Insulin glargine and cancer risk: an opinion statement of the Endocrine and Metabolism Practice and Research Network of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy

Insulin and GH-IGF-I axis: endocrine pacer or endocrine disruptor?

Growth hormone/insulin-like growth factor (IGF) axis may play a role in maintaining glucose homeostasis in synergism with insulin. IGF-1 can directly stimulate glucose transport into the muscle through either IGF-1 or insulin/IGF-1 hybrid receptors. In severely decompensated diabetes including diabetic ketoacidosis, plasma levels of IGF-1 are low and insulin delivery into the portal system is required to normalize IGF-1 synthesis and bioavailability. Normalization of serum IGF-1 correlated with the improvement of glucose homeostasis during insulin therapy providing evidence for the use of IGF-1 as biomarker of metabolic control in diabetes. Taking apart the inherent mitogenic discussion, diabetes treatment using insulins with high affinity for the IGF-1 receptor may act as an endocrine pacer exerting a cardioprotective effect by restoring the right level of IGF-1 in bloodstream and target tissues, whereas insulins with low affinity for the IGF-1 receptor may lack this positive effect. An excessive and indirect stimulation of IGF-1 receptor due to sustained and chronic hyperinsulinemia over the therapeutic level required to overtake acute/chronic insulin resistance may act as endocrine disruptor as it may possibly increase the cardiovascular risk in the short and medium term and mitogenic/proliferative action in the long term. In conclusion, normal IGF-1 may be hypothesized to be a good marker of appropriate insulin treatment of the subject with diabetes and may integrate and make more robust the message coming from HbA1c in terms of prediction of cardiovascular risk.

Lower risk of cancer in patients on metformin in comparison with those on sulfonylurea derivatives: results from a large population-based follow-up study

OBJECTIVE

Numerous studies have suggested a decreased risk of cancer in patients with diabetes on metformin. Because different comparison groups were used, the effect magnitude is difficult to estimate. Therefore, the objective of this study was to further analyze whether, and to what extent, use of metformin is associated with a decreased risk of cancer in a cohort of incident users of metformin compared with users of sulfonylurea derivatives.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data for this study were obtained from dispensing records from community pharmacies individually linked to hospital discharge records from 2.5 million individuals in the Netherlands. The association between the risk of cancer in those using metformin compared with those using sulfonylurea derivatives was analyzed using Cox proportional hazard models with cumulative duration of drug use as a time-varying determinant.

RESULTS

Use of metformin was associated with a lower risk of cancer in general (hazard ratio 0.90 [95% CI 0.88-0.91]) compared with use of sulfonylurea derivatives. When specific cancers were used as end points, similar estimates were found. Dosage-response relations were identified for users of metformin but not for users of sulfonylurea derivatives.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, cumulative exposure to metformin was associated with a lower risk of specific cancers and cancer in general, compared with cumulative exposure to sulfonylurea derivatives. However, whether this should indeed be seen as a decreased risk of cancer for the use of metformin or as an increased risk of cancer for the use sulfonylurea derivatives remains to be elucidated.

Risk of cancer in patients on insulin glargine and other insulin analogues in comparison with those on human insulin: results from a large population-based follow-up study

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Several publications suggest an association between certain types of insulin and cancer, but with conflicting results. We investigated whether insulin glargine (A21Gly,B31Arg,B32Arg human insulin) is associated with an increased risk of cancer in a large population-based cohort study.

METHODS

Data for this study were obtained from dispensing records from community pharmacies individually linked to hospital discharge records from 2.5 million individuals in the Netherlands. In a cohort of incident users of insulin, the association between insulin glargine and other insulin analogues, respectively, and cancer was analysed in comparison with human insulin using Cox proportional hazard models with cumulative duration of drug use as a time-varying determinant. The first hospital admission with a primary diagnosis of cancer was considered as the main outcome; secondary analyses were performed with specific cancers as outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 19,337 incident insulin users enrolled, 878 developed cancer. Use of insulin glargine was associated with a lower risk of malignancies in general in comparison with human insulin (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.71, 0.80). In contrast, an increased risk was found for breast cancer (HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.22, 2.05). Dose-response relationships could not be identified.

CONCLUSION/INTERPRETATION

Users of insulin glargine and users of other insulin analogues had a lower risk of cancer in general than those using human insulin. Both associations might be a consequence of residual confounding, lack of adherence or competing risk. However, as in previous studies, we demonstrated an increased risk of breast cancer in users of insulin glargine in comparison with users of human insulin.

Current european regulatory perspectives on insulin analogues

Insulin analogues are increasingly considered as an alternative to human insulin in the therapy of diabetes mellitus. Insulin analogues (IAs) are chemically different from human insulin and may have different pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic properties. The significance of the modifications of the insulin molecule for the safety profile of IAs must be considered. This review describes the regulatory procedure and the expectations for the scientific content of European marketing authorization applications for innovative IAs submitted to the European Medicines Agency. Particular consideration is given to a potential cancer hazard. Specific regulatory guidance on how to address a possible carcinogenic or tumor promoting effect of innovative IAs in non-clinical studies is available. After marketing authorization, the factual access of patients to the new product will be determined to great extent by health technology assessment bodies, reimbursement decisions and the price. Whereas the marketing authorization is a European decision, pricing and reimbursement are national or regional responsibilities. The assessment of benefit and risk by the European Medicines Agency is expected to influence future decisions on price and reimbursement on a national or regional level. Collaborations between regulatory agencies and health technology assessment bodies have been initiated on European and national level to facilitate the use of the European Medicines Agency's benefit risk assessment as basis on which to build the subsequent health technology assessment. The option for combined or joint scientific advice procedures with regulators and health technology assessment bodies on European level or on a national level in several European Member States may help applicants to optimize their development program and dossier preparation in regard of both European marketing authorization application and reimbursement decisions.