Cardiovascular risk associated with the use of glitazones, metformin and sufonylureas: meta-analysis of published observational studies

BACKGROUND: The results of observational studies evaluating and comparing the cardiovascular safety of glitazones, metformin and sufonylureas are inconsistent.To conduct and evaluate heterogeneity in a meta-analysis of observational studies on the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes using non-insulin blood glucose–lowering drugs (NIBGLD). METHODS: We systematically identified and reviewed studies evaluating NIBGLD in patients with type 2 diabetes indexed in Medline, Embase, or the Cochrane Library that met prespecified criteria. The quality of included studies was assessed with the RTI item bank. Results were combined using fixed- and random-effects models, and the Higgins I(2) statistic was used to evaluate heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses by study quality were conducted. RESULTS: The summary relative risk (sRR) (95 % CI) of AMI for rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone was 1.13 (1.04–1.24) [I(2) = 55 %]. In the sensitivity analysis, heterogeneity was reduced [I(2) = 16 %]. The sRR (95 % CI) of stroke for rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone was 1.18 (1.02–1.36) [I(2) = 42 %]. There was strong evidence of heterogeneity related to study quality in the comparisons of rosiglitazone versus metformin and rosiglitazone versus sulfonylureas (I(2) ≥ 70 %). The sRR (95 % CI) of AMI for sulfonylurea versus metformin was 1.24 (1.14–1.34) [I(2) = 41 %] and for pioglitazone versus metformin was 1.02 (0.75–1.38) [I(2) = 17 %]. Sensitivity analyses decreased heterogeneity in most comparisons. CONCLUSION/INTERPRETATION: Sulfonylureas increased the risk of AMI by 24 % compared with metformin; an imprecise point estimate indicated no difference in risk of AMI when comparing pioglitazone with metformin. The presence of heterogeneity precluded any conclusions on the other comparisons. The quality assessment was valuable in identifying methodological problems in the individual studies and for analysing potential sources of heterogeneity. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-016-0187-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Cancer Risk in Diabetic Patients Treated with Metformin: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence has suggested that metformin potentially reduces the risk of cancer. Our objective was to enhance the precision of estimates of the effect of metformin on the risk of any-site and site-specific cancers in patients with diabetes. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We performed a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for pertinent articles published as of October 12, 2011, and included them in a systematic review and meta-analysis. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) for overall cancer mortality and cancer incidence. Of the 21,195 diabetic patients reported in 6 studies (4 cohort studies, 2 RCTs), 991 (4.5%) cases of death from cancer were reported. A total of 11,117 (5.3%) cases of incident cancer at any site were reported among 210,892 patients in 10 studies (2 RCTs, 6 cohort studies, 2 case-control studies). The risks of cancer among metformin users were significantly lower than those among non-metformin users: the pooled RRs (95% confidence interval) were 0.66 (0.49-0.88) for cancer mortality, 0.67 (0.53-0.85) for all-cancer incidence, 0.68 (0.53-0.88) for colorectal cancer (n = 6), 0.20 (0.07-0.59) for hepatocellular cancer (n = 4), 0.67 (0.45-0.99) for lung cancer (n = 3). CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The use of metformin in diabetic patients was associated with significantly lower risks of cancer mortality and incidence. However, this analysis is mainly based on observational studies and our findings underscore the more need for long-term RCTs to confirm this potential benefit for individuals with diabetes

Periodontitis and diabetes: a two-way relationship

Periodontitis is a common chronic inflammatory disease characterised by destruction of the supporting structures of the teeth (the periodontal ligament and alveolar bone). It is highly prevalent (severe periodontitis affects 10–15% of adults) and has multiple negative impacts on quality of life. Epidemiological data confirm that diabetes is a major risk factor for periodontitis; susceptibility to periodontitis is increased by approximately threefold in people with diabetes. There is a clear relationship between degree of hyperglycaemia and severity of periodontitis. The mechanisms that underpin the links between these two conditions are not completely understood, but involve aspects of immune functioning, neutrophil activity, and cytokine biology. There is emerging evidence to support the existence of a two-way relationship between diabetes and periodontitis, with diabetes increasing the risk for periodontitis, and periodontal inflammation negatively affecting glycaemic control. Incidences of macroalbuminuria and end-stage renal disease are increased twofold and threefold, respectively, in diabetic individuals who also have severe periodontitis compared to diabetic individuals without severe periodontitis. Furthermore, the risk of cardiorenal mortality (ischaemic heart disease and diabetic nephropathy combined) is three times higher in diabetic people with severe periodontitis than in diabetic people without severe periodontitis. Treatment of periodontitis is associated with HbA1c reductions of approximately 0.4%. Oral and periodontal health should be promoted as integral components of diabetes management