IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0099577.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conventional Hypoglycaemic Agents and the Risk of Lung Cancer in Patients with Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ying Wu
  • Hong-Bing Liu
  • Xue-Fei Shi
  • Yong Song

Abstract

Background: Accumulating evidence suggests that hypoglycaemic agents influence lung cancer risk in patients with diabetes. It remains to be fully elucidated whether conventional hypoglycaemic agents (metformin, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones [TZDs] or insulin) affect lung cancer incidence in patients with diabetes. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis using EMBASE, MEDLINE and Web of Science to search randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies published up to October 2013 that assessed the effects of metformin, sulfonylurea, TZDs or insulin on lung cancer risk in subjects with diabetes. Fixed and random effects meta-analysis models were used, and the effect size was expressed as a summary odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The Grades of Research, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was applied to define the quality of the evidence. Results: Analysis of 15 studies (11 cohort studies, 2 case-control studies, and 2 RCTs) showed that metformin use was associated with a 15% reduction in risk of lung cancer (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92), but this finding was not supported by sub-analysis of smoking-adjusted studies (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.06). Moreover, sulfonylurea or TZDs use was not associated with increased or decreased lung cancer risk, respectively (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.26), (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02). Higher lung cancer risk was related to insulin (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.35). However, all data from RCTs failed to demonstrate a statistically significant effect. Conclusions: This analysis demonstrated that metformin use may reduce lung cancer risk in patients with diabetes but not in a smoking-adjusted subgroup and that insulin use may be associated with an increased lung cancer risk in subjects with diabetes.

Suggested Citation

  • Ying Wu & Hong-Bing Liu & Xue-Fei Shi & Yong Song, 2014. "Conventional Hypoglycaemic Agents and the Risk of Lung Cancer in Patients with Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-10, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0099577
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099577
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0099577
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0099577&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0099577?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Su Golder & Yoon K Loke & Martin Bland, 2011. "Meta-analyses of Adverse Effects Data Derived from Randomised Controlled Trials as Compared to Observational Studies: Methodological Overview," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-13, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mingkwan Na Takuathung & Wannachai Sakuludomkan & Rapheephorn Khatsri & Nahathai Dukaew & Napatsorn Kraivisitkul & Balqis Ahmadmusa & Chollada Mahakkanukrauh & Kachathip Wangthaweesap & Jirakit Onin &, 2022. "Adverse Effects of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors in Humans: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 378 Randomized Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-13, July.
    2. Mathur, Maya B & VanderWeele, Tyler, 2021. "Methods to address confounding and other biases in meta-analyses: Review and recommendations," OSF Preprints v7dtq, Center for Open Science.
    3. Amy Lanza & Philippe Ravaud & Carolina Riveros & Agnes Dechartres, 2016. "Comparison of Estimates between Cohort and Case–Control Studies in Meta-Analyses of Therapeutic Interventions: A Meta-Epidemiological Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-12, May.
    4. Rockers, Peter C. & Røttingen, John-Arne & Shemilt, Ian & Tugwell, Peter & Bärnighausen, Till, 2015. "Inclusion of quasi-experimental studies in systematic reviews of health systems research," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(4), pages 511-521.
    5. Su Golder & Yoon K Loke & Martin Bland, 2013. "Comparison of Pooled Risk Estimates for Adverse Effects from Different Observational Study Designs: Methodological Overview," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-9, August.
    6. Tina Ljungberg & Emma Bondza & Connie Lethin, 2020. "Evidence of the Importance of Dietary Habits Regarding Depressive Symptoms and Depression," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-18, March.
    7. Valérie Seegers & Ludovic Trinquart & Isabelle Boutron & Philippe Ravaud, 2013. "Comparison of Treatment Effect Estimates for Pharmacological Randomized Controlled Trials Enrolling Older Adults Only and Those including Adults: A Meta-Epidemiological Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-5, May.
    8. Guillermo Prada-Ramallal & Bahi Takkouche & Adolfo Figueiras, 2017. "Summarising the Evidence for Drug Safety: A Methodological Discussion of Different Meta-Analysis Approaches," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 40(7), pages 547-558, July.
    9. Sauman Singh-Phulgenda & Prabin Dahal & Roland Ngu & Brittany J Maguire & Alice Hawryszkiewycz & Sumayyah Rashan & Matthew Brack & Christine M Halleux & Fabiana Alves & Kasia Stepniewska & Piero L Oll, 2021. "Serious adverse events following treatment of visceral leishmaniasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0099577. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.