Dataset Information

Efficacy of metformin therapy in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis of 22 randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To investigate whether metformin monotherapy or adjunctive therapy improves the prognosis in patients with any type of cancer compared to non-metformin users (age ≥18).

Methods

Databases (Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and clinical trial registries ( ClinicalTrials.gov ; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were screened for randomized, controlled trials (RCT) reporting at least progression-free survival (PFS) and/or overall survival (OS). Main outcome measures included hazard ratios (HR), and combined HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models.

Results

Of the 8419 records screened, 22 RCTs comprising 5943 participants were included. Pooled HRs were not statistically significant in both PFS (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.82-1.15, I² = 50%) and OS (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86-1.13, I² = 33%) for patients with cancer between the metformin and control groups. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that metformin treatment was associated with a marginally significant improvement in PFS in reproductive system cancers (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-1.00) and a significantly worse PFS in digestive system cancers (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.03-2.04). The PFS or OS was observed consistently across maintenance dose, diabetes exclusion, median follow-up, risk of bias, and combined antitumoral therapies.

Conclusion

Metformin treatment was not associated with cancer-related mortality in adults compared with placebo or no treatment. However, metformin implied beneficial effects in the PFS of the patients with reproductive system cancers but was related to a worse PFS in digestive system cancers.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO registration number CRD42022324672.

SUBMITTER: Wen J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9594974 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of metformin therapy in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis of 22 randomised controlled trials.

Wen Jie J Yi Zhenjie Z Chen Yuyao Y Huang Jing J Mao Xueyi X Zhang Liyang L Zeng Yu Y Cheng Quan Q Ye Wenrui W Liu Zhixiong Z Liu Fangkun F Liu Jingfang J

BMC medicine 20221024 1

<h4>Background</h4>To investigate whether metformin monotherapy or adjunctive therapy improves the prognosis in patients with any type of cancer compared to non-metformin users (age ≥18).<h4>Methods</h4>Databases (Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and clinical trial registries ( ClinicalTrials.gov ; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were screened for randomized, controlled trials (RCT) reporting at least progress ...[more]

PMID: 36280839

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe UK Prospective Diabetes Study showed that metformin decreases mortality compared to diet alone in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Since then, it has been the first-line treatment in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes. However, metformin-sulphonylurea bitherapy may increase mortality.Methods and findingsThis meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials evaluated metformin efficacy (in studies of metformin versus diet alone, versus placebo, and versus no treatment; metformin as an add-on therapy; and metformin withdrawal) against cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane database. Primary end points were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death. Secondary end points included all myocardial infarctions, all strokes, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, leg amputations, and microvascular complications. Thirteen randomised controlled trials (13,110 patients) were retrieved; 9,560 patients were given metformin, and 3,550 patients were given conventional treatment or placebo. Metformin did not significantly affect the primary outcomes all-cause mortality, risk ratio (RR)=0.99 (95% CI: 0.75 to 1.31), and cardiovascular mortality, RR=1.05 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.64). The secondary outcomes were also unaffected by metformin treatment: all myocardial infarctions, RR=0.90 (95% CI: 0.74 to 1.09); all strokes, RR=0.76 (95% CI: 0.51 to 1.14); heart failure, RR=1.03 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.59); peripheral vascular disease, RR=0.90 (95% CI: 0.46 to 1.78); leg amputations, RR=1.04 (95% CI: 0.44 to 2.44); and microvascular complications, RR=0.83 (95% CI: 0.59 to 1.17). For all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, there was significant heterogeneity when including the UK Prospective Diabetes Study subgroups (I(2)=41% and 59%). There was significant interaction with sulphonylurea as a concomitant treatment for myocardial infarction (p=0.10 and 0.02, respectively).ConclusionsAlthough metformin is considered the gold standard, its benefit/risk ratio remains uncertain. We cannot exclude a 25% reduction or a 31% increase in all-cause mortality. We cannot exclude a 33% reduction or a 64% increase in cardiovascular mortality. Further studies are needed to clarify this situation.

