Cancer outcomes and all-cause mortality in adults allocated to metformin: systematic review and collaborative meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

Survival benefit associated with metformin use in inoperable non-small cell lung cancer patients with diabetes: A population-based retrospective cohort study

Objective

To evaluate the effects of metformin use on the survival of inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with diabetes using the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Research Database.

Research design and methods

In total, 7,620 patients were eligible in this study, among them, 3,578 patients were metformin users and 4,042 were non-users. Propensity score matching was used to reduce possible confounding factors. In total, 4,182 patients (2,091 matched pairs) were included in the matched cohort. Cox proportional hazard model with time-dependent covariate were also applied to evaluate the association between metformin use and overall survival (OS).

Results

A total of 3,578 patients were metformin users at the time of diagnosis of NSCLC. Cox proportional hazard model with time-dependent covariate revealed that metformin use was associated with a significantly longer OS (HR: 0.85, 95.0% CI: 0.80–0.90). The survival benefit of metformin use was maintained after propensity score matching at a ratio of 1:1 (HR: 0.90, 95.0% CI: 0.84–0.97).

Conclusions

Metformin use is associated with longer OS in inoperable NSCLC patients with diabetes, suggesting a potential anti-tumorigenic effect for metformin. Further research is needed to investigate the actual role of metformin in the treatment of NSCLC patients with diabetes.

The expanding role of metformin in cancer: an update on antitumor mechanisms and clinical development

Metformin has been used for nearly a century to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. Epidemiologic studies first identified the association between metformin and reduced risk of several cancers. The anticancer mechanisms of metformin involve both indirect or insulin-dependent pathways and direct or insulin-independent pathways. Preclinical studies have demonstrated metformin's broad anticancer activity across a spectrum of malignancies. Prospective clinical trials involving metformin in the chemoprevention and treatment of cancer now number in the hundreds. We provide an update on the anticancer mechanisms of metformin and review the results thus far available from prospective clinical trials investigating metformin's efficacy in cancer.

Repurposing metformin for the prevention of cancer and cancer recurrence

Multiple epidemiological studies have documented an association between metformin, used for treatment of type 2 diabetes, and reduced cancer incidence and mortality. Cell line models may not accurately reflect the effects of metformin in the clinical setting. Moreover, findings from animal model studies have been inconsistent, whilst those from more recent epidemiological studies have tempered the overall effect size. The purpose of this review is to examine metformin's chemopreventive potential by outlining relevant mechanisms of action, the most recent epidemiologic evidence, and recently completed and ongoing clinical trials. Although repurposing drugs with excellent safety profiles is an appealing strategy for cancer prevention and treatment in the adjuvant setting, there is no substitute for well-executed, large randomised clinical trials to define efficacy and determine the populations that are most likely to benefit from an intervention. Thus, enthusiasm remains for understanding the role of metformin in cancer through ongoing clinical research.

Impact of metformin on cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis of randomised trials among people with type 2 diabetes

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Metformin is the most-prescribed oral medication to lower blood glucose worldwide. Yet previous systematic reviews have raised doubts about its effectiveness in reducing risk of cardiovascular disease, the most costly complication of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to systematically identify and pool randomised trials reporting cardiovascular outcomes in which the effect of metformin was 'isolated' through comparison to diet, lifestyle or placebo.

METHODS

We performed an electronic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. We also manually screened the reference lists of previous meta-analyses of trials of metformin identified through a MEDLINE search. We included randomised controlled trials of adults with type 2 diabetes comparing any dose and preparation of oral metformin with no intervention, placebo or a lifestyle intervention and reporting mortality or a cardiovascular outcome.

RESULTS

We included ten articles reporting 13 trials (including a total of 2079 individuals with type 2 diabetes allocated to metformin and a similar number to comparison groups) of which only four compared metformin with placebo and collected data on cardiovascular outcomes. Participants were mainly white, aged ≤65 years, overweight/obese and with poor glycaemic control. Summary estimates were based on a small number of events: 416 myocardial infarctions/ischaemic heart disease events in seven studies and 111 strokes in four studies. The UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) contributed the majority of data to the summary estimates, with weights ranging from 52.3% for myocardial infarction to 70.5% for stroke. All outcomes, with the exception of stroke, favoured metformin, with limited heterogeneity between studies, but none achieved statistical significance. Effect sizes (Mantel-Haenszel RR) were: all-cause mortality 0.96 (95% CI 0.84, 1.09); cardiovascular death 0.97 (95% CI 0.80, 1.16); myocardial infarction 0.89 (95% CI 0.75, 1.06); stroke 1.04 (95% CI 0.73, 1.48); and peripheral vascular disease 0.81 (95% CI 0.50, 1.31).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

There remains uncertainty about whether metformin reduces risk of cardiovascular disease among patients with type 2 diabetes, for whom it is the recommended first-line drug. Although this is mainly due to absence of evidence, it is unlikely that a definitive placebo-controlled cardiovascular endpoint trial among people with diabetes will be forthcoming. Alternative approaches to reduce the uncertainty include the use of electronic health records in long-term pragmatic evaluations, inclusion of metformin in factorial trials, publication of cardiovascular outcome data from adverse event reporting in trials of metformin and a cardiovascular endpoint trial of metformin among people without diabetes.

Enemies or weapons in hands: investigational anti-diabetic drug glibenclamide and cancer risk

Epidemiological evidence suggests that diabetes is associated with elevated cancer risk through the actions of hyperglycemia, hyperinsulinemia and chronic inflammation. Metformin, a first-line medication for type 2 diabetes mellitus, arouses growing concerns on its anti-cancer effect. However, data regarding the effect of glibenclamide on tumor growth and cancer risk are less consistent, which may be a potential anti-cancer drug. Areas covered: In this review, we clarified probable underlying mechanisms in preclinical studies and reviewed epidemiological evidence on glibenclamide's cancer risk in clinical studies. Glibenclamide inhibited carcinogenesis through ATP-binding cassette protein super-family and ATP-sensitive potassium channels, while majority of clinical researches reported an increased or non-significant elevated cancer risk of glibenclamide users compared with metformin users. Other sulfonylureas and diarylsulfonylureas were also briefly introduced. Expert opinion: The inconsistency between the results of studies was probably ascribed to undiscovered mechanisms, confounding factors, inconsistent comparators and publication bias. Existing clinical trials were prone to be afflicted by time-related bias including immortal time bias, time-window bias, and time-lag bias. Glibenclimiade could be a promising and well-tolerated anti-neoplastic drug targeting ATP-binding cassette protein super-family and KATP channels, but its efficacy still needs to be proven in well-designed long-term randomized controlled clinical trials.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma: spotlight on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

The incidence of both type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and multiple cancer types are rapidly increasing worldwide. Several studies documented that T2DM is closely associated with an increased incidence of cancer. However, while some methodological considerations preclude a definitive association between T2DM and the risk of certain cancers, the relationship between T2DM and increased risk of incident hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains significant even after adjustment for detection bias and reverse causation, indicating that such association is clinically reliable and robust. In addition, a number of observational studies also showed that T2DM is associated with higher mortality among persons with HCC. Some recent meta-analyses suggested that treatment with metformin may be associated with a lower risk of HCC, and may also beneficially influence HCC prognosis, whereas treatment with sulphonylureas or insulin seems to be related to a higher HCC risk. The underlying biological mechanisms linking T2DM and HCC are complex and difficult to elucidate, but the existence of close inter-connections among T2DM, obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) induces hepatic/systemic insulin resistance and causes the release of multiple pro-inflammatory cytokines, vasoactive factors and pro-oxidant molecules, which are all potentially implicated in the development and progression of HCC. In this clinical review, we discuss the epidemiological evidence linking T2DM to the risk of HCC. Moreover, we also briefly discuss the putative underlying mechanisms linking T2DM, NAFLD and HCC, and the potential effect of certain hypoglycemic agents on the risk of developing HCC.

Metformin: New Preparations and Nonglycemic Benefits

Metformin has been widely used for over 5 decades. New preparations have been developed for possible enhancement of efficiency, tolerability, and pleiotropic nonglycemic effects. Extended-release metformin has contributed to adherence and improved gastrointestinal tolerability. Delayed-release metformin acts in the lower gastrointestinal tract and exerts glucose-lowering effects at lower plasma metformin levels, which might suggest use of this biguanide in patients with chronic kidney disease. Metformin is also known to have numerous nonglycemic effects. Results of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study indicate improvements in cardiovascular outcome and reduced total mortality independent of glycemic control. Anticancer effects of metformin have been discussed and many clinical trials are on-going. Metformin is noted for its beneficial effects on lifespan extension and on disorders due to increased insulin resistance. Further investigations, including randomized control trials in nondiabetic individuals, are required to demonstrate the nonglycemic effects of metformin.

A story of metformin-butyrate synergism to control various pathological conditions as a consequence of gut microbiome modification: Genesis of a wonder drug?

The most widely prescribed oral anti-diabetic agent today in the world today is a member of the biguanide class of drugs called metformin. Apart from its use in diabetes, it is currently being investigated for its potential use in many diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, Alzheimer's disease, obesity, comorbidities of diabetes such as retinopathy, nephropathy to name a few. Numerous in-vitro and in-vivo studies as well as clinical trials have been and are being conducted with a vast amount of literature being published every day. Numerous mechanisms for this drug have been proposed, but they have been unable to explain all the actions observed clinically. It is of interest that insulin has a stimulatory effect on cellular growth. Metformin sensitizes the insulin action but believed to be beneficial in cancer. Like -wise metformin is shown to have beneficial effects in opposite sets of pathological scenario looking from insulin sensitization point of view. This requires a comprehensive review of the disease conditions which are claimed to be affected by metformin therapy. Such a comprehensive review is presently lacking. In this review, we begin by examining the history of metformin before it became the most popular anti-diabetic medication today followed by a review of its relevant molecular mechanisms and important clinical trials in all areas where metformin has been studied and investigated till today. We also review novel mechanistic insight in metformin action in relation to microbiome and elaborate implications of such aspect in various disease states. Finally, we highlight the quandaries and suggest potential solutions which will help the researchers and physicians to channel their research and put this drug to better use.

Prognostic value of glycated hemoglobin in colorectal cancer

AIM

To investigate the clinical significance of routinely used glycemic parameters in a cohort of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients.

METHODS

Pre-treatment fasting blood glucose, insulin, HbA_1c and homeostasis model of risk assessment (HOMA-IR) were retrospectively evaluated in a case-control study of 224 CRC and 112 control subjects matched for sex, obesity and diabetes frequency and blood lipid profile. Furthermore, the prognostic value of routinely used glycemic parameters towards progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was prospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

Fasting blood glucose, insulin, HOMA-IR and HbA_1c (all P < 0.0001) levels were higher in non-diabetic CRC patients compared with obesity-matched controls. All parameters were associated with increased CRC risk at ROC analysis, but no relationship with clinical-pathological variables or survival outcomes was observed for glycemia, insulinemia or HOMA-IR. Conversely, advanced CRC stage (P = 0.018) was an independent predictor of increased HbA_1c levels, which were also higher in patients who had disease progression compared with those who did not (P = 0.05). Elevated HbA_1c levels showed a negative prognostic value both in terms of PFS (HR = 1.24) and OS (HR = 1.36) after adjustment for major confounders, which was further confirmed in a subgroup analysis performed after exclusion of diabetic patients.

CONCLUSION

HbA_1c might have a negative prognostic value in CRC, thus suggesting that glycemic metabolic markers should be carefully monitored in these patients, independently of overt diabetes.

Metformin: From Research to Clinical Practice

Metformin is the recommended first-line oral glucose-lowering drug initiated to control hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus. It acts in the liver, small intestines, and skeletal muscles with its major effect on decreasing hepatic gluconeogenesis. It is safe, inexpensive, and weight neutral and can be associated with weight loss. It can reduce microvascular complication risk and its use is associated with a lower cardiovascular mortality compared with sulfonylurea therapy. It is also used to delay the onset of type 2 diabetes mellitus, in treating gestational diabetes, and in women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

Syrosingopine sensitizes cancer cells to killing by metformin

We report that the anticancer activity of the widely used diabetic drug metformin is strongly potentiated by syrosingopine. Synthetic lethality elicited by combining the two drugs is synergistic and specific to transformed cells. This effect is unrelated to syrosingopine's known role as an inhibitor of the vesicular monoamine transporters. Syrosingopine binds to the glycolytic enzyme α-enolase in vitro, and the expression of the γ-enolase isoform correlates with nonresponsiveness to the drug combination. Syrosingopine sensitized cancer cells to metformin and its more potent derivative phenformin far below the individual toxic threshold of each compound. Thus, combining syrosingopine and codrugs is a promising therapeutic strategy for clinical application for the treatment of cancer.

