Dataset Information

Niacin therapy and the risk of new-onset diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Previous studies have suggested that niacin treatment raises glucose levels in patients with diabetes and may increase the risk of developing diabetes. We undertook a meta-analysis of published and unpublished data from randomised trials to confirm whether an association exists between niacin and new-onset diabetes.

Methods

We searched Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from 1975 to 2014, for randomised controlled trials of niacin primarily designed to assess its effects on cardiovascular endpoints and cardiovascular surrogate markers. We included trials with ≥50 non-diabetic participants and average follow-up of ≥24 weeks. Published data were tabulated and unpublished data sought from investigators. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for new-onset diabetes with random-effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity between trials was assessed using the I(2) statistic.

Results

In 11 trials with 26 340 non-diabetic participants, 1371 (725/13 121 assigned niacin; 646/13 219 assigned control) were diagnosed with diabetes during a weighted mean follow-up of 3.6 years. Niacin therapy was associated with a RR of 1.34 (95% CIs 1.21 to 1.49) for new-onset diabetes, with limited heterogeneity between trials (I(2)=0.0%, p=0.87). This equates to one additional case of diabetes per 43 (95% CI 30 to 70) initially non-diabetic individuals who are treated with niacin for 5 years. Results were consistent regardless of whether participants received background statin therapy (p for interaction=0.88) or combined therapy with laropiprant (p for interaction=0.52).

Conclusions

Niacin therapy is associated with a moderately increased risk of developing diabetes regardless of background statin or combination laropiprant therapy.

SUBMITTER: Goldie C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4752613 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the effects on cardiovascular outcomes of drug interventions that increase high density lipoprotein levels.DesignMeta-analysis.Studies reviewedTherapeutic benefit of niacin, fibrates, and cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitors on cardiovascular events (all cause mortality, coronary heart disease mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke).Results117,411 patients were randomised in a total of 39 trials. All interventions increased the levels of high density lipoprotein cholesterol. No significant effect was seen on all cause mortality for niacin (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.15, P=0.59), fibrates (0.98, 0.89 to 1.08, P=0.66), or CETP inhibitors (1.16, 0.93 to 1.44, P=0.19); on coronary heart disease mortality for niacin (0.93, 0.76 to 1.12, P=0.44), fibrates (0.92, 0.81 to 1.04, P=0.19), or CETP inhibitors (1.00, 0.80 to 1.24, P=0.99); or on stroke outcomes for niacin (0.96, 0.75 to 1.22, P=0.72), fibrates (1.01, 0.90 to 1.13, P=0.84), or CETP inhibitors (1.14, 0.90 to 1.45, P=0.29). In studies with patients not receiving statins (before the statin era), niacin was associated with a significant reduction in non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.69, 0.56 to 0.85, P=0.0004). However, in studies where statins were already being taken, niacin showed no significant effect (0.96, 0.85 to 1.09, P=0.52). A significant difference was seen between these subgroups (P=0.007). A similar trend relating to non-fatal myocardial infarction was seen with fibrates: without statin treatment (0.78, 0.71 to 0.86, P<0.001) and with all or some patients taking statins (0.83, 0.69 to 1.01, P=0.07); P=0.58 for difference.ConclusionsNeither niacin, fibrates, nor CETP inhibitors, three highly effective agents for increasing high density lipoprotein levels, reduced all cause mortality, coronary heart disease mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke in patients treated with statins. Although observational studies might suggest a simplistic hypothesis for high density lipoprotein cholesterol, that increasing the levels pharmacologically would generally reduce cardiovascular events, in the current era of widespread use of statins in dyslipidaemia, substantial trials of these three agents do not support this concept.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.