Project description:BackgroundTo assess the blood pressure and lipid-lowering efficacy and tolerability of 'polypills' used in cardiovascular disease prevention trials.Methodology/principal findingsSystematic review and meta-analysis.Search strategyThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, and PubMed databases were searched for eligible trials. Study inclusion criteria: Randomised controlled trials of at least six weeks duration, which compared a 'polypill' (that included at least one anti-hypertensive and one lipid-lowering medication) with a placebo (or one active component).Outcome measuresChange from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressures, and total and LDL-cholesterol; discontinuation of study medication and reported adverse effects. Of 44 potentially eligible studies, six trials (including 2,218 patients without previous cardiovascular disease) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Compared with placebo, 'polypills' reduced systolic blood pressure by -9.2 mmHg (95% confidence interval (CI): -13.4, -5.0) diastolic blood pressure by -5.0 mmHg (95%CI: -7.4, -2.6), total cholesterol by -1.22 mmol/L (95%CI: -1.60, -0.84) and LDL-cholesterol by -1.02 mmol/L (95%CI: -1.37, -0.67). However, those taking a 'polypill' (vs. placebo or component) were more likely to discontinue medication (20% vs 14%) (Odds ratio: 1.5 (95% CI: 1.2, 1.9)). There was no significant difference in reported adverse effects amongst those on a 'polypill' (36% vs. 28%) (OR: 1.3 (95%CI: 0.7, 2.5)). There was high statistical heterogeneity in comparisons for blood pressure and lipid-lowering but use of random-effects and quality-effects models produced very similar results.Conclusions/significanceCompared with placebo, the 'polypills' reduced blood pressure and lipids. Tolerability was lower amongst those on 'polypills' than those on placebo or one component, but differences were moderate. Effectiveness trials are needed to help clarify the status of 'polypills' in primary care and prevention strategies.

Project description:ObjectivesWe investigated the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in lower extremity tendinopathy and plantar fasciitis on patient-reported pain and disability.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesEligible articles in any language were identified through PubMed, Embase and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) on the 20 August 2020, references, citations and experts.Eligibility criteria for selection of studiesOnly randomised controlled trials involving participants with lower extremity tendinopathy or plantar fasciitis treated with LLLT were included.Data extraction and synthesisRandom effects meta-analyses with dose subgroups based on the World Association for Laser Therapy treatment recommendations were conducted. Risk of bias was assessed with the PEDro scale.ResultsLLLT was compared with placebo (10 trials), other interventions (5 trials) and as an add-on intervention (3 trials). The study quality was moderate to high.Overall, pain was significantly reduced by LLLT at completed therapy (13.15 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; 95% CI 7.82 to 18.48)) and 4-12 weeks later (12.56 mm VAS (95% CI 5.69 to 19.42)). Overall, disability was significantly reduced by LLLT at completed therapy (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD)=0.39 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.7) and 4-9 weeks later (SMD=0.32 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.59)). Compared with placebo control, the recommended doses significantly reduced pain at completed therapy (14.98 mm VAS (95% CI 3.74 to 26.22)) and 4-8 weeks later (14.00 mm VAS (95% CI 2.81 to 25.19)). The recommended doses significantly reduced pain as an add-on to exercise therapy versus exercise therapy alone at completed therapy (18.15 mm VAS (95% CI 10.55 to 25.76)) and 4-9 weeks later (15.90 mm VAS (95% CI 2.3 to 29.51)). No adverse events were reported.ConclusionLLLT significantly reduces pain and disability in lower extremity tendinopathy and plantar fasciitis in the short and medium term. Long-term data were not available. Some uncertainty about the effect size remains due to wide CIs and lack of large trials.Prospero registration numberCRD42017077511.