Diabetes mellitus and metformin in hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Diabetes mellitus, a risk factor for cancer, is also globally endemic. The clinical link between these two diseases has been the subject of investigation for a century, and diabetes mellitus has been established as a risk factor for HCC. Accordingly, metformin, a first-line oral anti-diabetic, was first proposed as a candidate anti-cancer agent in 2005 in a cohort study in Scotland. Several subsequent large cohort studies and randomized controlled trials have not demonstrated significant efficacy for metformin in suppressing HCC incidence and mortality in diabetic patients; however, two recent randomized controlled trials have reported positive data for the tumor-preventive potential of metformin in non-diabetic subjects. The search for biological links between cancer and diabetes has revealed intracellular pathways that are shared by cancer and diabetes. The signal transduction mechanisms by which metformin suppresses carcinogenesis in cell lines or xenograft tissues and improves chemoresistance in cancer stem cells have also been elucidated. This review addresses the clinical and biological links between HCC and diabetes mellitus and the anti-cancer activity of metformin in clinical studies and basic experiments.

Metformin as a Tool to Target Aging

Aging has been targeted by genetic and dietary manipulation and by drugs in order to increase lifespan and health span in numerous models. Metformin, which has demonstrated protective effects against several age-related diseases in humans, will be tested in the TAME (Targeting Aging with Metformin) trial, as the initial step in the development of increasingly effective next-generation drugs.

Optimizing management of glycaemia

The global epidemic of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) continues largely unabated due to an increasingly sedentary lifestyle and obesogenic environment. A cost-effective patient-centred approach, incorporating glucose-lowering therapy and modification of cardiovascular risk factors, could help prevent the inevitable development and progression of macrovascular and microvascular complications. Glycaemic optimization requires patient structured education, self-management and empowerment, and psychological support along with early and proactive use of glucose lowering therapies, which should be delivered in a system of care as shown by the Chronic Care Model. From diagnosis, intensive glycaemic control and individualised care is aimed at reducing complications. In older people, the goal is maintaining quality of life and minimizing morbidity, especially as overtreatment increases hypoglycaemia risk. Maintaining durable glycaemic control is challenging and complex to achieve without hypoglycaemia, weight gain and other significant adverse effects. Overcoming patient and physician barriers can help ensure adequate treatment initiation and intensification. Cardiovascular safety studies with newer glucose-lowering agents are now mandatory, with a sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (empagliflozin), and two glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonists (liraglutide and semaglutide) being the first to demonstrate superior CV outcomes compared with placebo.

Metabolic syndrome contributes to an increased recurrence risk of non-metastatic colorectal cancer

Objectives

Epidemiological data suggests a close link between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and non-metastatic colorectal cancer (NMCRC). However, the relationship between MetS and the outcome of NMCRC is less well understood. We aim to evaluate the impact of MetS on the prognosis in NMCRC patients.

Methods

We performed a large cohort study of 1069 NMCRC patients. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate the cumulative survival rate. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to analyze the prognosis associated with MetS adjusting for clinicopathologic variables.

Results

MetS was identified in 20.7% of NMCRC patients. Patients with MetS were more likely to be older, higher levels of blood glucose, triglycerides, high density lipoprotein, and uric acid than patients without MS (P < 0.05 for all). During a mean period of 59.6 months follow-up, patients with MetS had a statistically significantly lower rate of disease-free survival (DFS) than the patients without MetS (P = 0.014), especially local recurrence (P = 0.040). However, there was no difference in overall survival (P = 0.116). Multivariate analysis showed that the presence of MetS was an independent risk factor for DFS (HR = 0.733, 95%CI 0.545–0.987, P = 0.041), but not for OS (P = 0.118).

Conclusions

MetS is associated with an increased recurrence risk of NMCRC.

Correlation between metabolic factors and pancreatic cancer in northwest China

AIM: To investigate the correlation between metabolic factors and pancreatic cancer in Chinese Hans in northwest China, in order to find new strategies for the prevention and treatment of pancreatic cancer.

METHODS: Three hundred and eighty-four pancreatic cancer patients treated at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University from 2008 to 2014 were included in a case group, and 744 gender- and age-matched hospitalized patients without carcinoma or metabolic disease were included in a control group. A case-control study was carried out, and odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) estimating the relative risk of each of the four aspects of metabolic syndrome (hypertension, hyperglycemia, hyperlipidemia and obesity) for pancreatic cancer were calculated to assess the correlation between them.

RESULTS: In the Han population, compared with the hospitalized patients without carcinoma or metabolic disease, hyperglycemia was a risk factor for pancreatic cancer (OR = 1.74, 95%CI: 1.49-2.03). Hypertension decreased the risk of pancreatic cancer, but there was no statistical significance (P > 0.05). In univariate analysis, obesity and hyperlipidemia were risk factors for pancreatic cancer (P < 0.05), and the OR values were 1.49 and 1.99, respectively. The association between hyperlipidemia and pancreatic cancer was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). When distribution characteristics of the factors of metabolic syndrome in patients with pancreatic cancer were studied, compared with the control group, there was a higher proportion of three or more kinds of metabolic disorders at the same time in patients with pancreatic cancer, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: In the Han population in northwest China, hyperglycemia can increase the risk of pancreatic cancer. Hypertension has no significant impact on the incidence of pancreatic cancer. Although hyperlipidemia and obesity were associated with the risk of pancreatic cancer in univariate analysis, more studies are needed to confirm such correlation. There is a higher proportion of three or more kinds of metabolic disorders at the same time in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Association between Insulin Monotherapy versus Insulin plus Metformin and the Risk of All-Cause Mortality and Other Serious Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study

AIMS

To determine if concomitant metformin reduced the risk of death, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and cancer in people with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin.

METHODS

For this retrospective cohort study, people with type 2 diabetes who progressed to insulin with or without metformin from 2000 onwards were identified from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (≈7% sample of the UK population). The risks of all-cause mortality, MACE and incident cancer were evaluated using multivariable Cox models comparing insulin monotherapy with insulin plus metformin. We accounted for insulin dose.

RESULTS

12,020 subjects treated with insulin were identified, including 6,484 treated with monotherapy. There were 1,486 deaths, 579 MACE (excluding those with a history of large vessel disease), and 680 cancer events (excluding those in patients with a history of cancer). Corresponding event rates were 41.5 (95% CI 39.4-43.6) deaths, 20.8 (19.2-22.5) MACE, and 21.6 (20.0-23.3) cancer events per 1,000 person-years. The adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for people prescribed insulin plus metformin versus insulin monotherapy were 0.60 (95% CI 0.52-0.68) for all-cause mortality, 0.75 (0.62-0.91) for MACE, and 0.96 (0.80-1.15) for cancer. For patients who were propensity-score matched, the corresponding aHRs for all-cause mortality and cancer were 0.62 (0.52-0.75) and 0.99 (0.78-1.26), respectively. For MACE, the aHR was 1.06 (0.75-1.49) prior to 1,275 days and 1.87 (1.22-2.86) after 1,275 days post-index.

