Incretin-based therapies and risk of pancreatic cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Real-world evidence on the association of novel antidiabetic medication use with cancer risk and protective effects: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Novel antidiabetic medications (SGLT-2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, and GLP-1 agonists) are commonly used worldwide; however, the available research lacks definitive conclusions on their protective effects or potential risks on cancer.

Objectives

Compared to other antidiabetics, our systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to use real-world studies to assess the potential cancer risks or protective effects of these novel antidiabetics.

Methods

We comprehensively searched PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science from their inception until November 30, 2023. We included observational studies examining at least one novel antidiabetics in the systematic review. The novel antidiabetics include sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), and glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP-1a).

Design

We focused on cohort studies that provided data on cancer incidence and sample size in the NMA. Using NetMetaXL®, the random effects model with informative priors was used in the NMA to estimate the pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI).

Results

The systematic review included 62 studies, of which 22 met the inclusion criteria for the NMA. SGLT-2i users had lower overall cancer risk compared to sulfonylureas (OR: 0.54; 95% CrI: 0.40-0.74, low certainty), GLP-1a (OR: 0.70; 95% CrI: 0.53-0.92, low certainty), and DPP-4i users (OR: 0.72; 95% CrI: 0.57-0.92, very low certainty). DPP-4i users also had a lower cancer risk than sulfonylureas users (OR: 0.76; 95% CrI: 0.60-0.96, low certainty). No other statistically significant ORs were found in other direct comparisons.

Conclusion

SGLT-2i users have a lower risk of developing cancers than sulfonylureas, GLP-1a, and DPP-4i users. These results may improve patient safety by guiding future clinical practice and medication choices. Future studies should investigate the mechanisms behind these observed associations.

Trial registration

This NMA was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023469941).

A review of the last decade: pancreatic cancer and type 2 diabetes

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a prevalent gastrointestinal tumour known for its high degree of malignancy, resulting in a mere 10% five-year survival rate for most patients. Over the past decade, a growing body of research has shed light on the intricate bidirectional association between PC and Type 2 diabetes (T2DM). The collection of PC- and T2DM-related articles is derived from two comprehensive databases, namely WOS (Web of Science Core Collection) and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure). This article discusses the last 10 years of research trends in PC and T2DM and explores their potential regulatory relationship as well as related medications.

Pancreatitis and Pancreatic Cancer Risk Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis sought to assess the relationship between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4) and the risk of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer by synthesizing data from randomized, controlled trials, in light of the conflicting findings from observational studies and previous meta-analyses.

METHODS

Cochrane, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and PubMed databases that compared the use of DPP-4 inhibitors and that reported pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer events in patients with diabetes mellitus Type 2 (T2DM) were searched using specific terms. Studies were included if they satisfied the following inclusion criteria: They were randomized trials comparing DPP-4 inhibitors use in patients with T2DM; The study's duration was longer than 24 weeks; And they reported pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer events. Stata 15 MP was used to analyze the data, and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to represent the results.

FINDINGS

A total of 81,737 participants with T2DM were included in the analysis. The results showed that during a mean follow-up period of 24 to 520 weeks, The use of DPP-4 inhibitors was not associated with an increased risk of pancreatitis (Peto-OR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.74, 1.27) or pancreatic cancer (Peto-OR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.59, 1.30).

IMPLICATIONS

Current evidence fails to validate a significant correlation between DPP-4 therapy and pancreatitis or pancreatic cancer. However, subgroup analyses showed that sitagliptin was associated with a significant reduction in pancreatitis risk compared to the control group; furthermore, when comparing different types of control medications, a significant decrease in pancreatic cancer risk was observed among DPP-4 users compared to GLP-1 users.

Association between nonalcholic fatty liver disease and pancreatic cancer: Epidemiology, mechanisms, and antidiabetic medication

Extrahepatic malignancies are the leading cause of death in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Of these cancers, pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal; however, the link between NAFLD and pancreatic cancer remains unclear. Recently, various research results have been reported on the association between NAFLD and pancreatic cancer, and the results of compiling this information revealed the following. First, the prevalence of pancreatic cancer in patients with NAFLD is at 0.26%. Second, the currently evident pathogenesis includes intrapancreatic risk factors, such as: (1) non-alcoholic fatty pancreas disease, and (2) intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm; and extrapancreatic risk factors, such as: (1) insulin resistance and adipocytokines, (2) proinflammatory cytokines, and (3) dysbiosis. Finally, metformin and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors may reduce the risk of pancreatic cancer in diabetes patients with NAFLD. In this review, we summarize the recent evidence on the epidemiology and mechanisms for NAFLD-related pancreatic cancer. We further discuss the impact of anti-diabetic medication on pancreatic cancer.

Cancer biology in diabetes update: Focusing on antidiabetic drugs

The association of type 2 diabetes with certain cancer risk has been of great interest for years. However, the effect of diabetic medications on cancer development is not fully understood. Prospective clinical trials have not elucidated the long-term influence of hypoglycemic drugs on cancer incidence and the safety for cancer-bearing patients with diabetes, whereas numerous preclinical studies have shown that antidiabetic drugs could have an impact on carcinogenesis processes beyond the glycemic control effect. Because there is no evidence of the safety profile of antidiabetic agents on cancer biology, careful consideration would be required when prescribing any medicines to patients with diabetes and existing tumor. In this review, we discuss the potential influence of each diabetes therapy in cancer 'initiation', 'promotion' and 'progression'.

A Primer on Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Diabetes Research

A systematic review is a rigorous process that involves identifying, selecting, and synthesizing available evidence pertaining to an a priori-defined research question. The resulting evidence base may be summarized qualitatively or through a quantitative analytic approach known as meta-analysis. Systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMAs) have risen in popularity across the scientific realm including diabetes research. Although well-conducted SRMAs are an indispensable tool in informing evidence-based medicine, the proliferation of SRMAs has led to many reviews of questionable quality and misleading conclusions. The objective of this article is to provide up-to-date knowledge and a comprehensive understanding of strengths and limitations of SRMAs. We first provide an overview of the SRMA process and offer ways to identify common pitfalls at key steps. We then describe best practices as well as evolving approaches to mitigate biases, improve transparency, and enhance rigor. We discuss several recent developments in SRMAs including individual-level meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, umbrella reviews, and prospective meta-analyses. Additionally, we outline several strategies that can be used to enhance quality of SRMAs and present key questions that authors, editors, and readers should consider in preparing or critically reviewing SRMAs.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies of the association between the use of incretin-based therapies and the risk of pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Some early reports in the medical literature have raised concern about a possible increased risk of pancreatic cancer associated with the use of two broad classes of incretin-based therapies, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. This possibility has been somewhat mitigated by the null findings meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, but the usefulness of their findings was hampered by serious shortcomings of lack of power and representativeness. These shortcomings can typically be addressed by observational studies, but observational studies on the topic have yielded conflicting findings. A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies was performed to qualitatively and quantitatively appraise the totality of evidence on the association between the use of incretin-based therapies and the risk of pancreatic cancer in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

The PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar databases were searched. The study quality was appraised using the ROBINS-I tool and based on the presence of pharmacoepidemiology biases. A random-effects model was used to estimate the summary relative risks with corresponding CIs.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies were included. The qualitative assessment revealed that all studies had inadequate follow-up (≤5 years), 12 studies were suspected to suffer from time-lag bias (due to inappropriate choice of comparator group) to varying extent, five studies included prevalent users, five studies did not implement exposure lag period, five studies had a serious risk of bias due to confounding, and one study had a time-window bias. The quantitative assessment showed no indication of an increased risk when all studies were pooled together (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87, 1.24) and when the analysis was restricted to the studies with the least bias (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.51, 1.17). However, the pooled RRs were more frequently higher in the studies with less rigorous design and analysis. Specifically, a tendency toward an increased risk was observed in the studies with (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.04, 1.72) or possibly with (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.89, 1.36) time-lag bias, in the studies that did not apply (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.93, 1.63) or with potentially inadequate exposure lag period of 6 months (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.66, 1.94), in the studies that inappropriate comparator group of a combination of unspecified (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.25, 1.78) or non-insulin (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93, 1.42) antidiabetic drugs, and in the studies with serious risk of bias due to confounding (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.56, 2.49).

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the totality of evidence from observational studies does not support the claim that the use of incretin-based therapies is associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer in routine clinical practice. The increased risk of pancreatic cancer observed in observational studies reflects bias resulting from suboptimal methodological approaches, which need to be avoided by future studies.

Extra-Glycemic Effects of Anti-Diabetic Medications: Two Birds with One Stone?

The world is suffering from a rapid increase in the number of people with diabetes due to the increased prevalence of obesity and lengthened life span. Since the development of insulin thanks to the efforts of Prof. Banting and Dr. Best in 1922, for which they won the Nobel Prize, remarkable developments in anti-diabetic medications have dramatically lengthened the lifespan of patients with diabetes. However, the control rate of hyperglycemia in patients with diabetes remains unsatisfactory, since glycemic control requires both medication and lifestyle modifications to slow the deterioration of pancreatic beta-cell function and prevent diabetic complications. From the initial "triumvirate" to the "ominous octet," and now the "egregious eleven," the number of organs recognized as being involved in hyperglycemia and diabetes has increased with the development of anti-diabetic medications. Recent unexpected results from outcome trials of anti-diabetic medications have enabled anti-diabetic medications to be indicated for the prevention of chronic kidney disease and heart failure, even in patients without diabetes. In this review, I would like to summarize the extra-glycemic effects of anti-diabetic medications.

Identification of the Shared Gene Signatures and Biological Mechanism in Type 2 Diabetes and Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND

The relationship between pancreatic cancer (PC) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has long been widely recognized, but the interaction mechanisms are still unknown. This study was aimed to investigate the shared gene signatures and molecular processes between PC and T2DM.

METHODS

The Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database was used to retrieve the RNA sequence and patient information of PC and T2DM. Weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) was performed to discover a co-expression network associated with PC and T2DM. Enrichment analysis of shared genes present in PC and T2DM was performed by ClueGO software. These results were validated in the other four cohorts based on differential gene analysis. The predictive significance of S100A6 in PC was evaluated using univariate and multivariate Cox analyses, as well as Kaplan-Meier plots. The biological process of S100A6 enrichment in PC was detected using Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA). The involvement of S100A6 in the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) was assessed by CIBERSORT. In vitro assays were used to further confirm the function of S100A6 in PC.

RESULTS

WGCNA recognized three major modules for T2DM and two major modules for PC. There were 44 shared genes identified for PC and T2DM, and Gene Ontology (GO) analysis showed that regulation of endodermal cell fate specification was primarily enriched. In addition, a key shared gene S100A6 was derived in the validation tests. S100A6 was shown to be highly expressed in PC compared to non-tumor tissues. PC patients with high S100A6 expression had worse overall survival (OS) than those with low expression. GSEA revealed that S100A6 is involved in cancer-related pathways and glycometabolism-related pathways. There is a strong relationship between S100A6 and TIME. In vitro functional assays showed that S100A6 helped to induce the PC cells' proliferation and migration. We also proposed a diagram of common mechanisms of PC and T2DM.

CONCLUSIONS

This study firstly revealed that the regulation of endodermal cell fate specification may be common pathogenesis of PC and T2DM and identified S100A6 as a possible biomarker and therapeutic target for PC and T2DM patients.

Metabolic disorders and gastroenteropancreatic-neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs): How do they influence each other? An Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM)/ Italian Association of Medical Diabetologists (AMD)/ Italian Society of Endocrinology (SIE)/ Italian Society of Pharmacology (SIF) multidisciplinary consensus position paper

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are a heterogeneous group of malignancies derived from neuroendocrine cells that can occur anywhere along the gastrointestinal tract. GEP-NETs incidence has been steadily increasing over the past decades, in parallel with the increasing incidence of the metabolic syndrome (MetS). It is not yet fully known whether the MetS components (such as obesity, dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes) could be involved in the etiology of GEP-NETs or could influence their outcomes. In this review, a panel of experts of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), Italian Association of Medical Diabetologists (AMD), Italian Society of Endocrinology (SIE), and Italian Society of Pharmacology (SIF) provides a critical view of the experimental and clinical evidence about the association of GEP-NETs risk, outcomes, and therapies with the metabolic disorders typical of MetS. The potential therapeutic strategies for an optimal management of patients with both GEP-NETs and MetS are also discussed.

Diabetes and Cancer: Risk, Challenges, Management and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus and cancer are commonly coexisting illnesses, and the global incidence and prevalence of both are rising. Cancer patients with diabetes face unique challenges. This review highlights the relationship between diabetes and cancer and various aspects of the management of diabetes in cancer patients.

METHODS

A literature search using keywords in PubMed was performed. Studies that were published in English prior to July 2021 were assessed and an overview of epidemiology, cancer risk, outcomes, treatment-related hyperglycemia and management of diabetes in cancer patients is provided.

RESULTS

Overall, 8-18% of cancer patients have diabetes as a comorbid medical condition. Diabetes is a risk factor for certain solid malignancies, such as pancreatic, liver, colon, breast, and endometrial cancer. Several novel targeted compounds and immunotherapies can cause hyperglycemia. Nevertheless, most patients undergoing cancer therapy can be managed with an appropriate glucose lowering agent without the need for discontinuation of cancer treatment. Evidence suggests that cancer patients with diabetes have higher cancer-related mortality; therefore, a multidisciplinary approach is important in the management of patients with diabetes and cancer for a better outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Future studies are required to better understand the underlying mechanism between the risk of cancer and diabetes. Furthermore, high-quality prospective studies evaluating management of diabetes in cancer patients using innovative tools are needed. A patient-centered approach is important in cancer patients with diabetes to avoid adverse outcomes.

Diabetes and pancreatic cancer: recent insights with implications for early diagnosis, treatment and prevention

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recent insights into the complex relationship between diabetes and pancreatic cancer have the potential to help direct future approaches to early detection, treatment and prevention.

RECENT FINDINGS

Insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia have been identified as factors that relate to risk of pancreatic cancer among patients with long-standing diabetes. In contrast, weight loss in the setting of new-onset diabetes can help identify patients at an increased risk for harbouring pancreatic-cancer related disturbances in glucose metabolism. Insights into the implications of poor glycaemic control in patients undergoing resection for pancreatic cancer have the potential to improve both surgical and oncologic outcomes. Finally, among antidiabetic medications, metformin continues to be evaluated as a potential adjunctive therapeutic agent, although recent evidence supports the safety of incretins with respect to pancreatic cancer.

SUMMARY

This review highlights recent developments in these areas with an emphasis on opportunities for improved early diagnosis, treatment and prevention in pancreatic cancer.

A 2021 Update on the Use of Liraglutide in the Modern Treatment of 'Diabesity': A Narrative Review

Obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus have become a significant public health problem in the past decades. Their prevalence is increasing worldwide each year, greatly impacting the economic and personal aspects, mainly because they frequently coexist, where the term “diabesity” may be used. The drug class of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) is one of the most modern therapy options in managing these metabolic disorders. This review focuses on the effects of liraglutide, a long-acting GLP-1 RA, in diabesity and non-diabetic excess weight. This drug class improves glycemic control by enhancing insulin secretion from the beta-pancreatic cells and inhibiting glucagon release. Furthermore, other effects include slowing gastric emptying, increasing postprandial satiety, and reducing the appetite and food consumption by influencing the central nervous system, with weight reduction effects. It also reduces cardiovascular events and has positive effects on blood pressure and lipid profile. A lower-dose liraglutide (1.2 or 1.8 mg/day) is used in patients with diabetes, while the higher dose (3.0 mg/day) is approved as an anti-obesity drug. In this review, we have summarized the role of liraglutide in clinical practice, highlighting its safety and efficacy as a glucose-lowering agent and a weight-reduction drug in patients with and without diabetes.

Contemporary Management of Pancreatic Cancer from an Internist Perspective

Primary care physicians are in a favorable position to curb the growing burden of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This review aims to provide an overview of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from a primary care perspective, with a specific focus on risk factors, selection of high-risk individuals for screening, patient presentation at the primary-care clinic, and the role of the internist in supportive care. Overall, the internist is an essential member of the multidisciplinary care team with respect to optimizing patients' quality of life across various stages of the pancreatic cancer.

Pathological Mechanisms in Diabetes of the Exocrine Pancreas: What's Known and What's to Know

The clinical significance of diabetes arising in the setting of pancreatic disease (also known as diabetes of the exocrine pancreas, DEP) has drawn more attention in recent years. However, significant improvements still need to be made in the recognition, diagnosis and treatment of the disorder, and in the knowledge of the pathological mechanisms. The clinical course of DEP is different from type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). DEP develops in patients with previous existing exocrine pancreatic disorders which damage both exocrine and endocrine parts of pancreas, and lead to pancreas exocrine insufficiency (PEI) and malnutrition. Therefore, damage in various exocrine and endocrine cell types participating in glucose metabolism regulation likely contribute to the development of DEP. Due to the limited amount of clinical and experimental studies, the pathological mechanism of DEP is poorly defined. In fact, it still not entirely clear whether DEP represents a distinct pathologic entity or is a form of T2DM arising when β cell failure is accelerated by pancreatic disease. In this review, we include findings from related studies in T1DM and T2DM to highlight potential pathological mechanisms involved in initiation and progression of DEP, and to provide directions for future research studies.

GLP-1 receptor agonists synergize with DYRK1A inhibitors to potentiate functional human β cell regeneration

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP1R) agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors are widely prescribed diabetes drugs due to their ability to stimulate insulin secretion from remaining β cells and to reduce caloric intake. Unfortunately, they fail to increase human β cell proliferation. Small-molecule inhibitors of dual-specificity tyrosine-regulated kinase 1A (DYRK1A) are able to induce adult human β cell proliferation, but rates are modest (~2%), and their specificity to β cells is limited. Here, we provide evidence that combining any member of the GLP1R agonist class with any member of the DYRK1A inhibitor class induces a synergistic increase in human β cell replication (5 to 6%) accompanied by an actual increase in numbers of human β cells. GLP1R agonist-DYRK1A inhibitor synergy required combined inhibition of DYRK1A and an increase in cAMP and did not lead to β cell dedifferentiation. These beneficial effects on proliferation were seen in both normal human β cells and β cells derived from individuals with type 2 diabetes. The ability of the GLP1R agonist-DYRK1A inhibitor combination to enhance human β cell proliferation, human insulin secretion, and blood glucose control extended in vivo to studies of human islets transplanted into euglycemic and streptozotocin-diabetic immunodeficient mice. No adverse events were observed in the mouse studies during a 1-week period. Because of the relative β cell specificity of GLP1R agonists, the combination provides an improved, although not complete, degree of human β cell specificity.

More recent, better designed studies have weakened links between antidiabetes medications and cancer risk

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of studies have investigated associations of antidiabetes medications with cancer risk. Antidiabetes medications are classified by their mechanisms of action on tissues and organs. They potentially act as both causative and confounding factors in the temporal association of diabetes and cancer.

AIM

To present the current evidence regarding both the carcinogenic and anti-carcinogenic effects of antidiabetes medications on cancer in humans.

METHODS

A review of the scientific literature.

RESULTS

The most conclusive evidence shown of an association of antidiabetes medication with a specific cancer was for that of the thiazolidinedione pioglitazone with bladder cancer. Currently, there is inconclusive evidence regarding a possible association of incretin therapies, drugs of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor class, with the risk of pancreatic cancer. Insulin, sulfonylureas, metformin and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors appear not to be associated with increased risk of any cancer. Sparse evidence suggests possible protective effects against cancer incidence of metformin, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, incretin-based drugs and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

The conflicting evidence regarding associations of antidiabetes medications with cancer risk is apparently attributable to both methodological issues and to the complexity of the subject. More recent and better-designed studies have weakened the evidence for links between antidiabetes medications and cancer risk.

Effect of incretin-based therapies on cancers of digestive system among 101 595 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis combining 84 trials with a median duration of 30 weeks

Objectives

To evaluate the risk of cancers of digestive system with incretin-based therapies among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Research design and methods

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled clinical trials that compared incretin-based drugs with placebo or other antidiabetic drugs. Paired reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Network meta-analysis was performed, followed by subgroup analysis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system was used to assess the quality of evidence.

Results

A total of 84 studies (n=101 595) involving cancers of digestive system were identified (a median follow-up of 30 weeks). The risk of cancers of digestive system with incretin-based therapies was comparable with insulin (OR: 0.86, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.69), metformin (OR: 0.32, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.38), sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (OR: 5.26, 95% CI 0.58 to 47.41), sulfonylureas (OR: 1.27, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.39), thiazolidinediones (OR: 0.42, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.42), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (OR: 2.98, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.80), and placebo (OR: 0.87, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.05). The results of subgroup analysis based on the type of digestive system cancers indicated that incretin-based therapies did not increase the risk of gastrointestinal cancers, respectively. The results of subgroup analysis based on age, duration, mean HbA1c, trial duration, and sample size did not indicate the risk of digestive system cancers.

Conclusions

Moderate to high Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation evidence suggests that incretin-based therapies were not associated with an increased risk of cancer of digestive system in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Liraglutide use and evaluation of pancreatic outcomes in a US commercially insured population

AIMS

Both acute pancreatitis (AP) and pancreatic cancer (PC) have been areas of focus for studies of incretin drugs. This 5-year prospective cohort study aimed to quantify possible associations between liraglutide and risk of AP and PC as compared to other antidiabetic drugs (ADs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients initiating liraglutide or other ADs who were enrolled in a US health plan (2010-2014) were included. Comparisons of AP and PC incidence rates were made between matched cohorts of liraglutide initiators and initiators of other ADs. Adjudicated AP cases and algorithm-based PC cases were identified. Propensity score-matched intention-to-treat (ITT) and time-on-drug (TOD) analyses were completed using Poisson regression. A latency analysis was performed for PC.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 405 days for AP cohorts (9995 liraglutide, 1:1 matched to all comparators) and 503 days for PC cohorts (35 163 liraglutide, 1:1 matched to all comparators). In the primary AP analysis, "current" use of liraglutide was not significantly associated with elevated risk across comparators (all comparators relative risk [RR] = 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-2.3). ITT results were similar where, in the primary analysis, no RRs were significantly associated with PC (all comparators RR = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.3-1.4); latency and TOD analyses did not alter findings. There was no evidence of a dose-response effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Liraglutide was not associated with an increased risk of AP or PC, although risk estimates were more variable for AP, and numbers of cases for both outcomes were limited because of the rarity of outcomes.

Risk of Malignant Neoplasia with Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Treatment in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are effective glucose-lowering drugs, but there is concern that they may increase the risk of malignant neoplasia. The present meta-analysis examined the safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists with regard to malignant neoplasia.

METHODS

We analyzed data from randomized controlled trials with a minimum duration of 24 weeks that assessed the incidence of neoplasms in type 2 diabetes patients receiving GLP-1 receptor agonists compared with placebo or other hypoglycemic drugs. We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases with a language restriction of English through October 1, 2018, and carried out a meta-analysis of the available trial data using a fixed effects model to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for neoplasia.

RESULTS

Thirty-four relevant articles, providing data for 50452 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with the incidence of malignant neoplasia with placebo or other interventions, no increase in malignant neoplasm formation was observed with the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists (OR 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.15; p = 0.46), liraglutide (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91-1.27; p = 0.38), exenatide (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86-1.16; p = 1.00), semaglutide (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.35-2.22; p = 0.80), or albiglutide (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.23-4.88; p = 0.93). A subanalysis of trials lasting longer than 3 years also showed no increase in the neoplasia risk with GLP-1 receptor agonist use (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92-1.15; p = 0.60). Between-trial statistical heterogeneity was low for all comparisons.

CONCLUSION

GLP-1 receptor agonists can be used without safety concerns related to malignant neoplasia in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The safety and efficacy of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systemic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the safety and efficacy of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide as monotherapy or add-on to other antihyperglycaemic agents (AHAs) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the inception to January 18, 2018. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing semaglutide with placebo or other AHAs in T2DM patients were included in our meta-analysis. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to evaluate the outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies with 9519 patients were included in our meta-analysis. The results revealed that compared with placebo or other AHAs, semaglutide had further reduced the level of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) [MD 1.03%, 95% CI (0.85%, 1.22%), p < 0.00001], self-measured plasma glucose (SMPG) [MD 1.19 mmol/L, 95% CI (0.84 mmol/L, 1.53 mmol/L), p < 0.00001], fasting plasma glucose (FPG) [MD 1.33 mmol/L, 95% CI (0.97 mmol/L, 1.69 mmol/L), p < 0.00001] and weight [MD 3.61 kg, 95% CI (3.05 kg, 4.17 kg), p < 0.00001] and significantly increased participants who achieved HbA1c < 7.0% [RR 2.26, 95% CI (1.89, 2.70), p < 0.00001] in T2DM patients. Semaglutide had a significant increase in the incidence of adverse events (AEs) [RR 1.06, 95% CI (1.02, 1.11), p < 0.0001] and an analogous incidence in serious adverse events (SAEs) [RR 0.94, 95% CI (0.86, 1.02), p = 0.11] and hypoglycaemic events (severe or blood glucose (BG)-confirmed symptomatic) [RR 0.93, 95% CI (0.74, 1.16), p = 0.50] compared with the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

This article revealed that semaglutide had a favourable efficacy and safety in treating T2DM patients. It maybe a superior choice for T2DM patients who have obesity or a poor adherence to daily AHAs.

The efficacy and safety of once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor omarigliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) omarigliptin as monotherapy or add on to other antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is unclear.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the inception to January 24, 2018. Randomized controlled trials comparing omarigliptin with placebo or other AHAs in T2DM patients were included in our meta-analysis. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) were used to evaluate the outcomes.

RESULTS

Totally, 11 trials involving 8276 patients were satisfied with our inclusion criteria. Compared with control group, omarigliptin was associated with a significantly stronger reduction in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (MD 0.38%, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.18, 0.58], P = .0002) and fasting plasma glucose (MD 0.48 mmol/L, 95% CI [0.14 mmol/L, 0.82 mmol/L], P = .006). Omarigliptin increased the number of participants who achieved HbA1c < 7.0% compared with control group (RR 2.03, 95% CI [1.38, 2.98], P = .0003). No significant difference was found in the aspect of adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI [0.97, 1.03], P = .99), serious adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI [0.91, 1.13], P = .75), hypoglycemic events (RR 0.86, 95% CI [0.48, 1.54], P = .61) between omarigliptin and control group. Omarigliptin has a homologous efficacy and safety background to other AHAs according to the results of subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This review revealed that omarigliptin had a favorable efficacy and safety as monotherapy or add on to other AHAs in treating T2DM patients. It is a superior choice for T2DM patients who have a poor adherence to daily AHAs.