Skip to main content

Insulin Glargine/Breast Cancer Link Seen Again in Type 2 Diabetes

In a large observational study, women with type 2 diabetes who received long-acting insulin glargine (Lantus, Sanofi) had a 1.4-fold increased risk of breast cancer compared with women who were given intermediate-acting neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin during roughly 4 years and up to 12 years of follow-up.
In contrast, those who received insulin detemir (Levemir, Novo Nordisk) did not have any increased risk of breast cancer.
Of note, the breast-cancer signal with insulin glargine was only significant among prior insulin users and not new users.
And this signal does not mean clinicians should change clinical practice without a review by regulatory agencies, caution the investigators, led by Jennifer W Wu, MD, of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, who published their paper in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
"Despite these findings, the benefits and risk of insulin glargine must be considered by drug regulatory agencies before any changes in clinical practice can be made," they conclude.
The fact that the increased risk of breast cancer was only seen in women with prior exposure to insulin, "an unusual group of type 2 [diabetes] women," suggests "the safety signals may be nuanced, with specific types of insulin," said Craig Currie, PhD, an epidemiologist from Cardiff University, Wales, who was not involved with the study.
Nevertheless the "findings add to an increasing body of evidence that questions the safety of insulin in people with type 2 diabetes more generally," he told Medscape Medical News in an email.

New Study as Long-Acting Insulins Have Been Available for Longer

The issue of cancer risk associated with insulin, which is a potential growth factor, isn't new and has reared its head before in relation to insulin glargine in particular.
Several observational studies have looked at whether insulin glargine is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer and have come up with conflicting results, Dr Wu and colleagues explain as background.
Moreover, in the randomized Outcomes Reduction Insulin Glargine Intervention(ORIGIN) trial, which had adjudicated cancer outcomes reported in 2013, only roughly 4000 of the 12,500 patients were women, and there were only 56 cases of breast cancer during follow-up, which was "insufficient power for site-specific cancers such as breast and also...too short a follow-up for the necessary latency."
Thus "to date, the US Food and Drug Administration finds the evidence is inconclusive and suggests that more epidemiologic data are needed," they observe.
So they aimed to assess the risk of breast cancer with insulin analogs, "now that these insulins have been on the market for a longer time."
They identified 22,395 women with type 2 diabetes in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) who had not been prescribed insulin before age 40, had not had gestational diabetes or any cancer, but had received at least one prescription of insulin glargine, detemir, or NPH during 2002–2012.
On average, the women received 5.4 to 5.8 insulin prescriptions each year.
During follow-up, 108 of 9549 women who received NPH, 176 of 9575 women who received insulin glargine, and 37 of 3271 women who received insulin detemir developed breast cancer.
The incidence rates of breast cancer were 35.1, 48.7, and 14.8 per 1000 person-years for women who received NPH, glargine, and detemir, respectively.

New Insulin Users Not at Risk?

Those who received insulin glargine for 5 or more years had a roughly twofold increased risk of breast cancer compared with the reference group (women who received NPH) and women who were switched to insulin glargine from another insulin had an approximately 1.5-fold increased risk of developing breast cancer.
Risk of Breast Cancer, Insulin Glargine vs NPH Users*
Insulin glargine usersHR (95% CI)
Overall users1.44 (1.11–1.85)
> 5 y of insulin glargine2.23 (1.32–3.77)
> 30 prescriptions2.29 (1.26–4.16)
Prior insulin users1.53 (1.10–2.12)
New insulin users1.18 (0.77–1.81)
*During a mean 4.4-year follow-up; adjusted for age, study entry, alcohol use, smoking, BMI, HbA1c, diabetes duration, prior insulin use, duration of insulin use, Charlson comorbidity score, noninsulin diabetic medications, other medications
The risk of breast cancer was not significantly higher in the insulin detemir group compared with NPH users (HR, 1.17; 95% CI 0.77–1.77). However, this result is somewhat inconclusive due to the smaller number of women using this newer insulin and the shorter time that it has been available, Dr Wu and colleagues write.
Riccardo Perfetti, MD, PhD, VP for medical affairs diabetes, Sanofi, told Medscape Medical News in an email: "The results of the new-user analysis in this study provided additional evidence that [in new users] insulin glargine is not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, even for exposure longer than 5 years."
However, Dr Wu and colleagues note that among new users, the upper limit of the confidence interval was 1.81 (meaning that some of the women had this increased risk), and the numbers may have been too small to detect risk, since few women in the comparator NPH group (< 30%) were new insulin users.

Too Much Confounding? Weak Signal With No Cause for Concern

The new trial is "interesting, but I don't think it can rule out confounding," lead author of the ORIGIN trial, Hertzel C Gerstein, MD, from McMaster University, in Hamilton, Ontario, who was not involved with the current study, told Medscape Medical News.
"Is it the insulin, or somehow the type of person who was prescribed glargine was different from the type of person who was prescribed NPH or detemir? We don't know," he said.
Also, the study did not adjust for age at menarche and menopause, parity, age at first birth, breast feeding, "and in particular, family history of breast cancer," Dr Perfetti stressed.
The researchers acknowledge that unaccounted-for confounders might explain some of the findings. "However, this is unlikely because only a strong unmeasured confounder, with major imbalance between insulin glargine and NPH, would be needed to bias the hazard ratio."
Nevertheless, "I would not say that this study raises any real concern in my mind," Dr Gerstein said, noting it was an observational study with a weak signal.
"If it were a strong risk relationship, fivefold, 10-fold, then we'd be having a different discussion."
"In the International Epidemiology Study and the ORIGIN trial, a total of 1,595,400 person-years of exposure to insulin were evaluated, and no association with cancer has been found," Dr Perfetti pointed out.

Upcoming Study From US Databases

"Moreover," Dr Perfetti added, "new results, currently in press, assessing the risk of breast cancer in women treated with insulin glargine and human NPH insulin in new users and all-users on two large US database, analyzing ~300,000 patients over 12 years...show that glargine was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer compared with NPH for long-term exposure."
But according to Dr Currie, to truly resolve the question of whether insulin glargine increases the risk of breast cancer "would require a trial of analogue basal insulins vs alternative insulin regimens vs non-insulin glucose-lowering medications."
The study was partly funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. Dr Wu was a recipient of a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Doctoral Research award at the time the study was being conducted. Disclosures for the coauthors are listed in the paper. Dr Currie has no relevant financial relationships. Dr Gerstein has received research grant support from Sanofi, Lilly, AstraZeneca and Merck, and honoraria for speaking or consulting from Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Abbott.Sanofi sponsored the ORIGIN trial.
J Clin Oncol. Published online September 27, 2017. Abstract

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...

Sitting at Work Raises All-Cause and CV Mortality Risk

May 21, 2012 (Lyon, France) — Sitting at work raises the risk of dying from cardiovascular (CV) and metabolic diseases, as well as the risk of dying from all causes, regardless of any exercise in which the individual may engage. That was the finding of a study reported here at the 19th European Congress on Obesity (ECO) by Anne Grunseit, PhD, from the Prevention Research Collaboration in the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney, Australia, and Norwegian colleagues. Research is increasingly focusing on sedentary behavior with low energy expenditure, including sitting and lying down, as behavioral risk factors for obesity and chronic disease. Sitting occurs during travel, while watching television, using computers, and reading. But with people often spending at least 9 hours a day at work, with fewer than 20% of jobs requiring physical exertion, and with many people spending at least 4 hours a day sitting at work, the sedentary time at work is high, and many people ar...