Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine

In the last quarter century, many new drugs have become available for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus. The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists incorporated these new agents in its updated glycemic control algorithm in 2013.¹ Because diabetes affects 25.8 million Americans and can lead to blindness, renal failure, cardiovascular disease, and amputation, agents that help us treat it more effectively are valuable.²

One of the barriers to effective treatment is the side effects of the agents. Because some of these drugs have been in use for only a short time, concerns of potential adverse effects have arisen. Cancer is one such concern, especially since type 2 diabetes mellitus by itself increases the risk of cancer by 20% to 50% compared with no diabetes.³

Type 2 diabetes has been linked to risk of cancers of the pancreas,⁴ colorectum,^5,6 liver,⁷ kidney,^8,9 breast,¹⁰ bladder,¹¹ and endometri-um,¹² as well as to hematologic malignancies such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma.¹³ The risk of bladder cancer appears to depend on how long the patient has had type 2 diabetes. Newton et al,¹⁴ in a prospective cohort study, found that those who had diabetes for more than 15 years and used insulin had the highest risk of bladder cancer. On the other hand, the risk of prostate cancer is actually lower in people with diabetes,¹⁵ particularly in those who have had diabetes for longer than 4 years.¹⁶

Cancer and type 2 diabetes share many risk factors and underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms. Nonmodifiable risk factors for both diseases include advanced age, male sex, ethnicity (African American men appear to be most vulnerable to both cancer and diabetes),^17,18 and family history. Modifiable risk factors include lower socioeconomic status, obesity, and alcohol consumption. These common risk factors lead to hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance, changes in mitochondrial function, low-grade inflammation, and oxidative stress,³ which promote both diabetes and cancer. Diabetes therapy may influence several of these processes.

Several classes of diabetes drugs, including exogenous insulin,^19–22 insulin secretagogues,^23–25 and incretin-based therapies,^26–28 have been under scrutiny because of their potential influences on cancer development in a population already at risk (Table 1).

INSULIN ANALOGUES: MIXED EVIDENCE

Insulin promotes cell division by binding to insulin receptor isoform A and insulin-like growth factor 1 receptors.²⁹ Because endogenous hyperinsulinemia has been linked to cancer risk, growth, and proliferation, some speculate that exogenous insulin may also increase cancer risk.

In 2009, a retrospective study by Hemkens et al linked the long-acting insulin analogue glargine to risk of cancer.¹⁹ This finding set off a tumult of controversy within the medical community and concern among patients. Several limitations of the study were brought to light, including a short duration of follow-up, and several other studies have refuted the study’s findings.^20,21

More recently, the Outcome Reduction With Initial Glargine Intervention (ORIGIN) trial²² found no higher cancer risk with glargine use than with placebo. This study enrolled 12,537 participants from 573 sites in 40 countries. Specifically, risks with glargine use were as follows:

• Any cancer—hazard ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88–1.13, P = .97
• Cancer death—hazard ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.77–1.15, P = .52.

However, the study was designed to assess cardiovascular outcomes, not cancer risk. Furthermore, the participants were not typical of patients seen in clinical practice: their insulin doses were lower (the median insulin dose was 0.4 units/kg/day by year 6, whereas in clinical practice, those with type 2 diabetes mellitus often use more than 1 unit/kg/day, depending on duration of diabetes, diet, and exercise regimen), and their baseline median hemoglobin A_1c level was only 6.4%. And one may argue that the median follow-up of 6.2 years was too short for cancer to develop.²²

In vitro studies indicate that long-acting analogue insulin therapy may promote cancer cell growth more than endogenous insulin,³⁰ but epidemiologic data have not unequivocally substantiated this.^20–22 There is no clear evidence that analogue insulin therapy raises cancer risk above that of human recombinant insulin, and starting insulin therapy should not be delayed because of concerns about cancer risk, particularly in uncontrolled diabetes.

INSULIN SECRETAGOGUES

Sulfonylureas: Higher risk

Before 1995, only two classes of diabetes drugs were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—insulin and sulfonylureas.

Sulfonylureas lower blood sugar levels by binding to sulfonylurea receptors and inhibiting adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels. The resulting change in resting potential causes an influx of calcium, ultimately leading to insulin secretion.

Sulfonylureas are effective, and because of their low cost, physicians often pick them as a second-line agent after metformin.

The main disadvantage of sulfonylureas is the risk of hypoglycemia, particularly in patients with renal failure, the elderly, and diabetic patients who are unaware of when they are hypoglycemic. Other potential drawbacks are that they impair cardiac ischemic preconditioning³¹ and possibly increase cancer risk.^21,32 (Ischemic preconditioning is the process in which transient episodes of ischemia “condition” the myocardium so that it better withstands future episodes with minimal anginal pain and tissue injury.³³) Of the sulfonylureas, glyburide has been most implicated in cardiovascular risk.³²

In a retrospective cohort study of 62,809 patients from a general-practice database in the United Kingdom, Currie et al²¹ found that sulfonylurea monotherapy was associated with a 36% higher risk of cancer (95% CI 1.19–1.54, P < .001) than metformin monotherapy. Prescribing bias may have influenced the results: practitioners are more likely to prescribe sulfonylureas to leaner patients, who have a greater likelihood of occult cancer. However, other studies also found that the cancer death rate is higher in those who take a sulfonylurea alone than in those who use metformin alone.^23,24

Some evidence indicates that long-acting sulfonylurea formulations (eg, glyburide) likely hold the most danger, certainly in regard to hypoglycemia, but it is less clear if this translates to cancer concerns.³¹

Meglitinides: Limited evidence

Meglitinides, the other class of insulin secretagogues, are less commonly used but are similar to sulfonylureas in the way they increase endogenous insulin levels. The data are limited regarding cancer risk and meglitinide therapy, but the magnitude of the association is similar to that with sulfonylurea therapy.²⁵

INSULIN SENSITIZERS

There are currently two classes of insulin sensitizers: biguanides and thiazolidinediones (TZDs, also known as glitazones). These drugs show less risk of both cancer incidence and cancer death than insulin secretagogues such as sulfonylureas.^21,23,24 In fact, they may decrease cancer potential by alteration of signaling via the AKT/mTOR (v-akt murine thymoma viral oncogene homolog 1/mammalian target of rapamycin) pathway.³⁴

Metformin, a biguanide, is the oral drug of choice

Metformin is the only biguanide currently available in the United States. It was approved by the FDA in 1995, although it had been in clinical use since the 1950s. Inexpensive and familiar, it is the oral antihyperglycemic of choice if there are no contraindications to it, such as renal dysfunction (creatinine ≥ 1.4 mg/dL in women and ≥ 1.5 mg/dL in men), acute decompensated heart failure, or pulmonary or hepatic insufficiency, all of which may lead to an increased risk of lactic acidosis.¹

Metformin lowers blood sugar levels primarily by inhibiting hepatic glucose production (gluconeogenesis) and by improving peripheral insulin sensitivity. It directly activates AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), which affects insulin signaling and glucose and fat metabolism.³⁵ It may exert further beneficial effects by acutely increasing glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) levels and inducing islet incretin-receptor gene expression.³⁶ Although the exact mechanisms have not been fully elucidated, metformin’s insulin-sensitizing properties are likely from favorable effects on insulin receptor expression, tyrosine kinase activity, and influences on the incretin pathway.^36,37 These effects also mitigate carcinogenesis, both directly (via AMPK and liver kinase B1, a tumor-suppressor gene) and indirectly (via reduction of hyperinsulinemia).³⁵

Overall, biguanide therapy is associated with a lower cancer incidence or, at worst, no effect on cancer incidence. In vitro studies demonstrate that metformin both suppresses cancer cell growth and induces apoptosis, resulting in fewer live cancer cells.³⁴ Several retrospective studies found lower cancer risk in metformin users than in patients receiving antidiabetes drugs other than insulin-sensitizing agents,^{21,23,25,38–40} while others have shown no effect.⁴¹ Use of metformin was specifically associated with lower risk of cancers of the liver, colon and rectum, and lung.⁴² Further, metformin users have a lower cancer mortality rate than nonusers.^24,43

Thiazolidinediones

TZDs, such as pioglitazone, work by binding to peroxisome proliferator-activated gamma receptors in the cell nucleus, altering gene transcription.⁴⁴ They reduce insulin resistance and levels of endogenous insulin levels and free fatty acids.⁴⁴

Concern over bladder cancer risk with TZD use, particularly with pioglitazone, has increased in the last few years, as various cohort studies found a statistically significant increased risk with this agent.⁴⁴ The risk appears to rise with cumulative dose.^45,46

Randomized controlled trials also found an increased risk of bladder cancer with TZD therapy, although the difference was not statistically significant.^47–49 In a mean follow-up of 8.7 years, the Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial in Macrovascular Events reported 23 cases of bladder cancer in the pioglitazone group vs 22 cases in the placebo group, for rates of 0.9% vs 0.8% (relative risk [RR] 1.06, 95% CI 0.59–1.89).⁴⁹

On the other hand, the risk of cancer of the breast, colon, and lung has been found to be lower with TZD use.⁴⁷ In vitro studies support the clinical data, showing that TZDs inhibit growth of human cancer cells derived from cancers of the lung, colon, breast, stomach, ovary, and prostate.^50–53

Home et al⁵⁴ compared rosiglitazone against a sulfonylurea in patients already taking metformin in the Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiovascular Outcomes in Oral Agent Combination Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes (RECORD) trial. Malignancies developed in 6.7% of the sulfonylurea group compared with 5.1% of the rosiglitazone group, for a hazard ratio of 1.33 (95% CI 0.94–1.88).

Both ADOPT (A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial) and the RECORD trial found rosiglitazone comparable to metformin in terms of cancer risk.⁵⁴

Colmers et al⁴⁷ pooled data from four randomized controlled trials, seven cohort studies, and nine case-control studies to assess the risk of cancer with TZD use in type 2 diabetes. Both the randomized and observational data showed neutral overall cancer risk with TZDs. However, pooled data from observational studies showed significantly lower risk with TZD use in terms of:

• Colorectal cancer RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87–1.00
• Lung cancer RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84–0.98
• Breast cancer RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81–0.98.

