin based treatment on all cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.Data sources Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov.Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials that compared glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors with placebo or active anti-diabetic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes.Data collection and analysis Paired reviewers independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias of included studies, and extracted data. Peto's method was used as the primary approach to pool effect estimates from trials, sensitivity analyses were carried out with other statistical approaches, and meta-regression was applied for six prespecified hypotheses to explore heterogeneity. The GRADE approach was used to rate the quality of evidence.Results 189 randomised controlled trials (n=155?145) were included, all of which were at low to moderate risk of bias; 77 reported no events of death and 112 reported 3888 deaths among 151?614 patients. Meta-analysis of 189 trials showed no difference in all cause mortality between incretin drugs versus control (1925/84?136 v 1963/67?478; odds ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.02, I2=0%; risk difference 3 fewer events (95% confidence interval 7 fewer to 1 more) per 1000 patients over five years; moderate quality evidence). Results suggested the possibility of a mortality benefit with GLP-1 agonists but not DPP-4 inhibitors, but the subgroup hypothesis had low credibility. Sensitivity analyses showed no important differences in the estimates of effects.Conclusions Current evidence does not support the suggestion that incretin based treatment increases all cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. Further studies are warranted to examine if the effect differs between GLP-1 agonists versus DPP-4 inhibitors.

Project description:BackgroundEarly screening of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is essential for improved prognosis and effective delay of clinical complications. However, testing for high glycemia often requires invasive and painful blood testing, limiting its large-scale applicability. We have combined new, unpublished data with published data comparing salivary glucose levels in type 2 DM patients and controls and/or looked at the correlation between salivary glucose and glycemia/HbA1c to systematically review the effectiveness of salivary glucose to estimate glycemia and HbA1c. We further discuss salivary glucose as a biomarker for large-scale screening of diabetes or developing type 2 DM.Methods and findingsWe conducted a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed published articles that reported data regarding mean salivary glucose levels and/or correlation between salivary glucose levels and glycemia or HbA1c for type 2 DM and non-diabetic individuals and combined them with our own unpublished results. Our global meta-analysis of standardized mean differences on salivary glucose levels shows an overall large positive effect of type 2 DM over salivary glucose (Hedge's g = 1.37). The global correlation coefficient (r) between salivary glucose and glycemia was large (r = 0.49), with subgroups ranging from medium (r = 0.30 in non-diabetics) to very large (r = 0.67 in diabetics). Meta-analysis of the global correlation between salivary glucose and HbA1c showed an overall association of medium strength (r = 0.37).ConclusionsOur systematic review reports an overall meaningful salivary glucose concentration increase in type 2 DM and a significant overall relationship between salivary glucose concentration and associated glycemia/HbA1c values, with the strength of the correlation increasing for higher glycemia/HbA1c values. These results support the potential of salivary glucose levels as a biomarker for type 2 DM, providing a less painful/invasive method for screening type 2 DM, as well as for monitoring blood glucose levels in large cohorts of DM patients.