CONCLUSIONS

People with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin plus concomitant metformin had a reduced risk of death and MACE compared with people treated with insulin monotherapy. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of cancer between people treated with insulin as monotherapy or in combination with metformin.

Diabetes, metformin and incidence of and death from invasive cancer in postmenopausal women: Results from the women's health initiative

Findings from studies of metformin use with risk of cancer incidence and outcome provide mixed results; with few studies examined associations by recency of diabetes diagnosis or duration of medication use. Thus, in the Women's Health Initiative, we examined these associations and further explored whether associations differ by recency of diabetes and duration of metformin use. Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and their 95% confidence intervals. Diabetes was associated with higher risk of total invasive cancer (HR, 1.13; p < 0.001) and of several site-specific cancers (HR, 1.2-1.4, and up to over twofold). Diabetes was also associated with higher risk of death from cancer (HR, 1.46; p < 0.001). There was no overall difference in cancer incidence by diabetes therapy (p = 0.66). However, there was a lower risk of death from cancer for metformin users, compared to users of other medications, relative to women without diabetes, overall (HRs, 1.08 vs. 1.45; p = 0.007) and for breast cancer (HRs, 0.50 vs. 1.29; p = 0.05). Results also suggested that lower cancer risk associated with metformin may be evident only for a longer duration of use in certain cancer sites or subgroup populations. We provide further evidence that postmenopausal women with diabetes are at higher risk of invasive cancer and cancer death. Metformin users, particularly long-term users, may be at lower risk of developing certain cancers and dying from cancer, compared to users of other anti-diabetes medications. Future studies are needed to determine the long-term effect of metformin in cancer risk and survival from cancer.

Metformin for chemoprevention of metachronous colorectal adenoma or polyps in post-polypectomy patients without diabetes: a multicentre double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of, and mortality from, colorectal cancer is increasing worldwide, and new strategies for prevention are needed to reduce the burden of this disease. The oral diabetes medicine metformin might have chemopreventive effects against cancer, including colorectal cancer. However, no clinical trial data exist for the use of metformin for colorectal cancer chemoprevention. Therefore, we devised a 1-year clinical trial to assess the safety and chemopreventive effects of metformin on sporadic colorectal cancer (assessed by adenoma and polyp recurrence) in patients with a high risk of adenoma recurrence.

METHODS

This trial was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised phase 3 trial. Non-diabetic adult patients who had previously had single or multiple colorectal adenomas or polyps resected by endoscopy were enrolled into the study from five hospitals in Japan. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral metformin (250 mg daily) or identical placebo tablets by a stratified computer-based randomisation method, with stratification by institute, age, sex, and body-mass index. All patients, endoscopists, doctors, and investigators were masked to drug allocation until the end of the trial. After 1 year of administration of metformin or placebo, colonoscopies were done to assess the co-primary endpoints: the number and prevalence of adenomas or polyps. Our analysis included all participants who underwent random allocation, according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered with University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN), number UMIN000006254.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 1, 2011, and Dec 30, 2014, 498 patients who had had single or multiple colorectal adenomas resected by endoscopy were enrolled into the study. After exclusions for ineligibility, 151 patients underwent randomisation: 79 were assigned to the metformin group and 72 to the placebo group. 71 patients in the metformin group and 62 in the placebo group underwent 1-year follow-up colonoscopy. The prevalence of total polyps (hyperplastic polyps plus adenomas) and of adenomas in the metformin group was significantly lower than that in the placebo group (total polyps: metformin group 27 [38·0%; 95% CI 26·7-49·3] of 71 patients, placebo group 35 [56·5%; 95% CI 44·1-68·8] of 62; p=0·034, risk ratio [RR] 0·67 [95% CI 0·47-0·97]; adenomas: metformin group 22 [30·6%; 95% CI 19·9-41·2] of 71 patients, placebo group 32 [51·6%; 95% CI 39·2-64·1] of 62; p=0·016, RR 0·60 [95% CI 0·39-0·92]). The median number of polyps was zero (IQR 0-1) in the metformin group and one (0-1) in the placebo group (p=0·041). The median number of adenomas was zero (0-1) in the metformin group and zero (0-1) in the placebo group (p=0·037). 15 (11%) of patients had adverse events, all of which were grade 1. We recorded no serious adverse events during the 1-year trial.

INTERPRETATION

The administration of low-dose metformin for 1 year to patients without diabetes was safe. Low-dose metformin reduced the prevalence and number of metachronous adenomas or polyps after polypectomy. Metformin has a potential role in the chemoprevention of colorectal cancer. However, further large, long-term trials are needed to provide definitive conclusions.

FUNDING

Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan.

Repurposing metformin: an old drug with new tricks in its binding pockets

Improvements in healthcare and nutrition have generated remarkable increases in life expectancy worldwide. This is one of the greatest achievements of the modern world yet it also presents a grave challenge: as more people survive into later life, more also experience the diseases of old age, including type 2 diabetes (T2D), cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer. Developing new ways to improve health in the elderly is therefore a top priority for biomedical research. Although our understanding of the molecular basis of these morbidities has advanced rapidly, effective novel treatments are still lacking. Alternative drug development strategies are now being explored, such as the repurposing of existing drugs used to treat other diseases. This can save a considerable amount of time and money since the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety profiles of these drugs are already established, effectively enabling preclinical studies to be bypassed. Metformin is one such drug currently being investigated for novel applications. The present review provides a thorough and detailed account of our current understanding of the molecular pharmacology and signalling mechanisms underlying biguanide-protein interactions. It also focuses on the key role of the microbiota in regulating age-associated morbidities and a potential role for metformin to modulate its function. Research in this area holds the key to solving many of the mysteries of our current understanding of drug action and concerted effects to provide sustained and long-life health.

Pharmacological Modulation of Lung Carcinogenesis in Smokers: Preclinical and Clinical Evidence

Many drugs in common use possess pleiotropic properties that make them capable of interfering with carcinogenesis mechanisms. We discuss here the ability of pharmacological agents to mitigate the pulmonary carcinogenicity of mainstream cigarette smoke. The evaluated agents include anti-inflammatory drugs (budesonide, celecoxib, aspirin, naproxen, licofelone), antidiabetic drugs (metformin, pioglitazone), antineoplastic agents (lapatinib, bexarotene, vorinostat), and other drugs and supplements (phenethyl isothiocyanate, myo-inositol, N-acetylcysteine, ascorbic acid, berry extracts). These drugs have been evaluated in mouse models mimicking interventions either in current smokers or in ex-smokers, or in prenatal chemoprevention. They display a broad spectrum of activities by attenuating either smoke-induced preneoplastic lesions or benign tumors and/or malignant tumors. Together with epidemiological data, these findings provide useful information to predict the potential effects of pharmacological agents in smokers.

European Code against Cancer 4th Edition: Medical exposures, including hormone therapy, and cancer

The 4th edition of the European Code against Cancer recommends limiting - or avoiding when possible - the use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) because of the increased risk of cancer, nevertheless acknowledging that prescription of HRT may be indicated under certain medical conditions. Current evidence shows that HRT, generally prescribed as menopausal hormone therapy, is associated with an increased risk of cancers of the breast, endometrium, and ovary, with the risk pattern depending on factors such as the type of therapy (oestrogen-only or combined oestrogen-progestogen), duration of treatment, and initiation according to the time of menopause. Carcinogenicity has also been established for anti-neoplastic agents used in cancer therapy, immunosuppressants, oestrogen-progestogen contraceptives, and tamoxifen. Medical use of ionising radiation, an established carcinogen, can provide major health benefits; however, prudent practices need to be in place, with procedures and techniques providing the needed diagnostic information or therapeutic gain with the lowest possible radiation exposure. For pharmaceutical drugs and medical radiation exposure with convincing evidence on their carcinogenicity, health benefits have to be balanced against the risks; potential increases in long-term cancer risk should be considered in the context of the often substantial and immediate health benefits from diagnosis and/or treatment. Thus, apart from HRT, no general recommendations on reducing cancer risk were given for carcinogenic drugs and medical radiation in the 4th edition of European Code against Cancer. It is crucial that the application of these measures relies on medical expertise and thorough benefit-risk evaluation. This also pertains to cancer-preventive drugs, and self-medication with aspirin or other potential chemopreventive drugs is strongly discouraged because of the possibility of serious, potentially lethal, adverse events.

Influence of metformin intake on the risk of bladder cancer in type 2 diabetes patients

AIM

The aim of this study was to look at the influence of metformin intake and duration, on urinary bladder cancer (UBC) risk, with sulfonylurea (SU) only users as control using a new user design (inception cohort).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) including all patients with at least one prescription of oral anti-diabetic drugs (ADD) and/or insulin. The risk of UBC in different groups of ADD users (metformin alone (one), metformin in combination (two) with other ADD medication (glinides, glitazones, DPP-4-inhibitors, SUs, insulin or more than one combination), all metformin users (1 + 2) was compared with SU only users using Cox proportional hazards models. The estimates were adjusted for age, gender, smoking status, BMI and diabetes duration.

RESULTS

The inception cohort included 165,398 participants of whom 132,960 were metformin users and 32,438 were SU only users. During a mean follow-up time of more than 5 years 693 patients developed UBC, 124 of the control group and 461 of the all metformin users. There was no association between metformin use and UBC risk (HR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.90, 1.40) compared with SU only users, even after adjustment for diabetes duration (HR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.90, 1.40). We found a pattern of decreasing risk of UBC with increasing duration of metformin intake, which was statistically not significant.

CONCLUSION

Metformin has no influence on the risk of UBC compared with SU in type 2 diabetes patients using a new user design.

No reduced risk of overall, colorectal, lung, breast, and prostate cancer with metformin therapy in diabetic patients: database analyses from Germany and the UK

BACKGROUND

In observational studies, a lower cancer risk was reported for patients with diabetes using metformin. However, many of these studies had shortcomings like time-related biases. We aimed to compare the incidence rate of any cancer and some selected cancer sites in metformin, sulfonylurea, and insulin users and to reduce some major biases common in observational studies.

METHODS

In a retrospective database study, we used patient data from general practices throughout Germany and the UK. Eighty thousand two hundred and sixty-three patients aged 30-89 years at diagnosis of diabetes were observed for a mean follow-up of 4.8 years after the first antidiabetes medication. In Cox regression models adjusted for age, sex, country, metabolic factors, diabetes duration, medication, and comorbidity, patients who started using metformin were compared with those who started using sulfonylurea (or insulin) (intention-to-treat type analysis), and, additionally, patients with metformin monotherapy were compared with those with sulfonylurea (or insulin) monotherapy. The initial 12 months of follow-up after the first antidiabetes prescription were excluded.

RESULTS

Four thousand seven hundred seventy-nine (6.0%) incident cases of cancer were identified. Throughout all analyses, hazard ratios were close to the null for comparisons of metformin use with sulfonylurea and insulin use. For example, in intention-to-treat analyses comparing metformin with sulfonylurea use, hazard ratios were 1.05 (95%CI: 0.99-1.12) for any cancer, 1.05 (0.85-1.30) for colorectal, 1.04 (0.82-1.31) for lung, 1.03 (0.81-1.30) for breast, and 0.89 (0.73-1.08) for prostate cancer.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence that metformin has no protective effect on the incidence of cancer in persons with diabetes.

Pharmacologic Therapy of Diabetes and Overall Cancer Risk and Mortality: A Meta-Analysis of 265 Studies

Different anti-diabetic medications (ADMs) may modify cancer risk and mortality in patients with diabetes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the magnitude of association and quality of supporting evidence for each ADM. A total of 265 studies (44 cohort studies, 39 case-control studies, and 182 randomized controlled trials (RCT)) were identified, involving approximately 7.6 million and 137,540 patients with diabetes for observational studies and RCTs, respectively. The risk of bias overall was moderate. Meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of metformin or thiazolidinediones was associated with a lower risk of cancer incidence (RR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.83-0.90, I² = 88.61%; RR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.91-0.96, I² = 0.00% respectively). On the other hand, insulin, sulfonylureas and alpha glucosidase inhibitor use was associated with an increased risk of cancer incidence (RR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.08-1.36, I² = 96.31%; RR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.13-1.27, I² = 95.02%; RR = 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.15, I² = 0.00% respectively). Use of other types of ADMs was not significantly associated with cancer risk. This study indicates that some ADMs may modify the risk of cancer in individuals with diabetes. Knowledge of this risk may affect the choice of ADM in individuals concerned about cancer or at increased risk for cancer.

Clinical benefits of metformin in gynecologic oncology

Evidence has suggested that diabetes may contribute to the initiation and progression of specific types of cancer. Metformin, a biguanide, has become the preferred first-line therapy for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Metformin is inexpensive, has a proven safety profile and is able to be safely combined with additional antidiabetic agents. In addition to the well-established antidiabetic effects of metformin, there has also been notable interest in its antitumor properties. The present review discusses the emerging role of metformin as an example of an existing drug, used worldwide in the treatment of diabetes, which has been demonstrated to exert significant in vitro and in vivo anticancer activities and has thus been investigated in clinical trials. In gynecologic oncology, metformin has been suggested to exhibit significant treatment efficacy against endometrial cancer. Three studies have demonstrated the potential therapeutic effects of metformin on the survival outcome of patients with ovarian cancer and in ovarian cancer prevention. However, this evidence was based on observational studies. Metformin has been shown to exert no statistically significant beneficial effect on cervical cancer incidence or mortality. By cancer site, the current limited insights highlight the need for clinical investigations and better-designed studies, along with evaluation of the effects of metformin on cancer at other sites.

Dissecting the Dual Role of AMPK in Cancer: From Experimental to Human Studies

The precise role of 5'AMP-activated kinase (AMPK) in cancer and its potential as a therapeutic target is controversial. Although it is well established that activation of this energy sensor inhibits the main anabolic processes that sustain cancer cell proliferation and growth, AMPK activation can confer on cancer cells the plasticity to survive under metabolic stress such as hypoxia and glucose deprivation, which are commonly observed in fast growing tumors. Thus, AMPK is referred to as both a "conditional" tumor suppressor and "contextual" oncogene. To add a further layer of complexity, AMPK activation in human cancer tissues and its correlation with tumor aggressiveness and progression appears to vary in different contexts. The current review discusses the different faces of this metabolic regulator, the therapeutic implications of its modulation, and provides an overview of the most relevant data available on AMPK activation and AMPK-activating drugs in human studies.

Predictive models for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in type 2 diabetic inpatients. A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Many authors have analysed premature mortality in cohorts of type 2 diabetic patients, but no analyses have assessed mortality in hospitalised diabetic patients.

AIM

To construct predictive models to estimate the likelihood of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality in type 2 diabetic inpatients.

DESIGN

Cohort study with follow-up from 2010 to 2014.

METHODS

We evaluated mortality in a randomly selected cohort of 112 type 2 diabetic inpatients at the Hospital of Elda (Spain) in 2010-2012.

OUTCOMES

all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality during the follow-up. Other variables: gender, age, depression, asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, dyslipidemia, insulin, pills, smoking, walking, baseline blood glucose and creatinine. Predictive tables with risk groups were constructed to estimate the likelihood of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Calculations were made of the area under the ROC curve (AUC).

RESULTS

During the follow-up, 52 inpatients died (46.4%, 95% CI, confidence interval: 37.2-55.7%), 22 because of cardiovascular causes (19.6%, 95% CI: 12.3-27.0%). The mean follow-up time was 2.7 ± 1.5 years. The AUC for the all-cause mortality model was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77-0.92, p < 0.001). Associated parameters: pills, smoking, walking, gender, insulin and age. The AUC for the cardiovascular mortality model was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.67-0.91, p < 0.001). Associated parameters: age, pills, walking, smoking, depression and insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides tools to predict premature mortality in type 2 diabetic inpatients. However, before their general application they require joint validation by the internal medicine unit, emergency department, primary healthcare unit and endocrinology service to enable better prediction of the prognosis and more adequate decision-taking.

Attenuating tumour angiogenesis: a preventive role of metformin against breast cancer

Metformin is one of the most widely prescribed antidiabetics for type 2 diabetes. A critical role of metformin against tumorigenesis has recently been implicated, although several studies also reported the lack of anticancer property of the antidiabetics. Given the controversies regarding the potential role of metformin against tumour progression, the effect of metformin against breast, cervical, and ovarian tumour cell lines was examined followed by in vivo assessment of metformin on tumour growth using xenograft breast cancer models. Significant inhibitory impact of metformin was observed in MCF-7, HeLa, and SKOV-3 cells, suggesting an antiproliferative property of metformin against breast, cervical, and ovarian tumour cells, respectively, with the breast tumour cells, MCF-7, being the most responsive. In vivo assessment was subsequently carried out, where mice with breast tumours were treated with metformin (20 mg/kg body weight) or sterile PBS solution for 15 consecutive days. No inhibition of breast tumour progression was detected. However, tumour necrosis was significantly increased in the metformin-treated group, accompanied by decreased capillary formation within the tumours. Thus, despite the lack of short-term benefit of metformin against tumour progression, a preventive role of metformin against breast cancer was implicated, which is at partially attributable to the attenuation of tumour angiogenesis.

Recent advances in the use of metformin: can treating diabetes prevent breast cancer?

There is substantial epidemiological evidence pointing to an increased incidence of breast cancer and morbidity in obese, prediabetic, and diabetic patients. In vitro studies strongly support metformin, a diabetic medication, in breast cancer therapy. Although metformin has been heralded as an exciting new breast cancer treatment, the principal consideration is whether metformin can be used as a generic treatment for all breast cancer types. Importantly, will metformin be useful as an inexpensive therapy for patients with comorbidity of diabetes and breast cancer? In general, meta-analyses of clinical trial data from retrospective studies in which metformin treatment has been used for patients with diabetes and breast cancer have a positive trend; nevertheless, the supporting clinical data outcomes remain inconclusive. The heterogeneity of breast cancer, confounded by comorbidity of disease in the elderly population, makes it difficult to determine the actual benefits of metformin therapy. Despite the questionable evidence available from observational clinical studies and meta-analyses, randomized phases I-III clinical trials are ongoing to test the efficacy of metformin for breast cancer. This special issue review will focus on recent research, highlighting in vitro research and retrospective observational clinical studies and current clinical trials on metformin action in breast cancer.

The association between type 2 diabetes mellitus and women cancer: the epidemiological evidences and putative mechanisms

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), a chronic disease increasing rapidly worldwide, is well established as an important risk factor for various types of cancer. Although many factors impact the development of T2DM and cancer including sex, age, ethnicity, obesity, diet, physical activity levels, and environmental exposure, many epidemiological and experimental studies are gradually contributing to knowledge regarding the interrelationship between DM and cancer. The insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia, and chronic inflammation associated with diabetes mellitus are all associated strongly with cancer. The changes in bioavailable ovarian steroid hormone that occur in diabetes mellitus (the increasing levels of estrogen and androgen and the decreasing level of progesterone) are also considered potentially carcinogenic conditions for the breast, endometrium, and ovaries in women. In addition, the interaction among insulin, insulin-like growth factors (IGFs), and ovarian steroid hormones, such as estrogen and progesterone, could act synergistically during cancer development. Here, we review the cancer-related mechanisms in T2DM, the epidemiological evidence linking T2DM and cancers in women, and the role of antidiabetic medication in these cancers.

Potential and real 'antineoplastic' and metabolic effect of metformin in diabetic and nondiabetic postmenopausal females

AIM

The goal of this study was to determine if the single nucleotide polymorphisms marking potential sensitivity to metformin (MF) correlate with hormone-metabolic status as well as with actual response to MF in postmenopausal cancer patients with or without Type 2 diabetes mellitus and in diabetics without cancer.