INCRETIN-BASED THERAPIES

Incretins are hormones released from the gut in response to food ingestion, triggering release of insulin before blood glucose levels rise. Their action explains why insulin secretion increases more after an oral glucose load than after an intravenous glucose load, a phenomenon called the incretin effect.⁵⁵

There are two incretin hormones: glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1). They have short a half-life because they are rapidly degraded by dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-IV).⁵⁵ Available incretin-based therapies are GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-IV inhibitors.

When used as monotherapy, incretin-based therapies do not cause hypoglycemia because their effect is glucose-dependent.⁵⁵ GLP-1 receptor antagonists have the added benefit of inducing weight loss, but DPP-IV inhibitors are considered to be weight-neutral.

GLP-1 receptor agonists

Exenatide, the first of the GLP-1 receptor agonists, was approved in 2005. The original formulation (Byetta) is taken by injection twice daily, and timing in conjunction with food intake is important: it should be taken within 60 minutes before the morning and evening meals. Extended-release exenatide (Bydureon) is a once-weekly formulation taken without regard to timing of food intake. Exenatide (either twice-daily Byetta or once-weekly Bydureon) should not be used in those with creatinine clearance less than 30 mL/min or end-stage renal disease and should be used with caution in patients with renal transplantation.

Liraglutide (Victoza), a once-daily formulation, can be injected irrespective of food intake. The dose does not have to be adjusted for renal function, although it should be used with caution in those with renal impairment, including end-stage renal disease. Approval for a 3-mg formulation is pending with the FDA as a weight-loss drug on the basis of promising results in a randomized phase 3 trial.⁵⁶

Albiglutide (Tanzeum), a once-weekly GLP-1 receptor antagonist, was recently approved by the FDA.

DPP-IV inhibitors

Whereas GLP-1 receptor agonists are injected, the DPP-IV inhibitors have the advantage of being oral agents.

Sitagliptin (Januvia), the first DPP-IV inhibitor, became available in the United States in 2006. Since then, three more have become available: saxagliptin (Onglyza), linagliptin (Tradjenta), and alogliptin (Nesina).

Concerns about thyroid cancer with incretin drugs

Concerns of increased risk of cancer, particularly of the thyroid and pancreas, have been raised since GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-IV inhibitors became available.

Studies in rodents have shown C-cell hyperplasia, sometimes resulting in increased incidence of thyroid carcinoma, and dose-dependent rises in serum calcitonin, particularly with liraglutide.²⁶ This has raised concern about an increased risk of medullary thyroid carcinoma in humans. However, the density of C cells in rodents is up to 45 times greater than in humans, and C cells also express functional GLP-1 receptors.²⁶

Gier et al²⁷ assessed the expression of calcitonin and human GLP-1 receptors in normal C cells, C cell hyperplasia, and medullary cancer. In this study, calcitonin and GLP-1 receptor were co-expressed in medullary thyroid cancer (10 of 12 cases) and C-cell hyperplasia (9 of 9 cases) more commonly than in normal C cells (5 of 15 cases). Further, GLP-1 receptor was expressed in 3 of 17 cases of papillary thyroid cancer.

Calcitonin, a polypeptide hormone produced by thyroid C cells and used as a medullary thyroid cancer biomarker, was increased in a slightly higher percentage of patients treated with liraglutide than in controls, without an increase above the normal range.⁵⁷

A meta-analysis by Alves et al⁵⁸ of 25 studies found that neither exenatide (no cases reported) nor liraglutide (odds ratio 1.54, 95% CI 0.40–6.02) was associated with increased thyroid cancer risk.

MacConell et al⁵⁹ pooled the results of 19 placebo-controlled trials of twice-daily exenatide and found a thyroid cancer incidence rate of 0.3 per 100 patient-years (< 0.1%) vs 0 per 100 patient-years in pooled comparators.

Concerns about pancreatic cancer with incretin drugs

Increased risk of acute pancreatitis is a potential side effect of both DPP-IV inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists and has led to speculation that this translates to an increased risk of pancreatic cancer.

In a point-counterpoint debate, Butler et al²⁸ argued that incretin-based medications have questionable safety, with increased rates of pancreatitis possibly leading to pancreatic cancer. In counterpoint, Nauck⁶⁰ argued that the risk of pancreatitis or cancer is extremely low, and clinical cases are unsubstantiated.

Bailey⁶¹ outlined the complexities and difficulties in drawing firm conclusions from individual clinical trials regarding possible adverse effects of diabetes drugs. The trials are typically designed to assess hemoglobin A_1c reduction at varying doses and are typically restricted in patient selection, patient numbers, and drug-exposure duration, which may introduce allocation and ascertainment biases. The attempt to draw firm conclusions from such trials can be problematic and can lead to increased alarm, warranted or not.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus itself is associated with an increased incidence of pancreatic cancer, and whether incretin therapy enhances this risk is still controversial. Whether more episodes of acute pancreatitis without chronic pancreatitis can be extrapolated to an increased incidence of pancreatic cancer is doubtful. A normal pancreatic duct cell may take up to 12 years to become a tumor cell from which pancreatic carcinoma develops, another 7 years to develop metastatic capacity, and another 3 years before a diagnosis is made from clinical symptoms (which are usually accompanied by metastases).⁶²

The risks and benefits of incretin therapies remain a contentious issue, and there are no clear prospective data at this time on increased pancreatic cancer incidence. Long-term prospective studies designed to analyze these specific outcomes (pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, and medullary thyroid cancer) need to be undertaken.⁶³

OTHER DIABETES THERAPIES

Alpha glucosidase inhibitors

Oral glucosidase inhibitors ameliorate hyperglycemia by inhibiting alpha glucosidase enzymes in the brush border of the small intestines, preventing conversion of polysaccharides to monosaccharides.⁶⁴ This slows digestion of carbohydrates and glucose release into the bloodstream and blunts the postprandial hyperglycemic excursion.

The two alpha glucosidase inhibitors currently available in the United States are acarbose and miglitol, and although data are limited, they do not appear to increase the risk of cancer.^65,66

Sodium-glucose-linked cotransporter 2 inhibitors

The newest class of oral diabetes agents to be approved are the sodium-glucose-linked cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors canagliflozin (Invokana) and dapagliflozin (Farxiga).

SGLT2 is a protein in the S1 segment of the proximal renal tubules responsible for over 90% of renal glucose reabsorption. SGLT2 inhibitors lower serum glucose levels by promoting glycosuria and have also been shown to have favorable effects on blood pressure and weight.^67,68

Canagliflozin was the first of its class to gain FDA approval in the United States. It has not been found to be associated with increased cancer risk.⁶⁸

Dapagliflozin, originally approved in Europe, was approved in the United States on January 8, 2014. Because of a possible increased incidence of breast and bladder malignancies, the FDA advisory committee initially recommended against approval and required further data. In those who were treated, nine cases of bladder cancer and nine cases of breast cancer were reported, compared with one case of bladder cancer and no cases of breast cancer in the control group; however, the difference was not statistically significant.⁶⁸

Since SGLT2 inhibitors are still new, data on long-term outcomes are lacking. Early clinical data do not show a significant increase in cancer risk.

WHAT THIS MEANS IN PRACTICE

Many studies have found associations between diabetes, obesity, hyperinsulinemia, and cancer risk. In the last decade, concerns implicating antihyperglycemic agents in cancer development have arisen but have not been well substantiated. At this time, there are no definitive prospective data indicating that the currently available type 2 diabetes therapies increase the incidence of cancer beyond the inherent increased risk in this population. What, then, is one to do?

Educate. Lifestyle modification, including weight management, should continue to be emphasized in diabetes education, as no therapy is completely effective without adjunct modifications in diet and physical activity. Epidemiologic studies have shown the benefits of lifestyle modifications, which ameliorate many of the adverse metabolic conditions that coexist in type 2 diabetes and cancer.

Screen for cancer. Given the associations between diabetes and malignancy, cancer screening is especially important in this high-risk population.

Customize therapy to individual patients. Those with a personal history of bladder cancer should avoid pioglitazone, and those who have had pancreatic cancer should avoid sitagliptin until definitive clinical data become available.

Moreover, patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer should not receive GLP-1 receptor agonists. These agents should also probably be avoided in patients with a personal history of differentiated thyroid carcinoma or a history of familial nonmedullary thyroid carcinoma. Until we have further elucidating data, it is not possible to say whether a family history of any of the other types of cancer should represent a contraindication to the use of any of these agents.

Discuss. The multitude of diabetes therapies warrants physician-patient discussions that carefully weigh the risks and benefits of additional agents to optimize glycemic control and metabolic factors in individual patients.

In the last quarter century, many new drugs have become available for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus. The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists incorporated these new agents in its updated glycemic control algorithm in 2013.¹ Because diabetes affects 25.8 million Americans and can lead to blindness, renal failure, cardiovascular disease, and amputation, agents that help us treat it more effectively are valuable.²

One of the barriers to effective treatment is the side effects of the agents. Because some of these drugs have been in use for only a short time, concerns of potential adverse effects have arisen. Cancer is one such concern, especially since type 2 diabetes mellitus by itself increases the risk of cancer by 20% to 50% compared with no diabetes.³

Type 2 diabetes has been linked to risk of cancers of the pancreas,⁴ colorectum,^5,6 liver,⁷ kidney,^8,9 breast,¹⁰ bladder,¹¹ and endometri-um,¹² as well as to hematologic malignancies such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma.¹³ The risk of bladder cancer appears to depend on how long the patient has had type 2 diabetes. Newton et al,¹⁴ in a prospective cohort study, found that those who had diabetes for more than 15 years and used insulin had the highest risk of bladder cancer. On the other hand, the risk of prostate cancer is actually lower in people with diabetes,¹⁵ particularly in those who have had diabetes for longer than 4 years.¹⁶

Cancer and type 2 diabetes share many risk factors and underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms. Nonmodifiable risk factors for both diseases include advanced age, male sex, ethnicity (African American men appear to be most vulnerable to both cancer and diabetes),^17,18 and family history. Modifiable risk factors include lower socioeconomic status, obesity, and alcohol consumption. These common risk factors lead to hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance, changes in mitochondrial function, low-grade inflammation, and oxidative stress,³ which promote both diabetes and cancer. Diabetes therapy may influence several of these processes.

Several classes of diabetes drugs, including exogenous insulin,^19–22 insulin secretagogues,^23–25 and incretin-based therapies,^26–28 have been under scrutiny because of their potential influences on cancer development in a population already at risk (Table 1).

INSULIN ANALOGUES: MIXED EVIDENCE

Insulin promotes cell division by binding to insulin receptor isoform A and insulin-like growth factor 1 receptors.²⁹ Because endogenous hyperinsulinemia has been linked to cancer risk, growth, and proliferation, some speculate that exogenous insulin may also increase cancer risk.

In 2009, a retrospective study by Hemkens et al linked the long-acting insulin analogue glargine to risk of cancer.¹⁹ This finding set off a tumult of controversy within the medical community and concern among patients. Several limitations of the study were brought to light, including a short duration of follow-up, and several other studies have refuted the study’s findings.^20,21

More recently, the Outcome Reduction With Initial Glargine Intervention (ORIGIN) trial²² found no higher cancer risk with glargine use than with placebo. This study enrolled 12,537 participants from 573 sites in 40 countries. Specifically, risks with glargine use were as follows:

• Any cancer—hazard ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88–1.13, P = .97
• Cancer death—hazard ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.77–1.15, P = .52.

However, the study was designed to assess cardiovascular outcomes, not cancer risk. Furthermore, the participants were not typical of patients seen in clinical practice: their insulin doses were lower (the median insulin dose was 0.4 units/kg/day by year 6, whereas in clinical practice, those with type 2 diabetes mellitus often use more than 1 unit/kg/day, depending on duration of diabetes, diet, and exercise regimen), and their baseline median hemoglobin A_1c level was only 6.4%. And one may argue that the median follow-up of 6.2 years was too short for cancer to develop.²²

In vitro studies indicate that long-acting analogue insulin therapy may promote cancer cell growth more than endogenous insulin,³⁰ but epidemiologic data have not unequivocally substantiated this.^20–22 There is no clear evidence that analogue insulin therapy raises cancer risk above that of human recombinant insulin, and starting insulin therapy should not be delayed because of concerns about cancer risk, particularly in uncontrolled diabetes.

INSULIN SECRETAGOGUES

Sulfonylureas: Higher risk

Before 1995, only two classes of diabetes drugs were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—insulin and sulfonylureas.

Sulfonylureas lower blood sugar levels by binding to sulfonylurea receptors and inhibiting adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels. The resulting change in resting potential causes an influx of calcium, ultimately leading to insulin secretion.

Sulfonylureas are effective, and because of their low cost, physicians often pick them as a second-line agent after metformin.

The main disadvantage of sulfonylureas is the risk of hypoglycemia, particularly in patients with renal failure, the elderly, and diabetic patients who are unaware of when they are hypoglycemic. Other potential drawbacks are that they impair cardiac ischemic preconditioning³¹ and possibly increase cancer risk.^21,32 (Ischemic preconditioning is the process in which transient episodes of ischemia “condition” the myocardium so that it better withstands future episodes with minimal anginal pain and tissue injury.³³) Of the sulfonylureas, glyburide has been most implicated in cardiovascular risk.³²

In a retrospective cohort study of 62,809 patients from a general-practice database in the United Kingdom, Currie et al²¹ found that sulfonylurea monotherapy was associated with a 36% higher risk of cancer (95% CI 1.19–1.54, P < .001) than metformin monotherapy. Prescribing bias may have influenced the results: practitioners are more likely to prescribe sulfonylureas to leaner patients, who have a greater likelihood of occult cancer. However, other studies also found that the cancer death rate is higher in those who take a sulfonylurea alone than in those who use metformin alone.^23,24

Some evidence indicates that long-acting sulfonylurea formulations (eg, glyburide) likely hold the most danger, certainly in regard to hypoglycemia, but it is less clear if this translates to cancer concerns.³¹

Meglitinides: Limited evidence

Meglitinides, the other class of insulin secretagogues, are less commonly used but are similar to sulfonylureas in the way they increase endogenous insulin levels. The data are limited regarding cancer risk and meglitinide therapy, but the magnitude of the association is similar to that with sulfonylurea therapy.²⁵

INSULIN SENSITIZERS

There are currently two classes of insulin sensitizers: biguanides and thiazolidinediones (TZDs, also known as glitazones). These drugs show less risk of both cancer incidence and cancer death than insulin secretagogues such as sulfonylureas.^21,23,24 In fact, they may decrease cancer potential by alteration of signaling via the AKT/mTOR (v-akt murine thymoma viral oncogene homolog 1/mammalian target of rapamycin) pathway.³⁴

Metformin, a biguanide, is the oral drug of choice

Metformin is the only biguanide currently available in the United States. It was approved by the FDA in 1995, although it had been in clinical use since the 1950s. Inexpensive and familiar, it is the oral antihyperglycemic of choice if there are no contraindications to it, such as renal dysfunction (creatinine ≥ 1.4 mg/dL in women and ≥ 1.5 mg/dL in men), acute decompensated heart failure, or pulmonary or hepatic insufficiency, all of which may lead to an increased risk of lactic acidosis.¹

Metformin lowers blood sugar levels primarily by inhibiting hepatic glucose production (gluconeogenesis) and by improving peripheral insulin sensitivity. It directly activates AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), which affects insulin signaling and glucose and fat metabolism.³⁵ It may exert further beneficial effects by acutely increasing glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) levels and inducing islet incretin-receptor gene expression.³⁶ Although the exact mechanisms have not been fully elucidated, metformin’s insulin-sensitizing properties are likely from favorable effects on insulin receptor expression, tyrosine kinase activity, and influences on the incretin pathway.^36,37 These effects also mitigate carcinogenesis, both directly (via AMPK and liver kinase B1, a tumor-suppressor gene) and indirectly (via reduction of hyperinsulinemia).³⁵

Overall, biguanide therapy is associated with a lower cancer incidence or, at worst, no effect on cancer incidence. In vitro studies demonstrate that metformin both suppresses cancer cell growth and induces apoptosis, resulting in fewer live cancer cells.³⁴ Several retrospective studies found lower cancer risk in metformin users than in patients receiving antidiabetes drugs other than insulin-sensitizing agents,^{21,23,25,38–40} while others have shown no effect.⁴¹ Use of metformin was specifically associated with lower risk of cancers of the liver, colon and rectum, and lung.⁴² Further, metformin users have a lower cancer mortality rate than nonusers.^24,43

Thiazolidinediones

TZDs, such as pioglitazone, work by binding to peroxisome proliferator-activated gamma receptors in the cell nucleus, altering gene transcription.⁴⁴ They reduce insulin resistance and levels of endogenous insulin levels and free fatty acids.⁴⁴

Concern over bladder cancer risk with TZD use, particularly with pioglitazone, has increased in the last few years, as various cohort studies found a statistically significant increased risk with this agent.⁴⁴ The risk appears to rise with cumulative dose.^45,46

Randomized controlled trials also found an increased risk of bladder cancer with TZD therapy, although the difference was not statistically significant.^47–49 In a mean follow-up of 8.7 years, the Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial in Macrovascular Events reported 23 cases of bladder cancer in the pioglitazone group vs 22 cases in the placebo group, for rates of 0.9% vs 0.8% (relative risk [RR] 1.06, 95% CI 0.59–1.89).⁴⁹

On the other hand, the risk of cancer of the breast, colon, and lung has been found to be lower with TZD use.⁴⁷ In vitro studies support the clinical data, showing that TZDs inhibit growth of human cancer cells derived from cancers of the lung, colon, breast, stomach, ovary, and prostate.^50–53

Home et al⁵⁴ compared rosiglitazone against a sulfonylurea in patients already taking metformin in the Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiovascular Outcomes in Oral Agent Combination Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes (RECORD) trial. Malignancies developed in 6.7% of the sulfonylurea group compared with 5.1% of the rosiglitazone group, for a hazard ratio of 1.33 (95% CI 0.94–1.88).

Both ADOPT (A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial) and the RECORD trial found rosiglitazone comparable to metformin in terms of cancer risk.⁵⁴

Colmers et al⁴⁷ pooled data from four randomized controlled trials, seven cohort studies, and nine case-control studies to assess the risk of cancer with TZD use in type 2 diabetes. Both the randomized and observational data showed neutral overall cancer risk with TZDs. However, pooled data from observational studies showed significantly lower risk with TZD use in terms of:

• Colorectal cancer RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87–1.00
• Lung cancer RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84–0.98
• Breast cancer RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81–0.98.

INCRETIN-BASED THERAPIES

Incretins are hormones released from the gut in response to food ingestion, triggering release of insulin before blood glucose levels rise. Their action explains why insulin secretion increases more after an oral glucose load than after an intravenous glucose load, a phenomenon called the incretin effect.⁵⁵

There are two incretin hormones: glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1). They have short a half-life because they are rapidly degraded by dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-IV).⁵⁵ Available incretin-based therapies are GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-IV inhibitors.

When used as monotherapy, incretin-based therapies do not cause hypoglycemia because their effect is glucose-dependent.⁵⁵ GLP-1 receptor antagonists have the added benefit of inducing weight loss, but DPP-IV inhibitors are considered to be weight-neutral.

