4.6 Article

Cancer Risk Associated with Insulin Glargine among Adult Type 2 Diabetes Patients - A Nationwide Cohort Study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021368

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Health [DOH098-TD-D-113-098016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Preclinical and observational studies raise the concern about the safety of insulin glargine in terms of cancer initiation and promotion. This study is designed to examine cancer incidence associated with use of insulin glargine vs. intermediate/long-acting human insulin (HI). Methodology: A retrospective cohort study using the Taiwan National Health Insurance claims database was conducted to identify adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and without a history of cancer who initiated insulin glargine (n = 10,190) or intermediate/long-acting HI (n = 49,253) during 2004-2007. Exclusive users were followed from the date of insulin initiation to the earliest of cancer diagnosis, death, disenrollment, or December 31 2007. We estimated adjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for baseline propensity score. Findings: The incidence rate of all cancer per 1,000 person-years was 13.8 for insulin glargine initiators (179 cases) and 16.0 for intermediate/long-acting HI initiators (1,445 cases) during an average follow-up of 2 years. No significant difference in overall cancer risk between insulin glargine initiators and HI initiators was found. For men, however, the adjusted hazard ratio of insulin glargine use as compared with intermediate/long-acting HI was 2.15 (95% CI 1.01-4.59) for pancreatic cancer, and 2.42 (95% CI 1.50-8.40) for prostate cancer. The increased risk was not observed among women. Conclusions: Insulin glargine use did not increase the risk of overall cancer incidence as compared with HI. The positive associations with pancreatic and prostate cancer need further evaluation and validation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据