PATIENTS & METHODS

The carriage of ten different SNPs was evaluated in all patients by PCR, and hormone-metabolic status was estimated by anthropometry, ELISA and enzyme colorimetric assays. The response to daily 1-1.7 g of MF was studied based on hormone-metabolic parameters and indirect end points (endometrium thickness, mammographic breast density).

RESULTS & CONCLUSION

The changes in evaluated 'antineoplastic' and metabolic response marker values were seen in 33.3 and 61.8% of the cases, respectively. Several genetic markers were found that showed an inclination to less frequent 'antineoplastic' or more frequent metabolic response to MF which may be helpful in further studies of this drug in cancer patients.

Diabetes mellitus and risk of prostate cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition

The current epidemiologic evidence suggests that men with type 2 diabetes mellitus may be at lower risk of developing prostate cancer, but little is known about its association with stage and grade of the disease. The association between self-reported diabetes mellitus at recruitment and risk of prostate cancer was examined in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Among 139,131 eligible men, 4,531 were diagnosed with prostate cancer over an average follow-up of 12 years. Multivariable hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models stratified by EPIC-participating center and age at recruitment, and adjusted for education, smoking status, body mass index, waist circumference, and physical activity. In a subset of men without prostate cancer, the cross-sectional association between circulating concentrations of androgens and insulin-like growth factor proteins with diabetes status was also investigated using linear regression models. Compared to men with no diabetes, men with diabetes had a 26% lower risk of prostate cancer (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.86). There was no evidence that the association differed by stage (p-heterogeneity, 0.19) or grade (p-heterogeneity, 0.48) of the disease, although the numbers were small in some disease subgroups. In a subset of 626 men with hormone measurements, circulating concentrations of androstenedione, total testosterone and insulin-like growth factor binding protein-three were lower in men with diabetes compared to men without diabetes. This large European study has confirmed an inverse association between self-reported diabetes mellitus and subsequent risk of prostate cancer.

[The association of hyperinsulinemia with cardiovascular risk and cancer poses new challenges in the treatment of the insulin resistance type 2 diabetes patient]

Hyperinsulinemia has been associated with cardiovascular risk, both independently and by facilitating the development of other cardiovascular risk factors. It has also been associated by different routes with increased cancer risk. Thus, this makes it a priority to identify and treat the hyperinsulinemic patient early in order to delay or prevent cardiovascular risk and the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and certain types of cancer. A new strategy is needed for the treatment of hyperglycemia in these patients, whose primary objective would be to achieve weight loss, reduce insulin resistance and thereby hyperinsulinemia. That is, prescribing insulin secretors and insulin should be used with caution in these patients.

Are sulfonylurea and insulin therapies associated with a larger risk of cancer than metformin therapy? A retrospective database analysis

OBJECTIVE

Several meta-analyses of observational studies suggested that metformin use reduces cancer risk in type 2 diabetes. However, this result was not confirmed by the few available randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and many observational studies on metformin and cancer were potentially afflicted with time-related bias. We aimed to avoid this bias when comparing cancer incidence in users of sulfonylurea, insulin, and other diabetes medications, respectively, with cancer incidence in metformin users.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In a retrospective observational study, we used the German Disease Analyzer database with patient data from general practices throughout Germany. The study sample included 22,556 patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. During the median follow-up time of 4.8 years, 1,446 (6.4%) patients developed any cancer. In Cox regression analyses with either monotherapies or first diabetes medications as drug exposure, users of sulfonylurea (or insulin or other antidiabetes medications) were compared with metformin users.

RESULTS

In multivariable adjusted models, hazard ratios were 1.09 (95% CI 0.87-1.36) for sulfonylurea monotherapy, 1.14 (95% CI 0.85-1.55) for insulin monotherapy, and 0.94 (95% CI 0.67-1.33) for other diabetes medications compared with metformin monotherapy. Results were similar for comparison of first diabetes medications.

CONCLUSIONS

In a retrospective database analysis, taking into account potential time-related biases, no reduced cancer risk was found in metformin users. To clarify the association between diabetes medication and cancer risk, further well-designed observational studies and RCTs are needed.

Past, Present, and Future Research Avenues for Metformin: A Literature Review

Objective: To review why metformin is considered first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and review newer avenues of research currently being evaluated. Data Sources: The Cochrane Library and Medline (to January 2014) were searched for case-control and cohort studies, clinical trials, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses involving metformin for any indication. Study Selection and Data Extraction: The literature search found 5 major avenues of research for metformin: reduction in mortality, delayed-onset or prevention of T2DM in the presence of prediabetes, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), and decreased cancer risk. When available, multi-center, double-blind, controlled clinical trials or meta-analyses thereof were selected for review. If these types of studies did not exist, other types of studies were chosen for review. Data Synthesis: Metformin significantly decreases all-cause and diabetes-related mortality in overweight and obese patients with T2DM. It may also decrease risk of progression to T2DM in patients with prediabetes. Metformin has been studied for the treatment of NAFLD though data are limited. Metformin alone or combined with clomiphene may increase pregnancy and ovulation rates but has not yet been shown to increase live-birth rates in patients with PCOS. Metformin may decrease risk of colorectal cancer but not all-cancer risk. Conclusions: Metformin's clinical role in T2DM and prediabetes is well established. Other avenues of research being evaluated at this time are NAFLD, PCOS, and reduced risk of cancer; more data are needed before it has a clinical role in these indications.

Diabetes and cancer: epidemiology and potential mechanisms

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is an independent risk factor for cancer such as pancreatic, liver, colorectal and breast cancer. In addition, diabetes decreases the risk of prostate cancer. These associations have been found in numerous epidemiological studies, among them several prospective cohorts. However, such studies do not prove causality of the association and cannot exclude inadequate correction for known confounders (e.g. visceral fat) or the influence of unknown confounders. Thus, it is unclear whether the cancer risk is increased by the causes (e.g. the metabolic syndrome), the metabolic consequences (e.g. hyperglycaemia) or the therapy of diabetes; a question which is of major importance for therapeutic guidelines. Identification of the potential mechanisms by which the diabetes or its therapy accelerates or inhibits the development of cancer will help answering the question by providing biological plausibility. This review will summarize the evidence supporting the association of cancer and type 2 diabetes and discuss its potential causes.

Antihyperglycaemic therapies and cancer risk

AIMS

This review is aimed at highlighting the potential mitogenic/tumour growth-promoting or antimitogenic/tumour growth-inhibiting effects of the main antihyperglycaemic drug classes.

METHODS

We review and discuss the most current studies evaluating the association between antidiabetic medications used in clinical practice and malignancies as described so far.

