Dataset Information

Thiazolidinediones, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, meglitinides, sulfonylureas, and hepatocellular carcinoma risk: A meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background & aims

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Effects of second-line oral antidiabetic medications on incident HCC risk in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus remain unclear. This study evaluated associations between sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, meglitinides and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, and incident HCC risk.

Methods

We systematically reviewed all studies on PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases. Studies were included if they documented: (1) exposure to oral antidiabetic medication classes; (2) HCC incidence; (3) relative risks/odds ratios (OR) for HCC incidence. Eight eligible observational studies were identified. We performed random-effects meta-analyses to calculate pooled adjusted ORs (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Thiazolidinedione use (7 studies, 280,567 participants, 19,242 HCC cases) was associated with reduced HCC risk (aOR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.86-0.97, I² = 43%), including among Asian subjects (aOR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.83-0.97), but not Western subjects (aOR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.87-1.04). Alpha-glucosidase inhibitor use (3 studies, 56,791 participants, 11,069 HCC cases) was associated with increased HCC incidence (aOR = 1.08; 95% CI = 1.02-1.14, I² = 21%). Sulfonylurea use (8 studies, 281,180 participants, 19,466 HCC cases) was associated with increased HCC risk in studies including patients with established liver disease (aOR = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.02-1.11, I² = 75%). Meglitinide use (4 studies, 58,237 participants, 11,310 HCC cases) was not associated with HCC incidence (aOR = 1.19; 95% CI = 0.89-1.60, I² = 72%).

Conclusions

Thiazolidinedione use was associated with reduced HCC incidence in Asian individuals with diabetes. Alpha-glucosidase inhibitor or sulfonylurea use was associated with modestly increased HCC risk; future research should determine whether those agents should be avoided in patients with chronic liver disease.

SUBMITTER: Arvind A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8217281 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have yielded conflicting results in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The overall effect of ICIs compared with standard therapies in unresectable HCC requires more research.ObjectiveTo estimate the efficacy and safety associated with ICIs compared with standard therapies in patients with unresectable HCC.Data sourcesPubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society of Medical Oncology meeting proceedings were systematically searched. Reference lists from studies selected by electronic searching were manually searched to identify additional relevant studies. The search included literature published or presented from February 2010 to February 2020.Study selectionFrom December 2019 to February 2020, independent reviewers evaluated each database, scanning the title, abstract, and keywords of every record retrieved. Full articles were further assessed if the information given suggested that the study was a randomized clinical trial (RCT) comparing ICIs vs standard therapies in the treatment of unresectable HCC.Data extraction and synthesisThe full text of the resulting studies and extracted data were reviewed independently according to PRISMA guidelines. Summary hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated by a random-effects model. The likelihood of ICIs being associated with overall response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was expressed by odds ratios (ORs) using a random-effects model.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were OS, PFS, ORR, and TRAEs.ResultsOf 1836 studies yielded by the search, 3 were retained, totaling 1657 patients (985 treated with ICIs vs 672 receiving standard treatment). Two studies evaluated ICIs as monotherapy, and 1 study investigated the combination of ICIs with bevacizumab. Compared with standard therapies (sorafenib in first-line therapy or placebo in second-line therapy), ICIs were associated with significantly improved OS (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.92; P = .006), PFS (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.97; P = .03), and ORR (OR, 2.82; 95% CI 2.02-3.93; P < .001). The probability of grade 3 or 4 TRAEs was lower with ICIs than with sorafenib (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20-0.96; P = .04).Conclusions and relevanceThis meta-analysis found superior efficacy and safety associated with ICIs compared with standard therapies and highlights the survival benefit associated with the combination of antiangiogenic therapy with ICIs in first-line systemic therapy of unresectable HCC.