Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Anti-Diabetic Medications and Risk of Pancreatic Cancer in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Singh, Siddharth MD1, 5; Singh, Preet Paul MD2, 5; Singh, Abha Goyal MD3; Murad, Hassan M MD4; McWilliams, Robert R MD2; Chari, Suresh T MD1

American Journal of Gastroenterology: April 2013 - Volume 108 - Issue 4 - p 510–519
doi: 10.1038/ajg.2013.7

OBJECTIVES: Several preclinical and observational studies have shown that anti-diabetic medications (ADMs) may modify the risk of pancreatic cancer (PaC). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effect of metformin, sulfonylureas (SUs), thiazolidinediones (TZDs), and insulin on the risk of PaC in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM).

METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science, up to June 2012, and published abstracts from major gastroenterology and oncology meetings from 2003 to 2012. Studies were included if they (1) evaluated and clearly defined exposure to metformin, SU, TZDs, and/or insulin, (2) reported PaC outcomes in patients with DM and (3) reported relative risks or odds ratio (OR) or provided data for their estimation. Summary OR estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using the random-effects model.

RESULTS: Eleven studies (6 cohort, 3 case-control, and 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs)) reported 1770 cases of PaC in 730,664 patients with DM. Meta-analysis of observational studies showed no significant association between metformin (n=9 studies; adjusted OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57–1.03,P=0.073), insulin (n=7 studies; adjusted OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.85–2.96,P=0.144), or TZD (n=4 studies; adjusted OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81–1.30,P=0.844) use and risk of developing PaC. Use of SU was associated with a 70% increase in the odds of PaC (n=8 studies; adjusted OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.27–2.28,P<0.001). There was considerable inherent heterogeneity between studies not explained by study design, setting, or comparator drug and is likely related to confounding by indication and reverse causality. The pooled analyses of the two RCTs were underpowered and provided non-significant results with wide, non-informative 95% CIs.

CONCLUSIONS: Although SU seems to be associated with increased risk of PaC, meta-analysis of existing studies does not support a protective or harmful association between ADM use and risk of PaC in patients with DM. There was considerable heterogeneity across studies, and future, well-designed, prospective studies would be required to understand this association better.

1 Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA

2 Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA

3 Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA

4 Department of Preventive Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA

Correspondence: Suresh T. Chari, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA. E-mail:

5 Co-first authors.

Received 24 July 2012; accepted 26 December 2012

published online 12 February 2013

© The American College of Gastroenterology 2013. All Rights Reserved.
You currently do not have access to this article

To access this article:

Note: If your society membership provides full-access, you may need to login on your society website