Project description:BackgroundWomen at risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) need preventative interventions.ObjectiveTo evaluate targeted interventions before and during pregnancy for women identified as being at risk of developing GDM.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis conducted following PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library in addition to reference and citation lists were searched to identify eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) utilising risk stratification during the preconception period or in the first/early second trimester. Screening and data extraction were carried out by the authors independently. Quality assessment was conducted based on the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Random effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis were performed.ResultsEighty-four RCTs were included: two during preconception and 82 in pregnancy, with a pooled sample of 22,568 women. Interventions were behavioural (n = 54), dietary supplementation (n = 19) and pharmacological (n = 11). Predictive factors for risk assessment varied; only one study utilised a validated prediction model. Gestational diabetes was reduced in diet and physical activity interventions (risk difference - 0.03, 95% CI 0.06, - 0.01; I2 58.69%), inositol (risk difference - 0.19, 95% CI 0.33, - 0.06; I2 92.19%), and vitamin D supplements (risk difference - 0.16, 95% CI 0.25, - 0.06; I2 32.27%). Subgroup analysis showed that diet and physical activity interventions were beneficial in women with ≥ 2 GDM risk factors (risk difference - 0.16, 95% CI 0.25, - 0.07; I2 11.23%) while inositol supplementation was effective in women with overweight or obesity (risk difference - 0.17, 95% CI 0.22, - 0.11; I2 0.01%). Effectiveness of all other interventions were not statistically significant.ConclusionsThis review provides evidence that interventions targeted at women at risk of GDM may be an effective strategy for prevention. Further studies using validated prediction tools or multiple risk factors to target high-risk women for intervention before and during pregnancy are warranted.

Project description:BackgroundInnate immunity contributes to the pathogenesis of autoimmune diseases, such as type 1 diabetes, but until now no randomised, controlled trials of blockade of the key innate immune mediator interleukin-1 have been done. We aimed to assess whether canakinumab, a human monoclonal anti-interleukin-1 antibody, or anakinra, a human interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, improved β-cell function in recent-onset type 1 diabetes.MethodsWe did two randomised, placebo-controlled trials in two groups of patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes and mixed-meal-tolerance-test-stimulated C peptide of at least 0·2 nM. Patients in the canakinumab trial were aged 6-45 years and those in the anakinra trial were aged 18-35 years. Patients in the canakinumab trial were enrolled at 12 sites in the USA and Canada and those in the anakinra trial were enrolled at 14 sites across Europe. Participants were randomly assigned by computer-generated blocked randomisation to subcutaneous injection of either 2 mg/kg (maximum 300 mg) canakinumab or placebo monthly for 12 months or 100 mg anakinra or placebo daily for 9 months. Participants and carers were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was baseline-adjusted 2-h area under curve C-peptide response to the mixed meal tolerance test at 12 months (canakinumab trial) and 9 months (anakinra trial). Analyses were by intention to treat. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00947427 and NCT00711503, and EudraCT number 2007-007146-34.FindingsPatients were enrolled in the canakinumab trial between Nov 12, 2010, and April 11, 2011, and in the anakinra trial between Jan 26, 2009, and May 25, 2011. 69 patients were randomly assigned to canakinumab (n=47) or placebo (n=22) monthly for 12 months and 69 were randomly assigned to anakinra (n=35) or placebo (n=34) daily for 9 months. No interim analyses were done. 45 canakinumab-treated and 21 placebo-treated patients in the canakinumab trial and 25 anakinra-treated and 26 placebo-treated patients in the anakinra trial were included in the primary analyses. The difference in C peptide area under curve between the canakinumab and placebo groups at 12 months was 0·01 nmol/L (95% CI -0·11 to 0·14; p=0·86), and between the anakinra and the placebo groups at 9 months was 0·02 nmol/L (-0·09 to 0·15; p=0·71). The number and severity of adverse events did not differ between groups in the canakinumab trial. In the anakinra trial, patients in the anakinra group had significantly higher grades of adverse events than the placebo group (p=0·018), which was mainly because of a higher number of injection site reactions in the anakinra group.InterpretationCanakinumab and anakinra were safe but were not effective as single immunomodulatory drugs in recent-onset type 1 diabetes. Interleukin-1 blockade might be more effective in combination with treatments that target adaptive immunity in organ-specific autoimmune disorders.FundingNational Institutes of Health and Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.