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effects of physical activity in adult patients after completion of main treatment related to cancer.DesignMeta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with data extraction and quality assessment performed independently by two researchers.Data sourcesPubmed, CINAHL, and Google Scholar from the earliest possible year to September 2011. References from meta-analyses and reviews.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials that assessed the effects of physical activity in adults who had completed their main cancer treatment, except hormonal treatment.ResultsThere were 34 randomised controlled trials, of which 22 (65%) focused on patients with breast cancer, and 48 outcomes in our meta-analysis. Twenty two studies assessed aerobic exercise, and four also included resistance or strength training. The median duration of physical activity was 13 weeks (range 3-60 weeks). Most control groups were considered sedentary or were assigned no exercise. Based on studies on patients with breast cancer, physical activity was associated with improvements in insulin-like growth factor-I, bench press, leg press, fatigue, depression, and quality of life. When we combined studies on different types of cancer, we found significant improvements in body mass index (BMI), body weight, peak oxygen consumption, peak power output, distance walked in six minutes, right handgrip strength, and quality of life. Sources of study heterogeneity included age, study quality, study size, and type and duration of physical activity. Publication bias did not alter our conclusions.ConclusionsPhysical activity has positive effects on physiology, body composition, physical functions, psychological outcomes, and quality of life in patients after treatment for breast cancer. When patients with cancer other than breast cancer were also included, physical activity was associated with reduced BMI and body weight, increased peak oxygen consumption and peak power output, and improved quality of life.

Project description:PurposeThis review aimed to (1) evaluate the effectiveness of social media-based interventions for improving the quality of life, anxiety and depressive symptoms of patients with cancer at post-intervention and follow-up; (2) identify the essential features of social media-based interventions and (3) explore the covariates of the treatment effect.MethodsAll types of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Ten electronic databases, clinical trial registries and grey literature sources were searched from inception to 15 December 2021. Stata software was used to perform meta-analysis, subgroup analyses and meta-regression analyses. Individual quality assessment and certainty of evidence were assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool version 1 and Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development and Evaluation criteria, respectively.ResultsThis review included 43 RCTs, which comprised 6239 patients with a total mean age of 49.71 years old from across 11 countries. Social media-based interventions significantly improved the quality of life (g = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.05-0.45) and anxiety symptoms (g = - 0.41, 95% CI = - 0.76-0.07) but not depressive symptoms. The essential features based on the subgroup analysis concluded that using a mobile device with a flexible frequency had a remarkably greater effect on the quality of life and anxiety symptoms than their counterparts. The meta-regression showed the covariate features, where having more social media features in interventions significantly improved the quality of life (β = 0.21, p = 0.01). The certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes.ConclusionsParticipants who received social media-based interventions may experience an increase in quality of life and reduction in anxiety symptoms.Implications for cancer survivorsSocial media-based interventions may complement usual care in improving quality of life and anxiety symptoms. Registration in PROSPERO CRD42022297956.

Project description:INTRODUCTION: The efficacy and the optimal type and volume of aerobic exercise (AE) in fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) are not established. We therefore assessed the efficacy of different types and volumes of AE in FMS. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychInfo and SPORTDISCUS (through April 2009) and the reference sections of original studies and systematic reviews on AE in FMS were systematically reviewed. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of AE compared with controls (treatment as usual, attention placebo, active therapy) and head-to-head comparisons of different types of AE were included. Two authors independently extracted articles using predefined data fields, including study quality indicators. RESULTS: Twenty-eight RCTs comparing AE with controls and seven RCTs comparing different types of AE with a total of 2,494 patients were reviewed. Effects were summarised using standardised mean differences (95% confidence intervals) by random effect models. AE reduced pain (-0.31 (-0.46, -0.17); P<0.001), fatigue (-0.22 (-0.38, -0.05); P=0.009), depressed mood (-0.32 (-0.53, -0.12); P=0.002) and limitations of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (-0.40 (-0.60, -0.20); P<0.001), and improved physical fitness (0.65 (0.38, 0.95); P<0.001), post treatment. Pain was significantly reduced post treatment by land-based and water-based AE, exercises with slight to moderate intensity and frequency of two or three times per week. Positive effects on depressed mood, HRQOL and physical fitness could be maintained at follow-up. Continuing exercise was associated with positive outcomes at follow-up. Risks of bias analyses did not change the robustness of the results. Few studies reported a detailed exercise protocol, thus limiting subgroup analyses of different types of exercise. CONCLUSIONS: An aerobic exercise programme for FMS patients should consist of land-based or water-based exercises with slight to moderate intensity two or three times per week for at least 4 weeks. The patient should be motivated to continue exercise after participating in an exercise programme.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of metformin therapy in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis of 22 randomised controlled trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Systematic review registration

Publications

Efficacy of metformin therapy in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis of 22 randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets