Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of metformin in combination with chemotherapy in cancer patients without diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The results of a meta-analysis of retrospective studies suggest that the use of metformin in cancer patients may prolong progression-free disease survival and overall survival. However, the studies included in the meta-analysis did not strictly distinguish between patients with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, further studies are needed to assess whether the use of adjuvant chemotherapy with metformin in cancer patients without diabetes improves prognosis.

Method

Systematic searches of Embase, Pubmed, and The Cochrane library were performed for the subject terms metformin and neoplasm and for free words. Data related to PFS, OS were extracted according to inclusion exclusion criteria. The data were combined and meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 to confirm the efficacy and safety of metformin administration.

Results

There were 3228 publications retrieved from the database and a total of 13 publications with 955 patients were included in the meta-analysis after screening. All included studies were randomised controlled trials. Metformin combined with adjuvant chemotherapy did not improve progression-free survival (HR=1,95CI 0.79-1.25), overall survival (HR=0.91,95% CI 0.69-1.20) and did not improve objective disease response rates in patients. There was no significant difference in grade 3-4 adverse reactions compared to placebo.

Conclusion

In this meta-analysis of randomised controlled trial studies, we found that chemotherapy in combination with metformin in cancer patients without diabetes did not prolong progression-free survival and overall survival and improved disease control in patients, although there was no significant difference in terms of safety. More high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed in the future to confirm the in vivo anti-tumour activity and survival benefit of metformin.

SUBMITTER: Yang K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10402741 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of metformin in combination with chemotherapy in cancer patients without diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yang Kang K Lu Hao-Hao HH Zhao Wei W Zhao Qingchun Q

Frontiers in oncology 20230720

<h4>Background</h4>The results of a meta-analysis of retrospective studies suggest that the use of metformin in cancer patients may prolong progression-free disease survival and overall survival. However, the studies included in the meta-analysis did not strictly distinguish between patients with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, further studies are needed to assess whether the use of adjuvant chemotherapy with metformin in cancer patients without diabetes improves prognosis.<h4>Me ...[more]

PMID: 37546417

Similar Datasets

Project description:Diabetes is a serious threat to global health and among the top 10 causes of death, with nearly half a billion people living with it worldwide. Treating patients with diabetes tend to become more challenging due to the progressive nature of the disease. The role and benefits of combination therapies for the management of type 2 diabetes are well-documented, while the comparative safety and efficacy among the different combination options have not been elucidated. We aimed to systematically synthesize the evidence on the comparative cardiovascular safety and efficacy of combination therapy with metformin-sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors versus metformin-sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes. We searched MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 15 August 2019 without restriction in the year of publication. We included randomized controlled trials of patients with type 2 diabetes who were on metformin-sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors or metformin-sulphonylureas combination therapy at least for a year. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events, and the secondary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, hypoglycemia, and changes in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), body weight, fasting plasma glucose, blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. We used a random-effects meta-analysis model to estimate mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes. We followed PICOS description model for defining eligibility and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 guidelines for reporting results. Of 3,190 citations, we included nine trials involving 10,974 participants. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality (risk ration [RR] = 0.93, 95% CI [0.52, 1.67]), serious adverse events (RR = 0.96, 95% CI [0.79, 1.17]) and adverse events (RR = 1.00, 95% CI [0.99, 1.02]) between the two, but in hypoglycemia (RR = 0.13, 95% CI [0.10, 0.17], P < 0.001). Participants taking metformin-sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors showed a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c (mean difference [MD] = - 0.10%, 95% CI [- 0.17, - 0.03], body weight (MD = - 4.57 kg, 95% CI [- 4.74, - 4.39], systolic blood pressure (MD = - 4.77 mmHg, 95% CI [- 5.39, - 4.16]), diastolic blood pressure (MD = - 2.07 mmHg, 95% CI [- 2.74, - 1.40], and fasting plasma glucose (MD = - 0.55 mmol/L, 95% CI [- 0.69, - 0.41]), p < 0.001. Combination therapy of metformin and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors is a safe and efficacious alternative to combination therapy of metformin and sulphonylureas for patients with type 2 diabetes who are at risk of cardiovascular comorbidity. However, there remains a need for additional long-term randomized controlled trials as available studies are very limited and heterogeneous.