RESULTS

Metformin seems to be the only antidiabetic drug to exert protective effects both on monotherapy and also when combined with other oral antidiabetic drugs or insulins in several site-specific cancers. In contrast, several other drug classes may increase cancer risk. Some reason for concern remains regarding sulphonylureas and also the incretin-based therapies regarding pancreas and thyroid cancers and the sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors as well as pioglitazone regarding bladder cancer. The majority of meta-analyses suggest that there is no evidence for a causal relationship between insulin glargine and elevated cancer risk, although the studies have been controversially discussed. For α-glucosidase inhibitors and glinides, neutral or only few data upon cancer risk exist.

CONCLUSION

Although the molecular mechanisms are not fully understood, a potential risk of mitogenicity and tumour growth promotion cannot be excluded in case of several antidiabetic drug classes. However, more large-scale, randomized, well-designed clinical studies with especially long follow-up time periods are needed to get reliable answers to these safety issues.

Contemporary treatment strategies for Type 2 diabetes-related macrovascular disease

Type 2 diabetes mellitus poses a major challenge to healthcare providers in the coming years as its prevalence increases across the globe. The disease doubles the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, with 70% of sufferers dying from a cardiac cause. Large clinical trials of current glucose-lowering therapies for Type 2 diabetes have shown no benefit in reducing the risk of macrovascular events. Blood pressure control, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy and improvement of dyslipidemia with statins have proven benefit in reducing cardiovascular risk in Type 2 diabetes. A growing understanding of the importance of pathological processes including endothelial dysfunction, abnormal growth factor biology, oxidative stress, dysregulation of adipokines and deficient vascular repair and regeneration in insulin-resistant states promises new treatments to combat the problem.

Can people with type 2 diabetes live longer than those without? A comparison of mortality in people initiated with metformin or sulphonylurea monotherapy and matched, non-diabetic controls

AIMS

Clinical and observational studies have shown an increased risk of cardiovascular events and death associated with sulphonylureas versus metformin. However, it has never been determined whether this was due to the beneficial effects of metformin or detrimental effects of sulphonylureas. The objective of this study was therefore to compare all-cause mortality in diabetic patients treated first-line with either sulphonylurea or metformin monotherapy with that in matched individuals without diabetes.

METHODS

We used retrospective observational data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) from 2000. Subjects with type 2 diabetes who progressed to first-line treatment with metformin or sulphonylurea monotherapy were selected and matched to people without diabetes. Progression to all-cause mortality was compared using parametric survival models that included a range of relevant co-variables.

RESULTS

We identified 78,241 subjects treated with metformin, 12,222 treated with sulphonylurea, and 90,463 matched subjects without diabetes. This resulted in a total, censored follow-up period of 503,384 years. There were 7498 deaths in total, representing unadjusted mortality rates of 14.4 and 15.2, and 50.9 and 28.7 deaths per 1000 person-years for metformin monotherapy and their matched controls, and sulphonylurea monotherapy and their matched controls, respectively. With reference to observed survival in diabetic patients initiated with metformin monotherapy [survival time ratio (STR) = 1.0], adjusted median survival time was 15% lower (STR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.90) in matched individuals without diabetes and 38% lower (0.62, 0.58-0.66) in diabetic patients treated with sulphonylurea monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with type 2 diabetes initiated with metformin monotherapy had longer survival than did matched, non-diabetic controls. Those treated with sulphonylurea had markedly reduced survival compared with both matched controls and those receiving metformin monotherapy. This supports the position of metformin as first-line therapy and implies that metformin may confer benefit in non-diabetes. Sulphonylurea remains a concern.

Mortality risk with sulphonylureas compared to metformin

Current clinical guidelines in the USA and the UK recommend first-line glucose-lowering treatment with metformin monotherapy for glucose control in type 2 diabetes, where not contraindicated. Consequently, the proportion of people treated with sulphonylureas is decreasing. The purpose of this commentary is to discuss the risks and benefits associated with sulphonylurea monotherapy versus metformin monotherapy and the evidence that, in comparison with metformin, sulphonylureas cause increased harm to people with type 2 diabetes.

Metformin does not affect cancer risk: a cohort study in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink analyzed like an intention-to-treat trial

OBJECTIVE

Meta-analyses of epidemiologic studies have suggested that metformin may reduce cancer incidence, but randomized controlled trials did not support this hypothesis.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study, Clinical Practice Research Datalink, was designed to investigate the association between use of metformin compared with other antidiabetes medications and cancer risk by emulating an intention-to-treat analysis as in a trial. A total of 95,820 participants with type 2 diabetes who started taking metformin and other oral antidiabetes medications within 12 months of their diagnosis (initiators) were followed up for first incident cancer diagnosis without regard to any subsequent changes in pharmacotherapy. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI.

RESULTS

A total of 51,484 individuals (54%) were metformin initiators and 18,264 (19%) were sulfonylurea initiators, and 3,805 first incident cancers were diagnosed during a median follow-up time of 5.1 years. Compared with initiators of sulfonylurea, initiators of metformin had a similar incidence of total cancer (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.89-1.04) and colorectal (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.76-1.13), prostate (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.83-1.25), lung (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.68-1.07), or postmenopausal breast (HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.82-1.31) cancer or any other cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large study, individuals with diabetes who used metformin had a similar risk of developing cancer compared with those who used sulfonylureas.

Effects of metformin on breast cancer cell proliferation, the AMPK pathway and the cell cycle

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the effects and mechanisms of action of metformin on estrogen receptor (ER)-positive and ER-negative breast cancer cell lines.

METHODS

The anti-proliferative effects of metformin, and of the direct activator of adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase (AMPK), A-769662, on MCF-7 (ER-positive) and MDA-MB-231 (ER-negative) breast cancer cell lines were evaluated by MTT (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide, a yellow tetrazole) assays. Fluorescence-activated cell sorting was also used to examine the effect of metformin on the cell cycle. Finally, phosphorylation of the metformin target AMPK, and of its potential downstream targets including acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACC), p53, p70-S6K and Raptor, was examined using immunoblotting.

RESULTS

Metformin and A-769662 caused significant, concentration-dependent suppression of cell proliferation with G1 cell cycle arrest in both MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 cells. The proliferation suppression effect was more profound in MCF-7 cells. A concentration-dependent phosphorylation of AMPK was detected following metformin treatment, as was phosphorylation of ACC in both cell lines, but not p53, p70-S6k or Raptor.

CONCLUSION

Metformin acts as a growth inhibitor in both ER-positive and ER-negative breast cancer cells in vitro, and arrests cells in G1 phase, particularly in the ER-positive MCF-7 cells. The effect is likely to be mediated by AMPK activation, in part by inhibition of fatty acid synthesis via ACC phosphorylation.