Skip to content

Structures and Small Molecule Inhibitors in Cellular and Animal Models

My WordPress Blog

Menu
  • Sample Page
Menu

However, several potential caveats and methodological concerns have been raised in some of this studies including but not limited to cohort definitions, data elements and analytical approach

Posted on December 5, 2021 by president2010

However, several potential caveats and methodological concerns have been raised in some of this studies including but not limited to cohort definitions, data elements and analytical approach. The possible relationship between insulin glargine and the increase of cancer risk has been a topic which has generated intense debate in recent years. None of the types of insulin and oral agents analyzed showed a significant increase in the risk of cancer. Moreover, no cancer risk was observed when glargine was used alone or in combination with metformin. Conclusions Our results suggest that diabetes treatment does not influence the risk of cancer associated with type 2 diabetes. Therefore, an eventual increase of cancer should not be a reason for biasing the selection of any glucose-lowering treatment in type 2 diabetic population. Introduction Type 2 diabetes has been associated with an increased risk of cancer. This population indeed has a greater risk of three of the leading causes of cancer mortality such as pancreatic, colorectal and breast cancer [1]. In addition, type 2 diabetes is associated Aleglitazar with substantial premature death rates from several types of cancer [2]. The etiology of this excess cancer risk is poorly understood. Type 2 diabetes and cancer have common risk factors including age, race/ethnicity, obesity, physical inactivity, and tobacco use [1]. Data from large randomized controlled trials of intensified glycemic control suggest that cancer risk is Aleglitazar not reduced by improving glycemic control in type 2 diabetes [3], and that both obesity and insulin resistance with or without hyperglycemia are also associated with an increased risk of cancer [4], [5]. Therefore, factors other than glucose could be involved in the relationship between type 2 diabetes and cancer development. Among these factors it seems that hyperinsulinemia and/or insulin resistance could play an essential role. In Aleglitazar fact, the presence of insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia, may accelerate tumor growth [6]. The role of insulin in cancer promotion is suggested by studies associating circulating insulin levels and cancer of the colon, pancreas, and breast [1], [6], [7]. The association between exogenous insulin and cancer gained attention in 2009 2009 when three observational studies evaluating cancer risks with different types of insulin were published concurrently [8]C[10], fuelling speculation of an increased risk of cancer (in particular breast cancer) associated with the insulin analogue insulin glargine, due to its higher affinity for the IGF-1 receptor in comparison with human insulin. More recently, several studies have found a lack of relationship between insulin glargine and overall cancer incidence [11]C[14]. Apart from insulin, other glucose-lowering therapies have been involved in the relationship between type 2 diabetes and cancer. Several observational studies have suggested an increased risk of cancer or cancer mortality with sulfonylureas [15]C[17]. This finding could be explained by sulfonylureas capacity to increase circulating insulin levels. Glucagon-like peptide-1 Receptor (GLP-1R) agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors have also been associated with thyroid and pancreatic cancer [18]. By contrast, metformin [19]C[25] Aleglitazar and thiazolidinediones (TZDs) [26]C[28] have been associated with a reduced risk of cancer. This association may Aleglitazar be due to the ability of these drugs to reduce insulin resistance. Given the clear relationship between type 2 diabetes and cancer incidence it seems important to dissect the potential role of any glucose-lowering therapy in the cancer risk. In DCHS2 this regard, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of glucose-lowering agents in the risk of cancer in a large type 2 diabetic population. Methods Data Source The information was obtained from the Catalan Institute of Health and electronically fielded by using the System for the Development of Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP) database. This comprises the clinical information coded in the corresponding medical records from 274 Primary Health Care Centers (PHCC) with a total of 3,414 general practitioners and with a global adult (over 15 years old) population of 7,434,632 subjects. The SIDIAP includes data from primary care electronic medical records (demographics,.

Recent Posts

  • The assay was performed once in triplicate, and the results are expressed as mean % neutralization values for each rabbit
  • rgH3N2: 6:2 reassortant with WT HA and NA of A/Switzerland/2013
  • Purification of monoclonal anti-MAp19 antibodies == The anti-MAp19 antibodies were purified on Protein L agarose (Sigma)
  • DISCUSSION == These findings demonstrate high MERSCoVspecific neutralizing antibody titres suggest that MERSCoV, or a related virus, has circulated through dromedary camels in Israel, extending the known geographic range of MERSCoV circulation in camels
  • It is suggested the combined ammonium sulfate precipitation and ion-exchange chromatography process effectively removed residual proteins in the final camel IgG preparation and can be a suitable method for large-scale refinement of therapeutic camel antivenoms

Recent Comments

  1. A WordPress Commenter on Hello world!

Archives

  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021

Categories

  • Acetylcholine ??7 Nicotinic Receptors
  • Acetylcholine Nicotinic Receptors
  • Acyltransferases
  • Alpha1 Adrenergic Receptors
  • Angiotensin Receptors, Non-Selective
  • APJ Receptor
  • Calcium Channels
  • Carrier Protein
  • cMET
  • COX
  • DAT
  • Decarboxylases
  • Dipeptidyl Peptidase IV
  • DP Receptors
  • FFA1 Receptors
  • GlyR
  • H1 Receptors
  • HDACs
  • Hsp90
  • IGF Receptors
  • LXR-like Receptors
  • Miscellaneous Glutamate
  • Neurokinin Receptors
  • Nicotinic Acid Receptors
  • Nitric Oxide, Other
  • NO Synthase, Non-Selective
  • Non-selective Adenosine
  • Nucleoside Transporters
  • Opioid, ??-
  • Oxidative Phosphorylation
  • p70 S6K
  • PI 3-Kinase
  • Platelet-Activating Factor (PAF) Receptors
  • Potassium (KV) Channels
  • Potassium Channels, Non-selective
  • Prostanoid Receptors
  • Protein Ser/Thr Phosphatases
  • PTP
  • Retinoid X Receptors
  • Serotonin (5-ht1E) Receptors
  • Shp2
  • Sigma1 Receptors
  • Signal Transducers and Activators of Transcription
  • Sirtuin
  • Syk Kinase
  • T-Type Calcium Channels
  • Ubiquitin E3 Ligases
  • Ubiquitin/Proteasome System
  • Uncategorized
  • Urotensin-II Receptor
  • Vesicular Monoamine Transporters
© 2025 Structures and Small Molecule Inhibitors in Cellular and Animal Models | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme