Skip to main content
. 2020 Nov 19;32(1):73–76. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivaa213

Table 1:

Best evidence papers

Author, date, journal and country Study type (level of evidence) Patient group Outcomes Key results (metformin vs control) Comments

Arrieta et al. (2019), JAMA Oncol, Mexico [2]

 

RCT (level 2)

Trial information

 

Study period: 2016–2017

 

Sample size: n = 139

 

Metformin group: n = 69

 

Control group: n = 70

 

Median follow-up: 16.9 months (95% CI, 7.0–24.9)

 

Patients

 

Stage IIIB or IV LUAD

 

EGFRm: positive

 

Previous anti-cancer treatment: NA

 

History of diabetes: none

 

Intervention

 

Metformin group: erlotinib, afatinib or gefitinib at standard dosage, plus metformin 500 mg, p.o., b.i.d.

 

Control group: erlotinib, afatinib or gefitinib at standard dosage

Median PFS

13.1 months (95% CI 9.8–16.3) vs 9.9 months, (95% CI 7.5–12.2)

 

HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40–0.94, P = 0.03

This RCT was open labelled and only enrolled non-diabetic NSCLC patients. The allocation in this study was not masked

 

All patients in this study were EGFR-TKI naive. However, prior anti-cancer treatments were unavailable among the entire population

 

In the metformin group, the discontinuation rate of metformin usage was 23.2%

 

The intention-to-treat analysis was not performed

Median OS

31.7 months (95% CI 20.5–42.8) vs 17.5 months (95% CI 11.4–23.7)

 

HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.30–0.90, P = 0.04

ORR

71.0% vs 54.3%

 

OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24–0.97, P = 0.04

DCR

98.6% vs 92.9%

 

OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02–1.68, P = 0.14


Li et al. (2019), Clin Cancer Res, China [3]

 

RCT (level 2)

Trial information

 

Study period: 2013–2015

 

Sample size: n = 202

 

Metformin group: n = 97

 

Control group: n = 105

 

Median follow-up: 19.15 months (IQR 12.99–28.44)

 

Patients

 

Stage IIIB or IV NSCLC

 

EGFRm: positive

 

Previous anti-cancer treatment: none

 

History of diabetes: none

 

Intervention

 

Metformin group: gefitinib, 250mg, p.o., q.d., plus metformin, from 500 to 1000 mg, p.o., b.i.d.

 

Control group: gefitinib, 250 mg, p.o., q.d., plus placebo, from 500 to 1000 mg, p.o., b.i.d.

Median PFS

10.3 months (95% CI 8.4–13.0) vs 11.4 months (95% CI 10.0–12.2)

 

HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.75–1.45, P = 0.8087

This RCT only studied non-diabetic NSCLC patients

 

All the enrolled patients were EGFR-TKI naive and never received any previous anti-cancer treatment

 

The status of LKB1 expression was not detected

 

The discontinuation rate of metformin usage was 3.1%

 

The statistical analysis was based on the intention-to-treat population

1-year PFS 41.2% (95% CI 30.0–52.2) vs 42.9% (95% CI 32.6–52.7), P = 0.6268
Median OS

22.0 months (95% CI 19.0–31.5) vs 27.5 months (95% CI 22.8–31.5)

 

HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.79–1.68, P = 0.4571

ORR

66.0% (95% CI 55.7–75.3) vs 66.7% (95% CI 56.8–75.6)

 

OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52–1.81, P = 1.000

DCR

97.9% (95% CI 92.7–99.7) vs 97.1% (95% CI 91.9–99.4)

 

OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.16–17.04, P = 1.000

AE incidence 91.89% vs 82.88%a
Grade 3–4 AEb 23.42% vs 18.92%a

Chen et al. (2015), Cancer Lett, China [4]

 

Retrospective observational study (level 3)

Study information

 

Study period: 2006–2014

 

Sample size: n = 90

 

Metformin group: n = 44

 

Control group: n = 46

 

Patients

 

Stage IIIA, IIIB or IV NSCLC

 

EGFRm: positive

 

Previous anti-cancer treatment: none

 

History of diabetes

 

Type of diabetes: T2DM

 

Severity: each patient’s diabetes was well treated

 

Exposure  b

 

Metformin group: erlotinib, gefitinib or icotinib, plus metformin

 

Control group: erlotinib, gefitinib or icotinib, plus non-metformin hypoglycemic agents

Median PFS

19.0 months (95% CI 16.4–21.6) vs 8.0 months (95% CI 5.2–10.8)

 

HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.28–0.75, P = 0.005

This study focused on NSCLC patients with T2DM

 

The sample size (90 patients) was relatively small

 

Bias from the comparison should be considered because some patients used insulin in the control group. Previous studies have indicated that insulin might increase the risk of tumour growth [5]

Median OS

32.0 months (95% CI 26.5–37.5) vs 23.0 months (95% CI 9.6–36.4)

 

HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26–0.76, P = 0.002

ORR 70.5% (95% CI 55–83) vs 45.7% (95% CI 31–61), P = 0.017
DCR 97.7% (95% CI 88–100) vs 80.4% (95% CI 66–91), P = 0.009

Hung et al. (2019), Integr Cancer Ther, China [6]

 

Retrospective observational study, (level 3)

Study information

 

Study period: 2004–2012

 

Sample size: n = 1633

 

Metformin group: n = 373

 

Control group: n = 1260

 

Patients

 

Stage IIIB or IV NSCLC

 

EGFRm: positive

 

Anti-cancer treatment (non-EGFR-TKI): chemotherapy, radiotherapy, concurrent chemoradiotherapy or none

 

History of diabetes

 

Type of diabetes: T2DM

 

History of hypoglycemic agents’ usage: patients who received insulin were excluded.

 

Severity: NA

 

Exposure

 

Metformin group: erlotinib, gefitinib or both, plus metformin

 

Control group: erlotinib, gefitinib or both

Median PFS 9.2 months (95% CI 8.6–11.7) vs 6.4 months (95% CI 5.9–7.2), P < 0.001

This study only focused on NSCLC patients with T2DM

 

The distribution of comorbidities was a significantly different in the 2 groups

 

Anti-cancer treatment was heterogeneous between and within the groups

Median OS 33.4 months (95% CI 29.4–40.2) vs 25.4 months (95% CI 23.7–27.2), P < 0.001
Comorbidity
Hypertension 78.3% vs 71.4%, P = 0.0088
COPD 29.8% vs 39.8%, P = 0.0005
RI 2.1% vs 5.2%, P = 0.0116
SRD 17.2% vs 26.3%, P = 0.0003

AE: adverse events; b.i.d.: twice a day; CI: confidence interval; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; DCR: disease control rate; EGFR: epidermal growth factor receptor; EGFRm: EGFR mutation; HR: hazard ratio; IQR: interquartile range; LUAD: lung adenocarcinoma; NA: not available; NSCLC: non-small-cell lung cancer; ORR: objective response rate; OR: odd ratio; OS: overall survival; PFS: progression-free survival; p.o.: take orally; q.d.: once a day; RCT: randomized controlled trial; RI: renal insufficiency; SRD: smoking-related disorder; T2DM: diabetes mellitus type 2; TKI: tyrosine kinase inhibitor; TNM: tumour–node–metastasis.

a

n = 111 in each group for safety analysis.

b

Adverse effects were graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (V.4.0) [7].