GLP-1 receptor agonists

Exenatide, the first of the GLP-1 receptor agonists, was approved in 2005. The original formulation (Byetta) is taken by injection twice daily, and timing in conjunction with food intake is important: it should be taken within 60 minutes before the morning and evening meals. Extended-release exenatide (Bydureon) is a once-weekly formulation taken without regard to timing of food intake. Exenatide (either twice-daily Byetta or once-weekly Bydureon) should not be used in those with creatinine clearance less than 30 mL/min or end-stage renal disease and should be used with caution in patients with renal transplantation.

Liraglutide (Victoza), a once-daily formulation, can be injected irrespective of food intake. The dose does not have to be adjusted for renal function, although it should be used with caution in those with renal impairment, including end-stage renal disease. Approval for a 3-mg formulation is pending with the FDA as a weight-loss drug on the basis of promising results in a randomized phase 3 trial.⁵⁶

Albiglutide (Tanzeum), a once-weekly GLP-1 receptor antagonist, was recently approved by the FDA.

DPP-IV inhibitors

Whereas GLP-1 receptor agonists are injected, the DPP-IV inhibitors have the advantage of being oral agents.

Sitagliptin (Januvia), the first DPP-IV inhibitor, became available in the United States in 2006. Since then, three more have become available: saxagliptin (Onglyza), linagliptin (Tradjenta), and alogliptin (Nesina).

Concerns about thyroid cancer with incretin drugs

Concerns of increased risk of cancer, particularly of the thyroid and pancreas, have been raised since GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-IV inhibitors became available.

Studies in rodents have shown C-cell hyperplasia, sometimes resulting in increased incidence of thyroid carcinoma, and dose-dependent rises in serum calcitonin, particularly with liraglutide.²⁶ This has raised concern about an increased risk of medullary thyroid carcinoma in humans. However, the density of C cells in rodents is up to 45 times greater than in humans, and C cells also express functional GLP-1 receptors.²⁶

Gier et al²⁷ assessed the expression of calcitonin and human GLP-1 receptors in normal C cells, C cell hyperplasia, and medullary cancer. In this study, calcitonin and GLP-1 receptor were co-expressed in medullary thyroid cancer (10 of 12 cases) and C-cell hyperplasia (9 of 9 cases) more commonly than in normal C cells (5 of 15 cases). Further, GLP-1 receptor was expressed in 3 of 17 cases of papillary thyroid cancer.

Calcitonin, a polypeptide hormone produced by thyroid C cells and used as a medullary thyroid cancer biomarker, was increased in a slightly higher percentage of patients treated with liraglutide than in controls, without an increase above the normal range.⁵⁷

A meta-analysis by Alves et al⁵⁸ of 25 studies found that neither exenatide (no cases reported) nor liraglutide (odds ratio 1.54, 95% CI 0.40–6.02) was associated with increased thyroid cancer risk.

MacConell et al⁵⁹ pooled the results of 19 placebo-controlled trials of twice-daily exenatide and found a thyroid cancer incidence rate of 0.3 per 100 patient-years (< 0.1%) vs 0 per 100 patient-years in pooled comparators.

Concerns about pancreatic cancer with incretin drugs

Increased risk of acute pancreatitis is a potential side effect of both DPP-IV inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists and has led to speculation that this translates to an increased risk of pancreatic cancer.

In a point-counterpoint debate, Butler et al²⁸ argued that incretin-based medications have questionable safety, with increased rates of pancreatitis possibly leading to pancreatic cancer. In counterpoint, Nauck⁶⁰ argued that the risk of pancreatitis or cancer is extremely low, and clinical cases are unsubstantiated.

Bailey⁶¹ outlined the complexities and difficulties in drawing firm conclusions from individual clinical trials regarding possible adverse effects of diabetes drugs. The trials are typically designed to assess hemoglobin A_1c reduction at varying doses and are typically restricted in patient selection, patient numbers, and drug-exposure duration, which may introduce allocation and ascertainment biases. The attempt to draw firm conclusions from such trials can be problematic and can lead to increased alarm, warranted or not.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus itself is associated with an increased incidence of pancreatic cancer, and whether incretin therapy enhances this risk is still controversial. Whether more episodes of acute pancreatitis without chronic pancreatitis can be extrapolated to an increased incidence of pancreatic cancer is doubtful. A normal pancreatic duct cell may take up to 12 years to become a tumor cell from which pancreatic carcinoma develops, another 7 years to develop metastatic capacity, and another 3 years before a diagnosis is made from clinical symptoms (which are usually accompanied by metastases).⁶²

The risks and benefits of incretin therapies remain a contentious issue, and there are no clear prospective data at this time on increased pancreatic cancer incidence. Long-term prospective studies designed to analyze these specific outcomes (pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, and medullary thyroid cancer) need to be undertaken.⁶³

OTHER DIABETES THERAPIES

Alpha glucosidase inhibitors

Oral glucosidase inhibitors ameliorate hyperglycemia by inhibiting alpha glucosidase enzymes in the brush border of the small intestines, preventing conversion of polysaccharides to monosaccharides.⁶⁴ This slows digestion of carbohydrates and glucose release into the bloodstream and blunts the postprandial hyperglycemic excursion.

The two alpha glucosidase inhibitors currently available in the United States are acarbose and miglitol, and although data are limited, they do not appear to increase the risk of cancer.^65,66

Sodium-glucose-linked cotransporter 2 inhibitors

The newest class of oral diabetes agents to be approved are the sodium-glucose-linked cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors canagliflozin (Invokana) and dapagliflozin (Farxiga).

SGLT2 is a protein in the S1 segment of the proximal renal tubules responsible for over 90% of renal glucose reabsorption. SGLT2 inhibitors lower serum glucose levels by promoting glycosuria and have also been shown to have favorable effects on blood pressure and weight.^67,68

Canagliflozin was the first of its class to gain FDA approval in the United States. It has not been found to be associated with increased cancer risk.⁶⁸

Dapagliflozin, originally approved in Europe, was approved in the United States on January 8, 2014. Because of a possible increased incidence of breast and bladder malignancies, the FDA advisory committee initially recommended against approval and required further data. In those who were treated, nine cases of bladder cancer and nine cases of breast cancer were reported, compared with one case of bladder cancer and no cases of breast cancer in the control group; however, the difference was not statistically significant.⁶⁸

Since SGLT2 inhibitors are still new, data on long-term outcomes are lacking. Early clinical data do not show a significant increase in cancer risk.

WHAT THIS MEANS IN PRACTICE

Many studies have found associations between diabetes, obesity, hyperinsulinemia, and cancer risk. In the last decade, concerns implicating antihyperglycemic agents in cancer development have arisen but have not been well substantiated. At this time, there are no definitive prospective data indicating that the currently available type 2 diabetes therapies increase the incidence of cancer beyond the inherent increased risk in this population. What, then, is one to do?

Educate. Lifestyle modification, including weight management, should continue to be emphasized in diabetes education, as no therapy is completely effective without adjunct modifications in diet and physical activity. Epidemiologic studies have shown the benefits of lifestyle modifications, which ameliorate many of the adverse metabolic conditions that coexist in type 2 diabetes and cancer.

Screen for cancer. Given the associations between diabetes and malignancy, cancer screening is especially important in this high-risk population.

Customize therapy to individual patients. Those with a personal history of bladder cancer should avoid pioglitazone, and those who have had pancreatic cancer should avoid sitagliptin until definitive clinical data become available.

Moreover, patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer should not receive GLP-1 receptor agonists. These agents should also probably be avoided in patients with a personal history of differentiated thyroid carcinoma or a history of familial nonmedullary thyroid carcinoma. Until we have further elucidating data, it is not possible to say whether a family history of any of the other types of cancer should represent a contraindication to the use of any of these agents.

Discuss. The multitude of diabetes therapies warrants physician-patient discussions that carefully weigh the risks and benefits of additional agents to optimize glycemic control and metabolic factors in individual patients.

In the last quarter century, many new drugs have become available for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus. The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists incorporated these new agents in its updated glycemic control algorithm in 2013.¹ Because diabetes affects 25.8 million Americans and can lead to blindness, renal failure, cardiovascular disease, and amputation, agents that help us treat it more effectively are valuable.²

One of the barriers to effective treatment is the side effects of the agents. Because some of these drugs have been in use for only a short time, concerns of potential adverse effects have arisen. Cancer is one such concern, especially since type 2 diabetes mellitus by itself increases the risk of cancer by 20% to 50% compared with no diabetes.³

Type 2 diabetes has been linked to risk of cancers of the pancreas,⁴ colorectum,^5,6 liver,⁷ kidney,^8,9 breast,¹⁰ bladder,¹¹ and endometri-um,¹² as well as to hematologic malignancies such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma.¹³ The risk of bladder cancer appears to depend on how long the patient has had type 2 diabetes. Newton et al,¹⁴ in a prospective cohort study, found that those who had diabetes for more than 15 years and used insulin had the highest risk of bladder cancer. On the other hand, the risk of prostate cancer is actually lower in people with diabetes,¹⁵ particularly in those who have had diabetes for longer than 4 years.¹⁶

Cancer and type 2 diabetes share many risk factors and underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms. Nonmodifiable risk factors for both diseases include advanced age, male sex, ethnicity (African American men appear to be most vulnerable to both cancer and diabetes),^17,18 and family history. Modifiable risk factors include lower socioeconomic status, obesity, and alcohol consumption. These common risk factors lead to hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance, changes in mitochondrial function, low-grade inflammation, and oxidative stress,³ which promote both diabetes and cancer. Diabetes therapy may influence several of these processes.

Several classes of diabetes drugs, including exogenous insulin,^19–22 insulin secretagogues,^23–25 and incretin-based therapies,^26–28 have been under scrutiny because of their potential influences on cancer development in a population already at risk (Table 1).

INSULIN ANALOGUES: MIXED EVIDENCE

Insulin promotes cell division by binding to insulin receptor isoform A and insulin-like growth factor 1 receptors.²⁹ Because endogenous hyperinsulinemia has been linked to cancer risk, growth, and proliferation, some speculate that exogenous insulin may also increase cancer risk.

In 2009, a retrospective study by Hemkens et al linked the long-acting insulin analogue glargine to risk of cancer.¹⁹ This finding set off a tumult of controversy within the medical community and concern among patients. Several limitations of the study were brought to light, including a short duration of follow-up, and several other studies have refuted the study’s findings.^20,21

More recently, the Outcome Reduction With Initial Glargine Intervention (ORIGIN) trial²² found no higher cancer risk with glargine use than with placebo. This study enrolled 12,537 participants from 573 sites in 40 countries. Specifically, risks with glargine use were as follows:

• Any cancer—hazard ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88–1.13, P = .97
• Cancer death—hazard ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.77–1.15, P = .52.

However, the study was designed to assess cardiovascular outcomes, not cancer risk. Furthermore, the participants were not typical of patients seen in clinical practice: their insulin doses were lower (the median insulin dose was 0.4 units/kg/day by year 6, whereas in clinical practice, those with type 2 diabetes mellitus often use more than 1 unit/kg/day, depending on duration of diabetes, diet, and exercise regimen), and their baseline median hemoglobin A_1c level was only 6.4%. And one may argue that the median follow-up of 6.2 years was too short for cancer to develop.²²

In vitro studies indicate that long-acting analogue insulin therapy may promote cancer cell growth more than endogenous insulin,³⁰ but epidemiologic data have not unequivocally substantiated this.^20–22 There is no clear evidence that analogue insulin therapy raises cancer risk above that of human recombinant insulin, and starting insulin therapy should not be delayed because of concerns about cancer risk, particularly in uncontrolled diabetes.

INSULIN SECRETAGOGUES

Sulfonylureas: Higher risk

Before 1995, only two classes of diabetes drugs were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—insulin and sulfonylureas.

Sulfonylureas lower blood sugar levels by binding to sulfonylurea receptors and inhibiting adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels. The resulting change in resting potential causes an influx of calcium, ultimately leading to insulin secretion.

Sulfonylureas are effective, and because of their low cost, physicians often pick them as a second-line agent after metformin.

The main disadvantage of sulfonylureas is the risk of hypoglycemia, particularly in patients with renal failure, the elderly, and diabetic patients who are unaware of when they are hypoglycemic. Other potential drawbacks are that they impair cardiac ischemic preconditioning³¹ and possibly increase cancer risk.^21,32 (Ischemic preconditioning is the process in which transient episodes of ischemia “condition” the myocardium so that it better withstands future episodes with minimal anginal pain and tissue injury.³³) Of the sulfonylureas, glyburide has been most implicated in cardiovascular risk.³²

In a retrospective cohort study of 62,809 patients from a general-practice database in the United Kingdom, Currie et al²¹ found that sulfonylurea monotherapy was associated with a 36% higher risk of cancer (95% CI 1.19–1.54, P < .001) than metformin monotherapy. Prescribing bias may have influenced the results: practitioners are more likely to prescribe sulfonylureas to leaner patients, who have a greater likelihood of occult cancer. However, other studies also found that the cancer death rate is higher in those who take a sulfonylurea alone than in those who use metformin alone.^23,24

Some evidence indicates that long-acting sulfonylurea formulations (eg, glyburide) likely hold the most danger, certainly in regard to hypoglycemia, but it is less clear if this translates to cancer concerns.³¹

Meglitinides: Limited evidence

Meglitinides, the other class of insulin secretagogues, are less commonly used but are similar to sulfonylureas in the way they increase endogenous insulin levels. The data are limited regarding cancer risk and meglitinide therapy, but the magnitude of the association is similar to that with sulfonylurea therapy.²⁵

INSULIN SENSITIZERS

There are currently two classes of insulin sensitizers: biguanides and thiazolidinediones (TZDs, also known as glitazones). These drugs show less risk of both cancer incidence and cancer death than insulin secretagogues such as sulfonylureas.^21,23,24 In fact, they may decrease cancer potential by alteration of signaling via the AKT/mTOR (v-akt murine thymoma viral oncogene homolog 1/mammalian target of rapamycin) pathway.³⁴

Metformin, a biguanide, is the oral drug of choice

Metformin is the only biguanide currently available in the United States. It was approved by the FDA in 1995, although it had been in clinical use since the 1950s. Inexpensive and familiar, it is the oral antihyperglycemic of choice if there are no contraindications to it, such as renal dysfunction (creatinine ≥ 1.4 mg/dL in women and ≥ 1.5 mg/dL in men), acute decompensated heart failure, or pulmonary or hepatic insufficiency, all of which may lead to an increased risk of lactic acidosis.¹

Metformin lowers blood sugar levels primarily by inhibiting hepatic glucose production (gluconeogenesis) and by improving peripheral insulin sensitivity. It directly activates AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), which affects insulin signaling and glucose and fat metabolism.³⁵ It may exert further beneficial effects by acutely increasing glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) levels and inducing islet incretin-receptor gene expression.³⁶ Although the exact mechanisms have not been fully elucidated, metformin’s insulin-sensitizing properties are likely from favorable effects on insulin receptor expression, tyrosine kinase activity, and influences on the incretin pathway.^36,37 These effects also mitigate carcinogenesis, both directly (via AMPK and liver kinase B1, a tumor-suppressor gene) and indirectly (via reduction of hyperinsulinemia).³⁵

Overall, biguanide therapy is associated with a lower cancer incidence or, at worst, no effect on cancer incidence. In vitro studies demonstrate that metformin both suppresses cancer cell growth and induces apoptosis, resulting in fewer live cancer cells.³⁴ Several retrospective studies found lower cancer risk in metformin users than in patients receiving antidiabetes drugs other than insulin-sensitizing agents,^{21,23,25,38–40} while others have shown no effect.⁴¹ Use of metformin was specifically associated with lower risk of cancers of the liver, colon and rectum, and lung.⁴² Further, metformin users have a lower cancer mortality rate than nonusers.^24,43

Thiazolidinediones

TZDs, such as pioglitazone, work by binding to peroxisome proliferator-activated gamma receptors in the cell nucleus, altering gene transcription.⁴⁴ They reduce insulin resistance and levels of endogenous insulin levels and free fatty acids.⁴⁴

Concern over bladder cancer risk with TZD use, particularly with pioglitazone, has increased in the last few years, as various cohort studies found a statistically significant increased risk with this agent.⁴⁴ The risk appears to rise with cumulative dose.^45,46

Randomized controlled trials also found an increased risk of bladder cancer with TZD therapy, although the difference was not statistically significant.^47–49 In a mean follow-up of 8.7 years, the Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial in Macrovascular Events reported 23 cases of bladder cancer in the pioglitazone group vs 22 cases in the placebo group, for rates of 0.9% vs 0.8% (relative risk [RR] 1.06, 95% CI 0.59–1.89).⁴⁹

On the other hand, the risk of cancer of the breast, colon, and lung has been found to be lower with TZD use.⁴⁷ In vitro studies support the clinical data, showing that TZDs inhibit growth of human cancer cells derived from cancers of the lung, colon, breast, stomach, ovary, and prostate.^50–53

Home et al⁵⁴ compared rosiglitazone against a sulfonylurea in patients already taking metformin in the Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiovascular Outcomes in Oral Agent Combination Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes (RECORD) trial. Malignancies developed in 6.7% of the sulfonylurea group compared with 5.1% of the rosiglitazone group, for a hazard ratio of 1.33 (95% CI 0.94–1.88).

Both ADOPT (A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial) and the RECORD trial found rosiglitazone comparable to metformin in terms of cancer risk.⁵⁴

Colmers et al⁴⁷ pooled data from four randomized controlled trials, seven cohort studies, and nine case-control studies to assess the risk of cancer with TZD use in type 2 diabetes. Both the randomized and observational data showed neutral overall cancer risk with TZDs. However, pooled data from observational studies showed significantly lower risk with TZD use in terms of:

• Colorectal cancer RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87–1.00
• Lung cancer RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84–0.98
• Breast cancer RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81–0.98.

INCRETIN-BASED THERAPIES

Incretins are hormones released from the gut in response to food ingestion, triggering release of insulin before blood glucose levels rise. Their action explains why insulin secretion increases more after an oral glucose load than after an intravenous glucose load, a phenomenon called the incretin effect.⁵⁵

There are two incretin hormones: glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1). They have short a half-life because they are rapidly degraded by dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-IV).⁵⁵ Available incretin-based therapies are GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-IV inhibitors.

When used as monotherapy, incretin-based therapies do not cause hypoglycemia because their effect is glucose-dependent.⁵⁵ GLP-1 receptor antagonists have the added benefit of inducing weight loss, but DPP-IV inhibitors are considered to be weight-neutral.

GLP-1 receptor agonists

Exenatide, the first of the GLP-1 receptor agonists, was approved in 2005. The original formulation (Byetta) is taken by injection twice daily, and timing in conjunction with food intake is important: it should be taken within 60 minutes before the morning and evening meals. Extended-release exenatide (Bydureon) is a once-weekly formulation taken without regard to timing of food intake. Exenatide (either twice-daily Byetta or once-weekly Bydureon) should not be used in those with creatinine clearance less than 30 mL/min or end-stage renal disease and should be used with caution in patients with renal transplantation.

Liraglutide (Victoza), a once-daily formulation, can be injected irrespective of food intake. The dose does not have to be adjusted for renal function, although it should be used with caution in those with renal impairment, including end-stage renal disease. Approval for a 3-mg formulation is pending with the FDA as a weight-loss drug on the basis of promising results in a randomized phase 3 trial.⁵⁶

Albiglutide (Tanzeum), a once-weekly GLP-1 receptor antagonist, was recently approved by the FDA.

DPP-IV inhibitors

Whereas GLP-1 receptor agonists are injected, the DPP-IV inhibitors have the advantage of being oral agents.

Sitagliptin (Januvia), the first DPP-IV inhibitor, became available in the United States in 2006. Since then, three more have become available: saxagliptin (Onglyza), linagliptin (Tradjenta), and alogliptin (Nesina).

Concerns about thyroid cancer with incretin drugs

Concerns of increased risk of cancer, particularly of the thyroid and pancreas, have been raised since GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-IV inhibitors became available.

Studies in rodents have shown C-cell hyperplasia, sometimes resulting in increased incidence of thyroid carcinoma, and dose-dependent rises in serum calcitonin, particularly with liraglutide.²⁶ This has raised concern about an increased risk of medullary thyroid carcinoma in humans. However, the density of C cells in rodents is up to 45 times greater than in humans, and C cells also express functional GLP-1 receptors.²⁶

Gier et al²⁷ assessed the expression of calcitonin and human GLP-1 receptors in normal C cells, C cell hyperplasia, and medullary cancer. In this study, calcitonin and GLP-1 receptor were co-expressed in medullary thyroid cancer (10 of 12 cases) and C-cell hyperplasia (9 of 9 cases) more commonly than in normal C cells (5 of 15 cases). Further, GLP-1 receptor was expressed in 3 of 17 cases of papillary thyroid cancer.

Calcitonin, a polypeptide hormone produced by thyroid C cells and used as a medullary thyroid cancer biomarker, was increased in a slightly higher percentage of patients treated with liraglutide than in controls, without an increase above the normal range.⁵⁷

A meta-analysis by Alves et al⁵⁸ of 25 studies found that neither exenatide (no cases reported) nor liraglutide (odds ratio 1.54, 95% CI 0.40–6.02) was associated with increased thyroid cancer risk.

MacConell et al⁵⁹ pooled the results of 19 placebo-controlled trials of twice-daily exenatide and found a thyroid cancer incidence rate of 0.3 per 100 patient-years (< 0.1%) vs 0 per 100 patient-years in pooled comparators.

Concerns about pancreatic cancer with incretin drugs

Increased risk of acute pancreatitis is a potential side effect of both DPP-IV inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists and has led to speculation that this translates to an increased risk of pancreatic cancer.

In a point-counterpoint debate, Butler et al²⁸ argued that incretin-based medications have questionable safety, with increased rates of pancreatitis possibly leading to pancreatic cancer. In counterpoint, Nauck⁶⁰ argued that the risk of pancreatitis or cancer is extremely low, and clinical cases are unsubstantiated.

Bailey⁶¹ outlined the complexities and difficulties in drawing firm conclusions from individual clinical trials regarding possible adverse effects of diabetes drugs. The trials are typically designed to assess hemoglobin A_1c reduction at varying doses and are typically restricted in patient selection, patient numbers, and drug-exposure duration, which may introduce allocation and ascertainment biases. The attempt to draw firm conclusions from such trials can be problematic and can lead to increased alarm, warranted or not.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus itself is associated with an increased incidence of pancreatic cancer, and whether incretin therapy enhances this risk is still controversial. Whether more episodes of acute pancreatitis without chronic pancreatitis can be extrapolated to an increased incidence of pancreatic cancer is doubtful. A normal pancreatic duct cell may take up to 12 years to become a tumor cell from which pancreatic carcinoma develops, another 7 years to develop metastatic capacity, and another 3 years before a diagnosis is made from clinical symptoms (which are usually accompanied by metastases).⁶²

The risks and benefits of incretin therapies remain a contentious issue, and there are no clear prospective data at this time on increased pancreatic cancer incidence. Long-term prospective studies designed to analyze these specific outcomes (pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, and medullary thyroid cancer) need to be undertaken.⁶³

OTHER DIABETES THERAPIES

Alpha glucosidase inhibitors

Oral glucosidase inhibitors ameliorate hyperglycemia by inhibiting alpha glucosidase enzymes in the brush border of the small intestines, preventing conversion of polysaccharides to monosaccharides.⁶⁴ This slows digestion of carbohydrates and glucose release into the bloodstream and blunts the postprandial hyperglycemic excursion.

The two alpha glucosidase inhibitors currently available in the United States are acarbose and miglitol, and although data are limited, they do not appear to increase the risk of cancer.^65,66

Sodium-glucose-linked cotransporter 2 inhibitors

The newest class of oral diabetes agents to be approved are the sodium-glucose-linked cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors canagliflozin (Invokana) and dapagliflozin (Farxiga).

SGLT2 is a protein in the S1 segment of the proximal renal tubules responsible for over 90% of renal glucose reabsorption. SGLT2 inhibitors lower serum glucose levels by promoting glycosuria and have also been shown to have favorable effects on blood pressure and weight.^67,68

Canagliflozin was the first of its class to gain FDA approval in the United States. It has not been found to be associated with increased cancer risk.⁶⁸

Dapagliflozin, originally approved in Europe, was approved in the United States on January 8, 2014. Because of a possible increased incidence of breast and bladder malignancies, the FDA advisory committee initially recommended against approval and required further data. In those who were treated, nine cases of bladder cancer and nine cases of breast cancer were reported, compared with one case of bladder cancer and no cases of breast cancer in the control group; however, the difference was not statistically significant.⁶⁸

Since SGLT2 inhibitors are still new, data on long-term outcomes are lacking. Early clinical data do not show a significant increase in cancer risk.

WHAT THIS MEANS IN PRACTICE

Many studies have found associations between diabetes, obesity, hyperinsulinemia, and cancer risk. In the last decade, concerns implicating antihyperglycemic agents in cancer development have arisen but have not been well substantiated. At this time, there are no definitive prospective data indicating that the currently available type 2 diabetes therapies increase the incidence of cancer beyond the inherent increased risk in this population. What, then, is one to do?

Educate. Lifestyle modification, including weight management, should continue to be emphasized in diabetes education, as no therapy is completely effective without adjunct modifications in diet and physical activity. Epidemiologic studies have shown the benefits of lifestyle modifications, which ameliorate many of the adverse metabolic conditions that coexist in type 2 diabetes and cancer.

Screen for cancer. Given the associations between diabetes and malignancy, cancer screening is especially important in this high-risk population.

Customize therapy to individual patients. Those with a personal history of bladder cancer should avoid pioglitazone, and those who have had pancreatic cancer should avoid sitagliptin until definitive clinical data become available.

Moreover, patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer should not receive GLP-1 receptor agonists. These agents should also probably be avoided in patients with a personal history of differentiated thyroid carcinoma or a history of familial nonmedullary thyroid carcinoma. Until we have further elucidating data, it is not possible to say whether a family history of any of the other types of cancer should represent a contraindication to the use of any of these agents.

Discuss. The multitude of diabetes therapies warrants physician-patient discussions that carefully weigh the risks and benefits of additional agents to optimize glycemic control and metabolic factors in individual patients.

More then 2.5 million patients in the United States are on long-term anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolic disease, or mechanical heart valves,¹ and the number is expected to rise as the population ages. Each year, about 10% of these patients undergo an invasive procedure or surgery that requires temporary interruption of anticoagulation.²

Most physicians are familiar with the perioperative management of warfarin, a vitamin K antagonist, since for decades it has been the sole oral anticoagulant available. However, many physicians lack experience with the three target-specific oral anticoagulants (TSOACs; also known as “novel” oral anticoagulants) approved so far: the direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran (Pradaxa) and the direct factor Xa inhibitors rivaroxaban (Xarelto) and apixaban (Eliquis).

With their rapid onset of action, predictable pharmacokinetics, relatively short half-lives, and fewer drug-drug interactions than warfarin, TSOACs overcome many of the limitations of the older oral anticoagulant warfarin. In many ways, these qualities simplify the perioperative management of anticoagulation. At the same time, these new drugs also bring new challenges: caution is needed in patients with renal impairment; the level of anticoagulation is difficult to assess; and there is no specific antidote or standardized procedure to reverse their anticoagulant effect. While various periprocedural protocols for TSOAC therapy have been proposed, evidence-based guidelines are still to come.

This article first discusses the pharmacology of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban that is pertinent to the perioperative period. It then briefly reviews the general principles of perioperative management of anticoagulation. The final section provides specific recommendations for the perioperative management of TSOACs.

PHARMACOLOGY OF TARGET-SPECIFIC ORAL ANTICOAGULANTS

Dabigatran, a factor IIa inhibitor

Information from references 3, 4, 14, and 23.

Dabigatran is an oral direct thrombin (factor IIa) inhibitor. It exerts its anticoagulant effect by blocking the generation of fibrin, inhibiting platelet aggregation, and dampening the activity of factors V, VIII, and XI (Figure 1).^3,4 From its introduction in October 2010 through August 2012, nearly 3.7 million prescriptions were dispensed to 725,000 patients in the United States.⁵

Indications for dabigatran. Dabigatran is approved in the United States and Canada for preventing stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (Table 1).⁶ More recently, it received US approval for treating deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism after 5 to 10 days of a parenteral anticoagulant.^7,8 It is also approved in Europe and Canada for preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) after total hip replacement and knee arthroplasty.^9,10

Dabigatran is contraindicated in patients with a mechanical heart valve, based on a phase 2 study in which it conferred a higher risk of thromboembolism and bleeding than warfarin.^3,11

Pharmacokinetics of dabigatran. Dabigatran is formulated as a prodrug, dabigatran etexilate, in a capsule containing multiple small pellets.¹² The capsules should not be crushed, as this significantly increases oral bioavailability. The prodrug is absorbed across the gastric mucosa and is then rapidly converted to the active form (Table 2).

Plasma concentrations peak within 2 hours of ingestion, which means that therapeutic anticoagulation is achieved shortly after taking the drug.

Only 35% of dabigatran is protein-bound, which allows it to be removed by hemodialysis. Nearly 85% of the drug is eliminated in the urine. It has a half-life of 13 to 15 hours in patients with normal renal function.³ However, its half-life increases to about 27 hours in patients whose creatinine clearance is less than 30 mL/min. As a result, the dose must be reduced in patients with renal impairment (Table 1).

