A systematic review and meta‐analysis of observational studies of the association between the use of incretin‐based therapies and the risk of pancreatic cancer. Issue 2 (11th December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hidayat, Khemayanto; Zhou, Ying‐Yi; Du, Hong‐Zhen; Qin, Li‐Qiang; Shi, Bi‐Min; Li, Zeng‐Ning
• Is Part Of: Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety. Volume 32:Issue 2(2023)
• Page Start: 107
• Page End: 125
• Publication Date: 2022-12-11
• Subjects: diabetes -- dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitors -- glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists -- incretin -- pancreatic cancer; Pharmacoepidemiology -- Periodicals; Chemotherapy -- Periodicals; Epidemiology -- Periodicals; 615.705
• DOI: 10.1002/pds.5550
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1053-8569

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Some early reports in the medical literature have raised concern about a possible increased risk of pancreatic cancer associated with the use of two broad classes of incretin‐based therapies, dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitors, and glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists. This possibility has been somewhat mitigated by the null findings meta‐analyses of randomized controlled trials, but the usefulness of their findings was hampered by serious shortcomings of lack of power and representativeness. These shortcomings can typically be addressed by observational studies, but observational studies on the topic have yielded conflicting findings. A systematic review and meta‐analysis of observational studies was performed to qualitatively and quantitatively appraise the totality of evidence on the association between the use of incretin‐based therapies and the risk of pancreatic cancer in routine clinical practice. Methods: The PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar databases were searched. The study quality was appraised using the ROBINS‐I tool and based on the presence of pharmacoepidemiology biases. A random‐effects model was used to estimate the summary relative risks with corresponding CIs. Results: A total of 14 studies were included. The qualitative assessment revealed that all studies had inadequate follow‐up (≤5 years), 12 studies were suspected to suffer from time‐lag bias (due to inappropriate choice of comparator group) to varying extent, five studies included prevalent users, five studies did not implement exposure lag period, five studies had a serious risk of bias due to confounding, and one study had a time‐window bias. The quantitative assessment showed no indication of an increased risk when all studies were pooled together (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87, 1.24) and when the analysis was restricted to the studies with the least bias (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.51, 1.17). However, the pooled RRs were more frequently higher in the studies with less rigorous design and analysis. Specifically, a tendency toward an increased risk was observed in the studies with (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.04, 1.72) or possibly with (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.89, 1.36) time‐lag bias, in the studies that did not apply (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.93, 1.63) or with potentially inadequate exposure lag period of 6 months (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.66, 1.94), in the studies that inappropriate comparator group of a combination of unspecified (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.25, 1.78) or non‐insulin (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93, 1.42) antidiabetic drugs, and in the studies with serious risk of bias due to confounding (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.56, 2.49). Conclusions: In summary, the totality of evidence from observational studies does not support the claim that the use of incretin‐based therapies is associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer in routine clinical practice. The increased risk of pancreatic cancer observed in observational studies reflects bias resulting from suboptimal methodological approaches, which need to be avoided by future studies.