RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been shown to have higher incidences of liver, pancreatic, and colorectal cancer compared to non-diabetic individuals. Current evidence is conflicting for other gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Therefore, we aimed to determine incidence rates (IRs) of all GI cancers in patients with and without T2DM. METHODS: A cohort study was performed using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (1988-2012). A cohort of antidiabetic drug users was matched at baseline to a non-diabetic cohort, by age, sex, and practice. Crude IRs and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of GI cancers per 100,000 person-years were calculated stratified by age, sex, and calendar year. RESULTS: 333,438 T2DM and 333,438 non-diabetic individuals were analyzed. IRs of liver (IR 26, 95% CI 24-28 vs. 8.9, 95% CI 7.7-10), pancreatic (IR 65, 95% CI 62-69 vs. 31, 95% CI 28-34), and colon cancer (IR 119, 95% CI 114-124 vs. 109, 95% CI 104-114) were significantly higher in the diabetic compared to the non-diabetic cohort, whereas the IR of oesophageal cancer was significantly lower (IR 41, 95% CI 39-44 vs. 47, 95% CI 44-51). Sex-specific IRs of colon cancer remained significantly higher in men with T2DM, and IRs of esophageal cancer remained significantly lower in women with T2DM. CONCLUSION: In this study, T2DM patients were shown to have higher crude IRs of liver, pancreatic and colon cancer, but not of gastric, biliary, and rectal cancer. Moreover, the lower observed IRs of oesophageal cancer in diabetic patients warrants further investigation.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Previous studies on metformin use and gastrointestinal (GI) cancer risk have yielded inconclusive results on metformin's chemoprotective effects. We aimed to evaluate GI cancer risk in users of metformin in The Netherlands using a time-varying approach in a large population-based database. A cohort study was performed using the NCR-PHARMO database. Patients using ≥1 non-insulin antidiabetic drug (NIAD) during 1998 to 2011 were included (N = 57,621). Exposure to NIADs was modeled time-varyingly. Cox regression analysis estimated HRs of GI cancers in current metformin users versus current users of other NIADs. Covariables included age, sex, drugs known to impact cancer risk, history of hospitalization, and starting year of follow-up. A sensitivity analysis was performed, applying a new-user design. Current use of metformin was not associated with a decreased risk of GI cancer [HR, 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82-1.15] or specific GI cancer sites. The sensitivity analysis yielded comparable results. No decreasing trends were observed with increasing cumulative dose of metformin [HR 1.05, 95% CI, 0.85-1.28; HR 0.89, 95% CI, 0.73-1.10; HR 0.96, 95% CI, 0.77-1.19 for dose tertiles low (<405 g), medium (405-999 g), and high (≥999 g)]. In contrast, an increased risk of pancreatic cancer was found in current users of metformin plus insulin (HR, 4.90; 95% CI, 2.64-9.10). In conclusion, no decreased risk of GI cancer was found in current metformin users compared with current users of other NIADs. Variations in the exposure definition of metformin use may be one of the explanations of previously found reduced cancer risks in metformin users. Cancer Prev Res; 10(5); 290-7. ©2017 AACR.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

AIM: To determine the association between the use of incretin agents (dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and the risk of any, acute and chronic pancreatitis. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A population-based cohort study was conducted using data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD 2007-2012). A total of 182 428 adult patients with ≥1 non-insulin antidiabetic drug (NIAD) prescription were matched to control subjects without diabetes. Cox regression was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of pancreatitis in incretin-users (N = 28 370) compared with controls and with other NIAD users. Adjustments were made for lifestyle, disease and drug history. In a sensitivity analysis, a new-user design was used. RESULTS: Current incretin users had a 1.5-fold increased risk of any pancreatitis compared with NIAD users (adjusted HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.06-2.04). In incident current incretin users the risk of any and acute pancreatitis was increased 2.1- and 2.0-fold compared with NIAD users (adjusted HR 2.12, 95% CI 1.31-3.43 and adjusted HR 1.96, 95% CI 1.13-3.41), whereas there was no increased risk found for chronic pancreatitis. CONCLUSIONS: Incretin use was associated with an increased risk of any pancreatitis. Moreover, risk of any and acute pancreatitis was higher when applying a new-user design. We were not able to detect an association with chronic pancreatitis, but the number in this subgroup was small.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) is increasingly being used by Dutch researchers in epidemiology and pharmacoepidemiology. It is however unclear if the UK CPRD is representative of the Dutch population and whether study results would apply to the Dutch population. Therefore, as first step, our objective was to compare the age and sex distribution of the CPRD with the total Dutch population. METHODS: As a measure of representativeness, the age and sex distribution of the UK CPRD were visually and numerically compared with Dutch census data from the StatLine database of the Dutch National Bureau of Statistics in 2011. RESULTS: The age distribution of men and women in the CPRD population was comparable to the Dutch male and female population. Differences of more than 10% only occurred in older age categories (75+ in men and 80+ in women). CONCLUSIONS: Results from observational studies that have used CPRD data are applicable to the Dutch population, and a useful resource for decision making in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, differences in drug exposure likelihood between countries should be kept in mind, as these could still cause variations in the actual population studied, thereby decreasing its generalizability. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)