Dabigatran is not metabolized by the cytochrome P450 enzymes, but it is a substrate for P-glycoprotein, so it still has the potential for drug-drug interactions.³ Practitioners should be familiar with these potential interactions (Table 3), as they can result in higher- or lower-than-expected plasma concentrations of dabigatran in the perioperative period.¹³

Rivaroxaban, a factor Xa inhibitor

Rivaroxaban is an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor. It has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the prevention of stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, for VTE treatment, and for VTE prophylaxis after hip replacement or knee replacement (Table 1).^14–20 It has not yet been studied in patients with hip fracture.

Pharmacokinetics of rivaroxaban. Rivaroxaban is manufactured as a tablet that is best absorbed in the stomach (Table 2).¹⁴ In contrast to dabigatran, it can be crushed and, for example, mixed with applesauce for patients who have trouble swallowing. It can also be mixed with water and given via nasogastric tube; however, postpyloric administration should be avoided.

Plasma concentrations peak within a few hours after ingestion. Rivaroxaban is highly protein-bound, so it cannot be eliminated by hemodialysis.

The drug relies on renal elimination to a smaller degree than dabigatran, with one-third of the dose eliminated unchanged in the urine, one-third eliminated in the urine as inactive metabolite, and the remaining one-third eliminated in the feces. However, enough parent compound is cleared through the kidneys that the half-life of rivaroxaban increases from 8.3 hours in healthy individuals to 9.5 hours in patients whose creatinine clearance is less than 30 mL/min.²¹ As with dabigatran, the dose must be adjusted for renal impairment (Table 1).

Rivaroxaban has significant liver metabolism, specifically through the cytochrome P450 3A4 enzyme, and it is also a substrate of P-glycoprotein. Therefore, potential drug-drug interactions must be taken into account, as they may lead to important alterations in plasma concentrations (Table 3).

Apixaban, a factor Xa inhibitor

Apixaban is also an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor. It is the newest of the oral anticoagulants to be approved in the United States, specifically for preventing stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (Table 1).²²

Pharmacokinetics of apixaban. Apixaban is produced as a tablet that is absorbed slowly through the gastrointestinal tract, mainly the distal small bowel and ascending colon (Table  2).²³

Peak plasma concentrations are reached a few hours after ingestion. Like rivaroxaban, apixaban is highly protein-bound, so it cannot be removed by hemodialysis.

Apixaban is similar to rivaroxaban in that 27% of the parent compound is cleared through the kidneys, it undergoes significant hepatic metabolism through cytochrome P450 3A4, and it is a substrate for P-glycoprotein.

Drug-drug interactions must be considered as a potential source of altered drug exposure and clearance (Table 3).

Unlike dabigatran and rivaroxaban, dose reduction is not based on the calculated creatinine clearance. Instead, a reduced dose is required if the patient meets two of the following three criteria:

• Serum creatinine level ≥ 1.5 mg/dL
• Age ≥ 80
• Weight ≤ 60 kg (Table 1).

The American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines further recommend against using apixaban in patients with a creatinine clearance less than 25 mL/min.²⁴

Edoxaban, a factor Xa inhibitor in development

Edoxaban (Savaysa), another factor Xa inhibitor, is available in Japan and has been submitted for approval in the United States for treating VTE and for preventing stroke in patients with

PERIOPERATIVE CONSIDERATIONS IN ANTICOAGULATION

Before addressing the perioperative management of TSOACs, let us review the evidence guiding the perioperative management of any chronic anticoagulant.

In fact, no large prospective randomized trial has clearly defined the risks and benefits of using or withholding a bridging anticoagulation strategy around surgery and other procedures, though the PERIOP 2 and BRIDGE trials are currently ongoing.^25,26 There are some data regarding continuing anticoagulation without interruption, but they have mainly been derived from specific groups (eg, patients on warfarin undergoing cardiac pacemaker or defibrillator placement) and in procedures that pose a very low risk of bleeding complications (eg, minor dental extractions, cataract surgery, dermatologic procedures).^2,27 Recommendations are, therefore, necessarily based on small perioperative trials and data gleaned from cohort review and from studies that did not involve surgical patients.

Ultimately, the decisions whether to discontinue oral anticoagulants and whether to employ bridging anticoagulation are based on assumptions about the risks of bleeding and the risk of thrombotic events, with similar assumptions regarding the effects of anticoagulants on both outcomes. In addition, the relative acceptance of bleeding vs thrombotic risks implicitly guides these complex decisions.

Perioperative bleeding risk

Many risk factors specific to the patient and to the type of surgery affect the rates and severity of perioperative bleeding.²⁸

As for patient-specific risk factors, a small retrospective cohort analysis revealed that a HAS-BLED score of 3 or higher was highly discriminating in predicting perioperative bleeding in atrial fibrillation patients receiving anticoagulation.²⁹ (The HAS-BLED score is based on hypertension, abnormal renal or liver function, stroke, bleeding, labile international normalized ratio [INR], elderly [age > 65] and drug therapy.³⁰) However, there are no widely validated tools that incorporate patient-specific factors to accurately predict bleeding risk in an individual patient.

Therefore, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines suggest coarsely categorizing bleeding risk as either low or high solely on the basis of the type of procedure.² Procedures considered “high-risk” have a risk greater than 1.5% to 2% and include urologic surgery involving the prostate or kidney, colonic polyp resections, surgeries involving highly vascular organs such as the liver or spleen, joint replacements, cancer surgeries, and cardiac or neurosurgical procedures.

Perioperative thrombotic risk

The ACCP guidelines² place patients with atrial fibrillation, VTE, or mechanical heart valves in three risk groups for perioperative thromboembolism without anticoagulation, based on their annual risk of a thrombotic event:

• High risk—annual risk of a thrombotic event > 10%
• Moderate risk—5% to 10%
• Low risk—< 5%.

Comparing the risks calculated by these methods with the real-world risk of perioperative thrombosis highlights the problem of applying nonperioperative risk calculations: the perioperative period exposes patients to a higher risk than these models would predict.³¹ Nonetheless, these risk categorizations likely have some validity in stratifying patients into risk groups, even if the absolute risks are inaccurate.

Perioperative bridging for patients taking warfarin

Many patients with atrial fibrillation, VTE, or a mechanical heart valve need to interrupt their warfarin therapy because of the bleeding risk of an upcoming procedure.

The perioperative management of warfarin and other vitamin K antagonists is challenging because of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of these drugs. Because it has a long half-life, warfarin usually must be stopped 4 to 5 days before a procedure in order to allow not only adequate clearance of the drug itself, but also restoration of functional clotting factors to normal or near-normal levels.¹² Warfarin can generally be resumed 12 to 24 hours after surgery, assuming adequate hemostasis has been achieved, and it will again take several days for the INR to reach the therapeutic range.

The ACCP guidelines recommend using the perioperative risk of thromboembolism to make decisions about the need for bridging anticoagulation during warfarin interruption.² They suggest that patients at high risk of thrombosis receive bridging with an alternative anticoagulant such as low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin, because of the prolonged duration of subtherapeutic anticoagulation.

There has been clinical interest in using a TSOAC instead of low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin for bridging in the perioperative setting. Although this approach may be attractive from a cost and convenience perspective, it cannot be endorsed as yet because of the lack of information on the pros and cons of such an approach.

Patients at low thrombotic risk do not require bridging. In patients at moderate risk, the decision to bridge or not to bridge is based on careful consideration of patient-specific and surgery-specific factors.

PERIOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT OF TARGET-SPECIFIC ORAL ANTICOAGULANTS

As summarized above, the perioperative management strategy for chronic anticoagulation is based on limited evidence, even for drugs as well established as warfarin.

The most recent ACCP guidelines on the perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy do not mention TSOACs.² For now, the management strategy must be based on the pharmacokinetics of the drugs, package inserts from the manufacturers, and expert recommendations.^{3,14,23,32–34} Fortunately, because TSOACs have a more favorable pharmacokinetic profile than that of warfarin, their perioperative uses should be more streamlined. As always, the goal is to minimize the risk of both periprocedural bleeding and thromboembolism.

Timing of cessation of anticoagulation

The timing of cessation of TSOACs before an elective procedure depends primarily on two factors: the bleeding risk of the procedure and the patient’s renal function. Complete clearance of the medication is not necessary in all circumstances.

TSOACs should be stopped four to five half-lives before a procedure with a high bleeding risk, so that there is no or only minimal residual anticoagulant effect. The drug can be stopped two to three half-lives before a procedure with a low bleeding risk. Remember: the half-life increases as creatinine clearance decreases.

Specific recommendations may vary across institutions, but a suggested strategy is shown in Table 4.^{3,4,21,23,32–35} For the small subset of patients on P-glycoprotein or cytochrome P450 inhibitors or inducers, further adjustment in the time of discontinuation may be required.

Therapy does not need to be interrupted for procedures with a very low bleeding risk, as defined above.^33,34 There is also preliminary evidence that TSOACs, similar to warfarin, may be continued during cardiac pacemaker or defibrillator placement.³⁶

Evidence from clinical trials of perioperative TSOAC management

While the above recommendations are logical, studies are needed to prospectively evaluate perioperative management strategies.

The RE-LY trial (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy), which compared the effects of dabigatran and warfarin in preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, is one of the few clinical trials that also looked at periprocedural bleeding.³⁷ About a quarter of the RE-LY participants required interruption of anticoagulation for a procedure.

Warfarin was managed according to local practices. For most of the study, the protocol required that dabigatran be discontinued 24 hours before a procedure, regardless of renal function or procedure type. The protocol was later amended and closely mirrored the management plan outlined in Table 4.

With either protocol, there was no statistically significant difference between dabigatran and warfarin in the rates of bleeding and thrombotic complications in the 7 days before or 30 days after the procedure.