Project description:IntroductionThe aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy compared with monotherapy in drug-naïve type 2 diabetes patients.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized clinical trials of initial combination therapy with hypoglycemic agents compared with monotherapy. Those which satisfied the search criteria were included in the meta-analysis. Weighted mean difference and relative risks were calculated.ResultsA total of 36 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with metformin monotherapy, initial combination therapy with metformin plus another anti-diabetes drug exhibited significant reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (p < 0.001). Most of the combination therapies had a similar risk of hypoglycemia (p > 0.05), with the exception of combinations of sulfonylurea/glinide and metformin or combinations of thiazolidinedione and metformin. Compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor monotherapy, initial combination therapy with DPP-4 inhibitor plus another anti-diabetes drug showed a significant decrease in HbA1c (p < 0.001) and a similar risk of hypoglycemia (p > 0.05). Compared with monotherapy with other anti-diabetes drugs, initial combination therapies also resulted in significant HbA1c reductions, a similar risk of hypoglycemia and similar risks of other adverse events.ConclusionCompared with monotherapy, all initial combination therapies resulted in significant HbA1c reductions. Compared with metformin monotherapy, initial combination therapies with DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin, sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and metformin, respectively, were associated with similar risks of hypoglycemia, but initial combination therapies with sulfonylurea plus metformin, thiazolidinedione and metformin, respectively, were associated with higher risks of hypoglycemia.FundingAstraZeneca Ltd. (China).Trial registrationRegistration number CRD42017060717 in PROSPERO.

Project description:Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.

Project description:Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched (July 31, 2021) for phase II/III randomized clinical trials, which reported the efficacy and safety of ertugliflozin. Continuous variables were calculated as weighted mean difference (WMD) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs); dichotomous data were expressed as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs. Results: Nine randomized clinical trials including 5638 type 2 diabetes patients were included. For efficacy, ertugliflozin significantly reduced HbA1c (%) (WMD -0.452%; 95% CI -0.774 to -0.129), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (WMD -0.870 mmol/L; 95% CI -1.418 to -0.322), body weight (WMD -1.774 kg; 95% CI -2.601 to -0.946), and blood pressure levels (systolic blood pressure: WMD -2.572 mmHg; 95% CI -3.573 to -1.571 and diastolic blood pressure: WMD -1.152 mmHg; 95% CI -2.002 to -0.303) compared with placebo and other hypoglycaemic agents. Compared with placebo, ertugliflozin was superior in reducing HbA1c (%) (WMD -0.641%) and FPG (WMD -1.249 mmol/L). And compared with active agents, ertugliflozin also could decrease HbA1c by 0.215% and FPG by 0.266 mmol/L. The interactive effect between different controls was significant (P interaction of 0.039). For safety, similar to other sodium-glucose cotransporter type-2 inhibitors, ertugliflozin mainly increased the risk of genital mycotic infection (RR: 4.004; 95% CI 2.504-6.402). There was no significant difference in the incidence of any adverse events (AEs), AEs related to study drug, serious AEs, deaths, and discontinuations due to AEs. Results were consistent with the most primary outcomes in subgroups analysis and sensitivity analysis. Conclusion: Ertugliflozin was relatively effective and tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with placebo or other hypoglycaemic agents, except for a high risk of genital mycotic infection. Systematic Review Registration: (ClinicalTrials.gov), identifier (CRD42020206356).

Project description:BackgroundThe last international consensus on the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) recommends SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists for patients with clinical cardiovascular (CV) disease; metformin remains the first-line glucose lowering medication. Last studies suggested beneficial effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists compared to DPP-4 inhibitors, in secondary CV prevention. Recently, a potential benefit of SGLT-2 inhibitors in primary CV prevention also has been suggested. However, no comparison of all the new and the old hypoglycemic drugs is available on CV outcomes. We aimed to compare the effects of old and new hypoglycemic drugs in T2D, on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality.Methods and findingsWe conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of clinical trials. Randomized trials, blinded or not, assessing contemporary hypoglycemic drugs on mortality or MACE in patients with T2D, were searched for in Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov. References screening and data extraction were done by multiple observers. Each drug was analyzed according to its therapeutic class. A random Bayesian network meta-analysis model was used. The primary outcomes were overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and MACE. Severe adverse events and severe hypoglycemia were also recorded. 175,966 patients in 34 trials from 1970 to 2018 were included. No trials evaluating glinides or alpha glucosidase inhibitors were found. 17 trials included a majority of patients with previous cardiovascular history, 16 trials a majority of patients without. Compared to control, SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a decreased risk of overall mortality (OR = 0.84 [95% CrI: 0.74; 0.95]), SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists with a decreased risk of MACE (OR = 0.89 [95% CrI: 0.81; 0.98] and OR = 0.88 [95% CrI: 0.81; 0.95], respectively). Compared to DPP-4 inhibitors, SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a decreased risk of overall mortality (OR = 0.82 [95% CrI: 0.69; 0.98]), GLP-1 agonists with a decreased risk of MACE (OR = 0.88 [95% CrI: 0.79; 0.99]). Insulin was also associated with an increased risk of MACE compared to GLP-1 agonists (OR = 1.19 [95% CrI: 1.01; 1.42]). Insulin and sulfonylureas were associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia. In the trials including a majority of patients without previous CV history, the comparisons of SGLT-2 inhibitors, metformin and control did not showed significant differences on primary outcomes. We limited our analysis at the therapeutic class level.ConclusionsSGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists have the most beneficial effects, especially in T2D patients with previous CV diseases. Direct comparisons of SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists and metformin are needed, notably in primary CV prevention.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42016043823.

Project description:BackgroundBeing protease inhibitors and owing to their efficacy in SARS-CoV, lopinavir + ritonavir (L/R) combination is being used in the management of COVID-19. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we have evaluated the comparative safety and efficacy of L/R combination.Materials and methodsComparative, observational studies and controlled clinical trials comparing L/R combination to standard of care (SOC)/control or any other antiviral agent/combinations were included. A total of 10 databases were searched to identify 13 studies that fulfilled the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria.ResultsNo discernible beneficial effect was seen in the L/R group in comparison to SOC/control in terms of "progression to more severe state" (4 studies, odds ratio [OR]: 1.446 [0.722-2.895]), "mortality" (3 studies, OR: 1.208 [0.563-2.592]), and "virological cure on days 7-10" (3 studies, OR: 0.777 [0.371-1.630]), while the L/R combination arm performed better than the SOC/control arm in terms of "duration of hospital stay" (3 studies, mean difference (MD): -1.466 [-2.403 to - 0.529]) and "time to virological cure" (3 studies, MD: -3.272 [-6.090 to - 0.454]). No difference in efficacy was found between L/R versus hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and L/R versus arbidol. However, in a single randomized controlled trail (open label), chloroquine (CQ) performed better than L/R. The combination L/R with arbidol may be beneficial (in terms of virological clearance and radiological improvement); however, we need more dedicated studies. Single studies report efficacy of L/R + interferon (IFN, either alpha or 1-beta) combination. We need more studies to delineate the proper effect size. Regarding adverse effects, except occurrence of diarrhea (higher in the L/R group), safety was comparable to SOC.ConclusionIn our study, no difference was seen between the L/R combination and the SOC arm in terms of "progression to more severe state," "mortality," and virological cure on days 7-10;" however, some benefits in terms of "duration of hospital stay" and "time to virological cure" were seen. No significant difference in efficacy was seen when L/R was compared to arbidol and HCQ monotherapy. Except for the occurrence of diarrhea, which was higher in the L/R group, safety profile of L/R is comparable to SOC. Compared to L/R combination, CQ, L/R + arbidol, L/R + IFN-α, and L/R + IFN-1β showed better efficacy, but the external validity of these findings is limited by limited number of studies (1 study each).

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of metformin in combination with chemotherapy in cancer patients without diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Efficacy and safety of metformin in combination with chemotherapy in cancer patients without diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets