Dataset Information

Incretin-Based Therapy and Risk of Pancreatic Cancer in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The present study aims to evaluate the risk of pancreatic cancer with incretin-based therapy among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov for eligible studies published up to March 06 2016. This meta-analysis includes all studies reporting adverse events of pancreatic cancer with use of incretin-based therapies compared with placebo or non-incretin anti-diabetic drugs in patients with T2DM. We used fixed-effect model to compare pooled relative risk (RR) with related 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

A total of 159 randomized trials were identified. Out of these, 135 studies were excluded as pancreatic cancer occurrence had not been included as an end point. The remaining 24 trials enrolling 47,904 participants were further assessed. Overall, no increased risk of pancreatic cancer were detected in association with incretin-based treatment (RR = 0.7, 95% CI 0.37-1.05). The incidence of pancreatic neoplasm was even lower among incretin-based groups than controls (RR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.29-0.87) in trials with duration more than 104 weeks. There was even decreased risk of pancreatic cancer within groups paralleled by incretin-matched placebos (RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.93) than by non-incretin anti-diabetic drugs. Neither monotherapy (RR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.38-1.01) nor combination regimen (RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.45-1.90) of incretin mimetics increased the risk of pancreatic cancer.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis shows that incretin-based therapies are not associated with increase in the risk of pancreatic cancer. Interestingly, subgroup analyses suggested lower risk of pancreatic cancer in incretin groups than placebo in long-term studies (>104 weeks). Considering the inconsistent results among randomized trials and previous epidemiological investigations, more such studies should be conducted to clarify the existence or non-existence of this association.

Funding

This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 81270476 and 81470830).

SUBMITTER: Chen H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5118236 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:This study was designed to evaluate the efficiency and tolerability of empagliflozin (EMPA) as monotherapy or add-on to existing therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing efficacy and safety of EMPA vs placebo or EMPA plus other antidiabetes drugs vs placebo plus other oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) in T2DM were recruited from electronic database Pubmed, Web of Knowledge, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), supplemented by a hand search of the reference lists of selected articles. Main effect sizes were change from baseline on glycemia control, body weight, blood pressure, and complications (i.e., incidence of urinary and genital tract infections, and morbidity of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia). Random-effects model was used to account for clinical or methodologic heterogeneity across studies. RESULTS:Fifteen RCTs with a total number of 7891 individuals (5374 in EMPA group and 2517 in control group) were suitable for this meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that significant improvements in glycemia control, body weight, and blood pressure were associated with EMPA application (i.e., monotherapy and add-on therapy) in patient with T2DM when compared with placebo. Meanwhile, EMPA 10 and 20?mg improved glycemia, body weight, and blood pressure control for patients with T2DM. There was no significant difference in incidence of hypoglycemia and urinary tract infections across EMPA and placebo group. Significant reduced risk of hyperglycemia was revealed in EMPA group vs placebo (risk ratio: 0.34, 95%confidence interval: 0.23-0.49, P?<?.00001), except in patients on background insulin therapy. However, increased risk of genital infection was noted across EMPA vs placebo (risk ratio: 2.59, 95% confidence interval: 1.80-3.71, P?<?.00001). CONCLUSION:Our evidence supports the application of EMPA in treatment of patients with T2DM who are obesity or at risk of weight gain.

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) accounts for approximately 90% of diabetes cases. Resistance training (RT) is frequently employed to diminish Glycated Hemoglobin (HbA1c) and Fast Blood Glucose (FBG) levels in T2DM patients. Yet, the specific dose-response relationships between RT variables such as training duration, frequency, and intensity for T2DM remain under-researched.ObjectivesThis meta-analysis aimed to elucidate the overarching effects of RT on HbA1c and FBG metrics and to provide dose-response relationships of RT variables. This was achieved by examining randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported reductions in HbA1c and FBG among T2DM patients.MethodsComprehensive literature searches were conducted up to 25th February 2023 across databases including EMBASE, Pubmed, Cochrane, CENTRAL, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, and the Chinese Biomedical Database. The Physical Therapy Evidence Database (PEDro) was leveraged to appraise the quality of selected studies based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 16.Results26 studies that include 1336 participants met the criteria for inclusion. RT significantly reduced HbA1c and FBG levels in comparison to control groups (P<0.05). Meta-regression analyses revealed that the number of repetitions per set (p=0.034) was a significant predictor of RT's efficacy on HbA1c. Subgroup analyses indicated that the most pronounced reductions in HbA1c and FBG occurred with a training duration of 12-16 weeks, intensities of 70-80% of 1 RM, training frequencies of 2-3 times per week, 3 sets per session, 8-10 repetitions per set, and less than a 60-second rest interval.ConclusionThe beneficial impact of RT on HbA1c and FBG in T2DM patients is affirmed by this systematic review and meta-analysis. Moreover, the critical training parameters identified in this study are pivotal in enhancing HbA1c and FBG reductions, providing a reference for clinical staff to formulate RT exercise regiments for T2DM patients.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42023414616.

Project description:BackgroundA network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to explore the cardiovascular outcomes of all the kind and dosages of sodium-glucose cotransport-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients.Method and resultThe Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases were systematically searched for studies to compare the therapeutic effects of different SGLT2 inhibitors in T2DM patients. The effect measurements estimate chosen were odds ratios (ORs) and their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Forty-seven RCTs involving a total of 70574 participants were eligible for direct and indirect comparisons. In direct comparison, treatment with dapagliflozin 5mg showed significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality compared with treatment with dapagliflozin 2.5mg (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01-0.70). According to NMA, interestingly, empagliflozin 10mg/25mg, and canagliflozin 100mg was associated with significantly lower risks of all-cause mortality compared with placebo (OR of 0.70, 95% CI 0.58-0.85; 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.84; and 0.83, 95% CI 0.73-0.95, respectively). Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin 10mg, empagliflozin 10mg and 25mg displayed the lower risks for cardiovascular events (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.44-1.00; OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22-0.93; and 0.43, 95% CI 0.24-0.74, respectively) by direct comparison. Moreover, canagliflozin 100/300mg showed significantly higher risks of cardiovascular events compared with empagliflozin 10mg (OR of 4.83, 95% CI 1.14-20.46 and 5.31, 95% CI 1.26-22.34, respectively) and empagliflozin 25mg (4.23, 95% CI 1.13-15.83 and 4.65, 95% CI 1.25-17.27, respectively) according to NMA. There were non-significant differences among all interventions in volume depletion in traditional pairwise meta-analysis. While in NMA, canagliflozin 100/300mg were associated with significantly increased risks of volume depletion compared with placebo (OR of 1.47, 95% CI 1.08-1.99 and 2.19, 95% CI 1.66-2.90, respectively).ConclusionIn the limitations of the NMA, this study showed that empagliflozin might be better than other SGLT2 inhibitors with low risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in patients with T2DM suggesting the need for ad hoc RCTs.