A major limitation of the study was that most patients underwent a procedure with a low bleeding risk, so the analysis was likely underpowered to evaluate rates of bleeding in higher-risk procedures.

The ROCKET-AF trial (Rivaroxaban Once-daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation) also shed light on periprocedural bleeding.¹⁵ About 15% of the participants required temporary interruption of anticoagulation for a surgical or invasive procedure.³⁸

The study protocol called for discontinuing rivaroxaban 2 days before any procedure. Warfarin was to be held for 4 days to achieve a goal INR of 1.5 or less.¹⁵

Rates of major and nonmajor clinically significant bleeding at 30 days were similar with rivaroxaban and with warfarin.³⁸ As with the RE-LY trial, the retrospective analysis was probably underpowered for assessing rates of bleeding in procedures with higher risk.

Perioperative bridging

While stopping a TSOAC in the perioperative period decreases the risk of bleeding, it naturally increases the risk of thromboembolism. However, patients on TSOACs should not routinely require perioperative bridging with an alternative anticoagulant, regardless of thrombotic risk.

Of note, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban carry black-box warnings that discontinuation places patients at higher risk of thrombotic events.^3,14,23 These warnings further state that coverage with an alternative anticoagulant should be strongly considered during interruption of therapy for reasons other than pathologic bleeding.

However, it does not necessarily follow that perioperative bridging is required. For example, the warning for rivaroxaban is based on the finding in the ROCKET-AF trial that patients in the rivaroxaban group had higher rates of stroke than those in the warfarin group after the study drugs were stopped at the end of the trial.³⁹ While there was initial concern that this could represent a prothrombotic rebound effect, the authors subsequently showed that patients in the rivaroxaban group were more likely to have had a subtherapeutic INR when transitioning to open-label vitamin-K-antagonist therapy.^39,40 There was no difference in the rate of stroke or systemic embolism between the rivaroxaban and warfarin groups when anticoagulation was temporarily interrupted for a procedure.³⁸

The risks and benefits of perioperative bridging with TSOACs are difficult to evaluate, given the dearth of trial data. In the RE-LY trial, only 17% of patients on dabigatran and 28% of patients on warfarin underwent periprocedural bridging.³⁷ The selection criteria and protocol for bridging were not reported. In the ROCKET-AF trial, only 9% of patients received bridging therapy despite a mean CHADS₂ score of 3.4.³⁸ (The CHADS₂ score is calculated as 1 point each for congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75, and diabetes; 2 points for stroke or transient ischemic attack.) The decision to bridge or not was left to the individual investigator. As a result, the literature offers diverse opinions about the appropriateness of transitioning to an alternative anticoagulant.^41–43

Bridging does not make sense in most instances, since anticoagulants such as low-molecular-weight heparin have pharmacokinetics similar to those of the available TSOACs and also depend on renal clearance.⁴¹ However, there may be situations in which patients must be switched to a parenteral anticoagulant such as unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin. For example, if a TSOAC has to be held, the patient has acute renal failure, and a needed procedure is still several days away, it would be reasonable to start a heparin drip for an inpatient at increased thrombotic risk.

In patients with normal renal function, these alternative anticoagulants should be started at the time the next TSOAC dose would have been due.^3,14,23 In patients with reduced renal function, initiation of an alternative anticoagulant may need to be delayed 12 to 48 hours depending on which TSOAC is being used, as well as on the degree of renal dysfunction. This delay would help ensure that the onset of anticoagulation with the alternative anticoagulant is timed with the offset of therapeutic anticoagulation with the TSOAC.

Although limited, information from available coagulation assays may assist with the timing of initiation of an alternative anticoagulant (see the following section on laboratory monitoring). Serial testing with appropriate coagulation assays may help identify when most of a TSOAC has been cleared from a patient.

Laboratory monitoring

Inevitably, some patients on TSOACs require urgent or emergency surgery. In certain situations, such as before an orthopedic spine procedure, in which the complications of bleeding could be devastating, it may be necessary to know if any residual anticoagulant effect is present.

Monitoring dabigatran. As one might expect, direct thrombin inhibitors such as dabigatran can prolong the prothrombin time and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT).^44–47 However, the prothrombin time is not recommended for assessing the level of anticoagulation from dabigatran. Many institutions may be using a normal aPTT to rule out therapeutic concentrations of dabigatran, based on results from early in vitro and ex vivo studies.⁴⁶ While appealing from a practical standpoint, practitioners should exercise caution when relying on the aPTT to assess the risk of perioperative bleeding. A more recent investigation in patients treated with dabigatran found that up to 35% of patients with a normal aPTT still had a plasma concentration in the therapeutic range.⁴⁸

The thrombin time and ecarin clotting time are more sensitive tests for dabigatran. A normal thrombin time or ecarin clotting time indicates that no or only minimal dabigatran is present.⁴⁸ Unfortunately, these two tests often are either unavailable or are associated with long turnaround times, which limits their usefulness in the perioperative setting.

Monitoring rivaroxaban and apixaban. Factor Xa inhibitors such as rivaroxaban and apixaban can also influence the prothrombin time and aPTT (Figure 1).^{44–47,49,50} The aPTT is relatively insensitive to these drugs at low concentrations. It has been suggested that a normal prothrombin time can reasonably exclude therapeutic concentrations of rivaroxaban.^45,46 However, the effects on the prothrombin time are highly variable, changing with the reagent used.^49,50 In addition, apixaban appears to have less impact on the prothrombin time overall. The INR is not recommended for monitoring the effect of factor Xa inhibitors.

Anti-factor Xa assays likely represent the best option to provide true quantitative information on the level of anticoagulation with either rivaroxaban or apixaban. However, the assays must be specifically calibrated for each drug for results to be useful. (Anti-factor Xa assays cannot be used for heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin.) Further, most institutions do not yet have this capability. When appropriately calibrated, normal anti-factor Xa levels would exclude any effect of rivaroxaban or apixaban.

Reversal of anticoagulation

If patients on TSOACs require emergency surgery or present with significant bleeding in the setting of persistent anticoagulation, it may be necessary to try to reverse the anticoagulation.

Unlike warfarin or heparin, TSOACS do not have specific reversal agents, though specific antidotes are being developed. For example, researchers are evaluating antibodies capable of neutralizing dabigatran, as well as recombinant thrombin and factor Xa molecules that could antagonize dabigatran and rivaroxaban, respectively.^51–53

Reversal can be attempted by neutralizing or removing the offending drug. Activated charcoal may be able to reduce absorption of TSOACs that were recently ingested,⁴⁴ and dabigatran can be removed by hemodialysis.

However, certain practical considerations may limit the use of dialysis in the perioperative period. Insertion of a temporary dialysis line in an anticoagulated patient poses additional bleeding risks. A standard 4-hour hemodialysis session may remove only about 70% of dabigatran from the plasma, which may not be enough to prevent perioperative bleeding.⁵⁴ Dabigatran also tends to redistribute from adipose tissue back into plasma after each dialysis session.⁵⁵ Serial sessions of high-flux intermittent hemodialysis or continuous renal replacement therapy may therefore be needed to counteract rebound elevations in the dabigatran concentration.

Reversal can also be attempted through activation of the coagulation cascade via other mechanisms. Fresh-frozen plasma is unlikely to be a practical solution for reversal.⁴⁴ Although it can readily replace the clotting factors depleted by vitamin K antagonists, large volumes of fresh-frozen plasma would be needed to overwhelm thrombin or factor Xa inhibition by TSOACs.

There are limited data on the use of prothrombin complex concentrates or recombinant activated factor VIIa in patients on TSOACs, though their use can be considered.⁵⁶ In a trial in 12 healthy participants, a nonactivated four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate containing factors II, VII, IX, and X immediately and completely reversed the anticoagulant effect of rivaroxaban but had no effect on dabigatran.⁵⁷ Before 2013, there were no nonactivated four-factor prothrombin complex concentrates available in the United States. The FDA has since approved Kcentra for the urgent reversal of vitamin K antagonists, meaning that the reversal of TSOACs in major bleeding events would still be off-label.⁵⁸ Giving any of the clotting factors carries a risk of thromboembolism.

Resumption of anticoagulation

TSOACs have a rapid onset of action, and therapeutic levels are reached within a few hours of administration.

Extrapolating from the ACCP guidelines, TSOACs can generally be restarted at therapeutic doses 24 hours after low-bleeding-risk procedures.² Therapeutic dosing should be delayed 48 to 72 hours after a procedure with a high bleeding risk, assuming adequate hemostasis has been achieved. Prophylactic unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin therapy can be given in the interim if deemed safe. Alternatively, for orthopedic patients ultimately transitioning back to therapeutic rivaroxaban after hip or knee arthroplasty, prophylactic rivaroxaban doses can be started 6 to 10 hours after surgery.¹⁴

There are numerous reasons why the resumption of TSOACs may have to be delayed after surgery, including nothing-by-mouth status, postoperative nausea and vomiting, ileus, gastric or bowel resection, and the anticipated need for future procedures. Since dabigatran capsules cannot be crushed, they cannot be given via nasogastric tube in patients with postoperative dysphagia. Parenteral anticoagulants should be used until these issues resolve.

Unfractionated heparin is still the preferred anticoagulant in unstable or potentially unstable patients, given its ease of monitoring, quick offset of action, and reversibility. When patients have stabilized, TSOACs can be resumed when the next dose of low-molecular-weight heparin would have been due or when the unfractionated heparin drip is discontinued.^3,14,23

UNTIL EVIDENCE-BASED GUIDELINES ARE DEVELOPED

The development of TSOACs has ushered in an exciting new era for anticoagulant therapy. Providers involved in perioperative medicine will increasingly encounter patients on dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban. However, until evidence-based guidelines are developed for these new anticoagulants, clinicians will have to apply their knowledge of pharmacology and critically evaluate expert recommendations in order to manage patients safely throughout the perioperative period.