Search

Simple Summary: The aim of this population-based study was to assess the impact of insulin treatment on cancer incidence in subjects with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in Italy. We found that insulin use was associated with a 20% excess for all sites cancer incidence among people with type 2 diabetes, while people with type 1 diabetes did not show any excess. Liver, pancreatic, bladder, and neuroendocrine cancers seem to be the sites with strongest association. Objective: To assess the effect of insulin on cancer incidence in type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Methods: The cohort included all 401,172 resident population aged 20–84 in December 2009 and still alive on December 2011, classified for DM status. Drug exposure was assessed for 2009–2011 and follow up was conducted from 2012 to 2016 through the cancer registry. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were computed for all sites and for the most frequent cancer sites. Results: among residents, 21,190 people had diabetes, 2282 of whom were taking insulin; 1689 cancers occurred, 180 among insulin users. The risk for all site was slightly higher in people with T2DM compared to people without DM (IRR 1.21, 95% CI 1.14–1.27), with no excess for T1DM (IRR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45–1.19). The excess in T2DM remained when comparing with diet-only treatment. In T2DM, excess incidence was observed for liver and pancreas and for NETs: 1.76 (95% CI 1.44–2.17) and 1.37 (95% CI 0.99–1.73), respectively. For bladder, there was an excess both in T1DM (IRR 3.00, 95% CI 1.12, 8.02) and in T2DM (IRR1.27, 95% CI 1.07–1.50). Conclusions: Insulin was associated with a 20% increase in cancer incidence. The risk was higher for liver, pancreatic, bladder and neuroendocrine tumours. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study aims to describe the distribution of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) by care plan and to highlight determinants of underuse and overuse of integrated care (IC). This cross-sectional study included all T2D patients resident in Reggio Emilia on 31/12/2015 based on the population-based diabetes registry. Eligibility for IC requires good glycaemic control, no rapid insulin, no kidney failure and no diabetes complications. We calculated the proportion of IC underuse and overuse and adjusted prevalence estimate using multivariate logistic regression. Determinants were age, sex, citizenship, district of residence and time since diagnosis. Of 29,776 patients, 15,364 (51.6%) were in diabetes clinic plan, 9851 (33.1%) in IC plan and 4561 (15.3%) not in any care plan (i.e., in Other group). There were 10,906 (36.6%) patients eligible for IC, of whom 1000 in Other group. When we adjusted for all covariates and restricted the analysis to patients included in care plans, the proportion of those eligible for IC plan but cared for in diabetes clinic plan (i.e. underuse of IC) was 28% (n = 3028/9906; 95%CI 27–29). Similarly, the proportion of those not eligible for IC but cared for in IC plan (i.e. overuse of IC) was 11% (n = 1720/11,896; 95%CI 10–11).The main determinant of both IC underuse and overuse was the district of residence. Foreign status was associated with underuse (37%; 95%CI 33–43), while old age (≥80 years) with both underuse (36%; 95%CI 0.33–0.38) and overuse (23%; 95%CI 22–25). The criterion for suspension of IC plan most frequently found was renal failure, followed by hospitalization for diabetes-related complications. Patients are more often allocated to more specialized settings than not. Healthcare provider-related factors are the main determinants of inappropriate setting allocation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To assess the effect of metformin on cancer incidence in type 2 diabetes (T2DM), considering possible interactions with other glucose-lowering drugs and diabetes duration.Methods: Study cohort included diabetes patients aged 20-84 on December 2009, still alive and resident in Reggio Emilia province as of December 2011. Drug exposure was assessed for 2009-2011; subjects taking metformin continuously, with or without other hypoglycaemic drugs, were compared to subjects on diet-only therapy. The cohort was followed up from 2012 to 2014 through the cancer registry. Age- and sex-adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were computed using Poisson regression models for all sites, lung, breast, liver, colorectal, prostate and pancreatic cancer.Results: The cohort includes 17,026 people with T2DM, 7460 taking metformin. 887 cancers occurred during follow-up, 348 among metformin users. Cancer risk was similar in T2DM patients using metformin and those on diet-only. The risk for prostate (IRR = 0.65; 95%CI:0.36; 1.17), liver (IRR = 0.82; 95%CI:0.36; 1.85) and breast (IRR = 0.77; 95%CI:0.43; 1.40) cancers only was slightly reduced; for lung (IRR = 1.52; 95%CI:0.92; 2.50), pancreas (IRR = 1.51; 95%CI:0.59:3.89) and colon-rectum (IRR = 1.71; 95%CI:0.94; 3.08) the risk was slightly increased.Conclusions: There is no evidence of antitumor effect of metformin. A possible decrease only for breast, liver and prostate cancer, is compatible with random fluctuations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To compare the effectiveness of integrated care with that of the diabetes clinic care model in terms of mortality and hospitalisation of type 2 diabetes patients with low risk of complications. Methods: Out of 27234 people with type 2 diabetes residing in the province of Reggio Emilia on 31/12/2011, 3071 were included in this cohort study as eligible for integrated care (i.e., low risk of complications) and cared for with the same care model for at least two years. These patients were followed up from 2012 to 2016, for all-cause and diabetes-related mortality and hospital admissions. We performed a Poisson regression model, using the proportion of eligible patients included in the integrated care model for each general practitioner as an instrumental variable. Results: 1700 patients were cared for by integrated care and 1371 by diabetes clinics. Mortality rate ratios were 0.83 (95%CI 0.60–1.13) and 0.95 (95%CI 0.54–1.70) for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, respectively, and incidence rate ratios were 0.90 (95%CI 0.76–1.06) and 0.91 (95%CI 0.69–1.20) for all-cause and cardiovascular disease hospitalisation, respectively. Conclusion: For low risk patients with type 2 diabetes, the integrated care model involving both general practitioner and diabetes clinic professionals showed similar mortality and hospitalisation as a model with higher use of specialized care in an exclusively diabetes clinic setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Aim of this study was to compare cancer incidence in populations with and without diabetes by cancer site. Furthermore, we aimed at comparing excess risk of cancer according to diabetes type, diabetes duration and treatment, the latter as regards Type 2 diabetes.Methods: By use of the Reggio Emilia diabetes registry we classified the resident population aged 20-84 at December 31st 2009 into two groups: with and without diabetes. By linking with the cancer registry we calculated the 2010-2013 cancer incidence in both groups. The incidence rate ratios (IRR) by cancer site, type of diabetes, diabetes duration, and as concerns Type 2 diabetes, by treatment regimen were computed using Poisson regression model and non-diabetic group as reference.Results: The cohort included 383,799 subjects without diabetes and 23,358 with diabetes. During follow-up, we identified 1464 cancer cases in subjects with diabetes and 9858 in the remaining population. Overall cancer incidence was higher in subjects with diabetes than in those without diabetes (IRR = 1.22, 95%CI 1.15-1.29), with similar results focusing on subjects with at least 2-year diabetes duration. Cancer sites driving overall increased risk were liver, pancreas, Colon rectum, and bladder in both sexes, corpus uteri for females. There was also suggestion of an increased risk for kidney cancer in females and a decreased risk for prostate cancer. Excess risk was found in patients with Type 2 diabetes, more marked among insulin users, especially with combined therapy. We observed an increasing risk for diabetes duration up to 10 years from diagnosis (IRR = 1.44, 95%CI 1.29-1.61) and a subsequent decrease to moderate-higher risk (IRR = 1.15, 95%CI 1.04-1.30).Conclusions: Our study indicates that the strength of association depends on specific cancer site. Insulin, monotherapy or combined therapy, per se or as an indication of poor blood glucose control, in addition to diabetes duration, may play a role in the association of diabetes and cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]