Skip to main content
Download PDF

The causal relationship between anti-diabetic drugs and gastrointestinal disorders: a drug-targeted mendelian randomization study

Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome volume 16, Article number: 141 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The incidence of diabetic gastrointestinal diseases is increasing year by year. This study aimed to investigate the causal relationship between antidiabetic medications and gastrointestinal disorders, with the goal of reducing the incidence of diabetes-related gastrointestinal diseases and exploring the potential repurposing of antidiabetic drugs.

Methods

We employed a two-sample Mendelian randomization (TSMR) design to investigate the causal association between antidiabetic medications and gastrointestinal disorders, including gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), gastric ulcer (GU), chronic gastritis, acute gastritis, Helicobacter pylori infection, gastric cancer (GC), functional dyspepsia (FD), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), ulcerative colitis (UC), Crohn’s disease (CD), diverticulosis, and colorectal cancer (CRC). To identify potential inhibitors of antidiabetic drug targets, we collected single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with metformin, GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, insulin, and its analogs, thiazolidinediones, sulfonylureas, and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors from published genome-wide association study statistics. We then conducted a drug-target Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis using inverse variance weighting (IVW) as the primary analytical method to assess the impact of these inhibitors on gastrointestinal disorders. Additionally, diabetes was selected as a positive control.

Results

Sulfonylureas were found to significantly reduce the risk of CD (IVW: OR [95% CI] = 0.986 [0.978, 0.995], p = 1.99 × 10− 3), GERD (IVW: OR [95% CI] = 0.649 [0.452, 0.932], p = 1.90 × 10− 2), and chronic gastritis (IVW: OR [95% CI] = 0.991 [0.982, 0.999], p = 4.50 × 10− 2). However, they were associated with an increased risk of GU development (IVW: OR [95%CI] = 2 0.761 [1.259, 6.057], p = 1 0.12 × 10− 2).

Conclusions

The results indicated that sulfonylureas had a positive effect on the prevention of CD, GERD, and chronic gastritis but a negative effect on the development of gastric ulcers. However, our research found no causal evidence for the impact of metformin, GLP-1 agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors, DPP 4 inhibitors, insulin and its analogs, thiazolidinediones, or alpha-glucosidase inhibitors on gastrointestinal diseases.

Graphical abstract

Background

According to the United European Gastroenterology, the incidence of gastrointestinal diseases is increasing each year [1]. Studies on the demography of aging in the elderly and the epidemiology of gastrointestinal diseases show a strong association between age and a higher prevalence of these disorders. As the population ages, the prevalence of gastrointestinal diseases is expected to rise [2]. Many factors contribute to the development of gastrointestinal disorders, and research by Babu Krishnan et al. indicates that diabetes can lead to a variety of gastrointestinal complications [3]. A prospective study demonstrated a higher prevalence of GERD symptoms among patients with type 2 diabetes compared to the general population [4]. Additionally, a systematic review of meta-analyses found that diabetes significantly increases the risk of inflammatory bowel disease [5]. Retrospective studies have also shown a correlation between autoimmune gastritis and type 1 diabetes [6]. Furthermore, patients with diabetes are more susceptible to Helicobacter pylori infection [7, 8]. A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies conducted by Jinru Guo et al. demonstrated that the risk of gastric cancer is higher in individuals with diabetes, with the risk varying based on the duration since the onset of diabetes [9]. Chin-Hsiao Tseng’s population-based analysis in Taiwan similarly suggests that people with diabetes have a higher risk of developing stomach cancer [10, 11]. Moreover, patients with diabetes have a significantly higher risk of death from colon cancer [12]. A Mendelian Randomization (MR) study suggests that type 2 diabetes and impaired glycemic homeostasis raise the risk of gastrointestinal diseases [13]. Antidiabetic drugs may also be linked to gastrointestinal diseases. Animal experiments by Isabela R.S.G Noleto et al. showed that metformin has a protective effect on the gastric mucosa and prevents peptic ulcer formation in hyperglycemic rats [14]. Furthermore, metformin possesses anti-inflammatory properties and is used to treat inflammatory bowel disease [15]. Metformin may reduce the risk of inflammatory bowel disease in people with type 2 diabetes [16]. It also reduces the risk of inflammatory bowel diverticulosis in patients with type 2 diabetes [17]. Retrospective cohort studies have found that metformin reduces the risk of gastric and colorectal cancer in patients with diabetes [18,19,20]. Additionally, studies have shown that metformin reduces the risk of Helicobacter Pylori (HP) infection [21], and insulin use is significantly associated with a higher incidence of HP eradication [22]. Audrius Dulskas et al. found an increased risk of stomach cancer in patients with diabetes treated with sulfonylureas [23]. However, a retrospective population-based cohort study conducted on the Italian population revealed a reduction in GC risk associated with sulfonylurea usage [24].

Observational studies on the relationship between different antidiabetic drugs and gastrointestinal disorders have produced controversial results. No studies have yet explored the causal relationship between antidiabetic drugs and gastrointestinal disorders. MR is an analytical method used to study causal relationships between exposures and clinically relevant outcomes [25]. It can predict adverse drug reactions and provide opportunities for drug repurposing [26]. MR of drug targets can reflect the effects of drug use by using genetic instrumentation within or near the target gene to analyze genetic variants that mimic the pharmacological inhibition of drug targets [27].

In this study, we used SNPs in or near target as pharmacogenetic proxies to explore the causal relationship between antidiabetic drugs and gastrointestinal diseases including GERD, GU, chronic gastritis, acute gastritis, Helicobacter pylori infection, gastric cancer, FD, IBS, UC, CD, diverticulosis, and CRC. The results can guide medication choices for patients with diabetes with gastrointestinal complications and suggest potential gastrointestinal prevention strategies for future clinical trials. This can improve the happiness index and quality of life for patients with diabetes, especially elderly people.

Methods

Research design

We estimated the causal relationship between antidiabetic drugs and gastrointestinal diseases by a TSMR study (Fig. 1). We selected the major antidiabetic drugs, including metformin, GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, insulin and its analogs, thiazolidinediones, sulfonylureas, and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors [28, 29]. Genetic variants associated with blood glucose levels in these drug-target genes were identified to proxy the drug-target effect [27]. We then analyzed the effect of these genetic variants on gastrointestinal disorders using MR.

Fig. 1
figure 1

This is a flowchart of the study design and the MR Analysis process

The causal relationship between antidiabetic drugs and gastrointestinal disorders was assessed by a two-sample MR analysis dealing with exposure and outcome data. Three core assumptions were met: (1) IVs and exposure (antidiabetic drugs) are strongly correlated; (2) there is no correlation between IVs and confounders; and (3) there is no direct correlation between IVs and outcomes, and their effect on outcomes can only be reflected by the degree of exposure

Full size image

Data source

Aggregate data for all genome-wide association studies (GWAS) used in the study were obtained from the IEU Open GWAS database (https://gwas.mrcieu.ac.uk/datasets) [30] and are detailed in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of the GWAS included in this MR study
Full size table

Genetic instrumentation for antidiabetic drugs

We used the DrugBank (go.drugbank.com) and ChEMBL (ebi.ac.uk/chembl) databases to identify genes encoding the target proteins of these antidiabetic drugs [31, 32] (Table 2). Based on previous studies [33], we selected genome-wide salient variants (p < 5 × 10− 8) associated with blood glucose levels and SNPs within a 100 kb window of the target gene for each drug to determine exposure to antidiabetic drugs [34]. The instrumental variant SNPs were located within ± 100 kb of the antidiabetic drug site, ensuring that the linkage imbalance was not too strong (r2 < 0.3). We estimated the F-statistic of the instrument, retaining only SNPs with an F > 10 to avoid weak instrument bias [35]Since antidiabetic drugs are used to treat diabetes, we used diabetes as a positive control [36], utilizing GWAS pooled data that included 462,933 samples.

Table 2 Target genes of antidiabetic drugs from DrugBank and ChEMBL databases
Full size table

Statistical analysis

We used MR analysis to align drug-targeted instrumental variables with outcome datasets. The inverse variance weighting (IVW) method was employed as the primary analytical method, disregarding the intercept term and using the reciprocal of the outcome variance (se squared) as a fitting weight [37]. The weighted median, MR-Egger regression, simple mode, and weighted mode were used as supplementary analysis methods to further improve the credibility and accuracy of the results [38]. To avoid heterogeneity in instrumental variables (IVs), we used Cochran’s Q test, where p > 0.05 indicated no significant heterogeneity [39]. The IVW method requires careful consideration of IVs to ensure their non-pleiotropic nature, as biased results may arise otherwise. Pleiotropy was assessed using MR-Egger regression to ensure that IVs did not introduce bias through alternative pathways. MR-Egger regression incorporates an intercept term and uses the inverse of the outcome variance (se squared) as a weighting factor for fitting. If the MR-Egger intercept is close to 0 or p > 0.05, it indicates no evidence of pleiotropic effects in IVs [40]. The “leave-one-out” method was used to systematically eliminate each SNP, calculate the meta-effect of the remaining SNPs, and assess whether there were any alterations in the results upon removal of each individual SNP. This approach aimed to mitigate potential influences from specific SNPs on our findings [41].

All analyses were performed using the “Two Sample MR” package [42] in R version 4.3.1. The threshold of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

Selection and validation of genetic instruments

A total of 400,458 samples were included in the aggregated data of blood glucose GWAS. Through a rigorous selection process, no suitable genetic instruments were found for drugs such as metformin, SGLT2 inhibitors, DDP-4 inhibitors, Insulin and its analogs, Thiazolidinediones, Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, etc. However, two SNPs were identified for GLP-1 receptor agonists, with one having an F-value of 11.5 after excluding those with F < 10. For sulfonylureas, three SNPs were identified with F-values of 11.4, 14.4, and 36.6, respectively. The F-values of these SNPs are all above the threshold of 10, indicating that our study largely avoids weak instrument bias.

Positive control analysis

The pharmacogenetic analysis of antidiabetic drugs and diabetes mellitus showed positive results for sulfonylureas (IVW: OR [95% CI] = 1.12 [1.07–1.17], p = 1.97E-07). In contrast, the analysis for GLP-1 receptor agonists was negative (IVW: OR [95% CI] = 0.99 [0.93–1.06], p = 0.78) (Fig. 2). These positive control analyses validated the genetic instruments for sulfonylureas but not for GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Relationship between GLP-1 receptor agonists, sulfonylureas and diabetes mellitus

nsnp (number of single nucleotide polymorphisms), OR (odds ratio), CI (confidence interval)

Full size image

MR analysis of drug targets in gastrointestinal diseases

Drug-target MR Analysis was conducted to explore the causal relationship between antidiabetic drugs and gastrointestinal disorders. Genetic proxies for GLP-1 receptor agonists did not show a causal association with gastrointestinal disorders (Fig. 3). However, sulfonylureas were found to reduce the risk of CD (IVW: OR [95%CI] = 0.986 [0.978, 0.995], p = 1.99 × 10− 3; Weighted median: OR [95%CI] = 0.986 [0.977, 0.996], p = 5.30 × 10− 3), GERD (IVW: OR [95%CI] = 0.649 [0.452, 0.932], p = 1.90 × 10− 2; Weighted median: OR [95%CI] = 0.472 [0.242, 0.922], p = 2.78 × 10− 2), and chronic gastritis (IVW: OR[95%CI] = 0.991 [0.982, 0.999], p = 4.50 × 10− 2). Conversely, sulfonylureas increased the incidence of GU in patients with diabetes (IVW: OR [95%CI] = 2.761 [1.259, 6.057], p = 1,12 × 10 − 2; Weighted median: OR [95%CI] = 2.980 [1.264, 7.026], p = 1.26 × 10− 2) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 3
figure 3

The relationship between GLP-1 receptor agonists and gastrointestinal disorders

nsnp (number of single nucleotide polymorphisms), OR (odds ratio), CI (confidence interval), GERD: Gastroesophageal reflux disease;; GC: Gastric cancer; functional dyspepsia (FD); IBS: Irritable bowel syndrome; UC: Ulcerative colitis; CD: Crohn’s Disease; CRC: Colorectal cancer

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

The relationship between Sulfonylureas and gastrointestinal disorders

nsnp (number of single nucleotide polymorphisms), OR (odds ratio), CI (confidence interval), GERD: Gastroesophageal reflux disease; GC: Gastric cancer; functional dyspepsia (FD); IBS: Irritable bowel syndrome; UC: Ulcerative colitis; CD: Crohn’s Disease; CRC: Colorectal cancer

Full size image

Sensitivity analysis

Cochran’s Q-test showed no evidence of heterogeneity (p > 0.05). The MR-Egger intercept analysis indicated no horizontal pleiotropy (p > 0.05). The robustness of our conclusions was further supported by the leave-one-out sensitivity (Fig. 4). Thus, our MR analysis proved to be reliable and robust.

Discussion

We conducted large-scale MR analyses on gastrointestinal diseases using data from the IEU Open GWAS database. Our study investigated the causal relationship of seven common antidiabetic drug targets–metformin, GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, insulin and its analogs, thiazolidinediones, sulfonylureas and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors–on various gastrointestinal diseases. These diseases included GERD, GU, chronic gastritis, acute gastritis, Helicobacter pylori infection, gastric cancer, FD, IBS, UC, CD, diverticulosis, and CRC. Our MR results showed that SGLT2 inhibitors, DDP-4 inhibitors, Insulin and its analogs, Thiazolidinedione, and other drugs did not have significant effects on gastrointestinal diseases and were not further analyzed. GLP-1 receptor agonists did not affect gastrointestinal tract diseases. Notably, sulfonylureas were found to reduce the risk of CD, GERD, and chronic gastritis but increase the risk of developing stomach ulcers.

The mechanisms underlying the preventive effects of sulfonylureas on the development of CD, GERD, chronic gastritis, and increased risk of GU remain unexplored. However, examining the pathways through which diabetes causes gastrointestinal diseases and reviewing clinical studies on sulfonylureas provide some insights.

Previous retrospective studies have indicated that gastrointestinal disorders are common complications of diabetes [43, 44]. MR studies have demonstrated an elevated risk of GERD [45] and gastritis [13] in individuals with diabetes. An MR study conducted by Xiang Xiao et al. revealed that type 2 diabetes reduces the risk of inflammatory bowel disease [46]. The pathogenesis of gastrointestinal complications in diabetes has been extensively explored in numerous articles.

Studies have shown that people with diabetes are more likely to develop GERD [45]. Animal studies have identified glucose-responsive neurons in the central nervous system, suggesting that high blood glucose may alter vagal efferent activity [47]. Clinical studies have shown that diabetes mellitus leads to dysfunction of the parasympathetic component of the autonomic nervous system, resulting in esophageal innervation dysfunction and gastroesophageal reflux disease [48, 49]. Sulfonylureas can reduce the incidence of GERD by modulating Drp-1-mediated oxidative stress and apoptosis, which ameliorates peripheral neuropathy [50, 51]. Crohn’s disease is a recurrent systemic inflammatory disease primarily involving the gastrointestinal tract, with extraintestinal manifestations and associated immune disorders [52, 53]. Studies have shown that mast cells release biologically active mediators such as serine proteases mMCP-6 and Prss31, which are involved in the development of acute colitis [54]. Animal experiments by Vijay Chidrawar et al. have shown that sulfonylureas can ameliorate inflammation by blocking cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance modulator channels on mast cells [55]. Chronic gastritis is an inflammatory disease of the gastric mucosa [56]. P Kashyap et al. demonstrated that oxidative stress plays a crucial role in diabetes mellitus, triggering gastrointestinal complications [39]. Oxidative stress results from an imbalance between reactive oxygen species (ROS) production and endogenous antioxidant defense mechanisms [40]. Experiments in diabetic rats showed that sulfonylureas have significant antioxidant effects and can be used to treat Crohn’s disease and chronic gastritis by attenuating oxidative stress-induced damage. In addition, abnormal NLRP3 inflammasome activity has been identified as a key factor in the pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease and chronic gastritis [57, 58]. Inhibition of NLRP3 inflammasome by sulfonylureas can effectively inhibit the release of major proinflammatory cytokines/chemokines, which can effectively treat Crohn’s disease and chronic gastritis [58, 59].

The main factors leading to gastric ulcers include the presence of strong acids and high levels of proteolytic activity (pepsin) in gastric secretions [60]. Control tests by H.A.F Ismail et al. demonstrated that nicorandil could provide gastric protection by opening K (ATP) channels, scavenging free radicals, reducing pepsin and gastric acid secretion, and preventing harmful elevation of nitric oxide during water immersion-restraint stress [61]. However, sulfonylureas reduce blood glucose by inhibiting potassium flux in the ATP-dependent potassium channel (KATP) and inducing glucose-independent insulin release from β-cells [62]. As K (ATP) channel blockers [63], sulfonylureas can negate the protective effects of opening these channels, thereby increasing the risk of stomach ulcers.

Furthermore, a comparative study showed that hypoglycemia is associated with increased total pepsin secretion [64]. Sulfonylureas stimulate insulin release from pancreatic cells and have an extrapancreatic hypoglycemic effect, making them more likely to induce hypoglycemia [65]. The most common side effect of sulfonylureas is hypoglycemia [66]. Hence, one of the mechanisms by which sulfonylureas increase the risk of gastric ulcer may be attributed to their side effect of causing hypoglycemia, which subsequently leads to increased pepsin secretion and eventually gastric ulcer.

We employed MR studies to establish causal associations between sulfonylureas and CD, GERD, chronic gastritis, and GU. (1) Our MR study utilized genetic variants as proxies for antidiabetic drugs to mitigate confounding factors and reverse causality issues that may have affected previous studies. (2) Our analysis focused on individuals of European ancestry for both exposure and individual outcome data in order to effectively minimize potential association effects arising from population stratification. (3) In our study design, we selected genetic variants within a 100 kb window of the coding gene using a threshold of 5 × 10− 8 as instrumental variables. Additionally, we filtered out instrumental variables with an F value of less than 10 to improve the reliability of our results. (4) To ensure the robustness of our findings, we conducted positive control analysis, heterogeneity tests, pleiotropy tests, and sensitivity analyses throughout our study process. These measures further enhance the reliability of our results.

However, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations in our study. Firstly, the TSMR analysis was solely based on individuals of European ancestry, which restricts generalizability beyond this specific population group. Caution should be exercised when extrapolating these findings to racially and ethnically diverse populations. Secondly, drug target MR can assess long-term drug effects but cannot replace clinical trials for verifying short-term drug effects. MR provides a way to analyze the causal relationship between exposure and outcome but cannot replace clinical trials. Also, our study did not investigate the association between other antidiabetic drugs and gastrointestinal diseases. Lastly, we used GWAS summary data from the IEU Open GWAS database. The data sources were not stratified, so further stratified analysis could not be performed.

Conclusions

This study provides evidence that sulfonylureas may prevent CD, GERD, and chronic gastritis while increasing the risk of GU. These findings could help diabetic patients in managing and preventing certain gastrointestinal diseases. Further clinical trials are necessary to elucidate the potential mechanistic pathways between sulfonylureas and these conditions. Additionally, promoting better use of antidiabetic drugs is essential.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

IVs:

Instrumental variables

TSMR:

Two-sample Mendelian randomization

GWAS:

Genome-wide association study

SNPs:

Single nucleotide polymorphisms

IVW:

Inverse variance weighted

GERD:

Gastroesophageal reflux disease

GU:

Gastric ulcer

GC:

Gastric cancer

FD:

Functional dyspepsia

IBS:

Irritable bowel syndrome

UC:

Ulcerative colitis

CD:

Crohn’s disease

CRC:

Colorectal cancer

ROS:

Reactive oxygen species

References

  1. O’Morain N, O’Morain C. The burden of digestive disease across Europe: facts and policies. Dig Liver Dis. 2019;51:1–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Goldacre MJ. Demography of aging and the epidemiology of gastrointestinal disorders in the elderly. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2009;23:793–804.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Krishnan B, Babu S, Walker J, Walker AB, Pappachan JM. Gastrointestinal complications of diabetes mellitus. World J Diabetes. 2013;4:51–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Wang X, Pitchumoni CS, Chandrarana K, Shah N. Increased prevalence of symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux diseases in type 2 diabetics with neuropathy. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14:709–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Fuschillo G, Celentano V, Rottoli M, Sciaudone G, Gravina AG, Pellegrino R, Marfella R, Romano M, Selvaggi F, Pellino G. Influence of diabetes mellitus on inflammatory bowel disease course and treatment outcomes. A systematic review with meta-analysis. Dig Liver Dis. 2023;55:580–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Toh B-H. Diagnosis and classification of autoimmune gastritis. Autoimmun Rev. 2014;13:459–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bener A, Micallef R, Afifi M, Derbala M, Al-Mulla HM, Usmani MA. Association between type 2 diabetes mellitus and Helicobacter pylori infection. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2007;18:225–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Devrajani BR, Shah SZA, Soomro AA, Devrajani T. Type 2 diabetes mellitus: a risk factor for Helicobacter pylori infection: a hospital based case-control study. Int J Diabetes Dev Ctries. 2010;30:22–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Guo J, Liu C, Pan J, Yang J. Relationship between diabetes and risk of gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022;187:109866.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tseng C-H. Diabetes conveys a higher risk of gastric cancer mortality despite an age-standardised decreasing trend in the general population in Taiwan. Gut. 2011;60:774–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tseng C-H. Diabetes, insulin use, and gastric cancer: a population-based analysis of the Taiwanese. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2013;47:e60–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tseng C-H. Diabetes but not insulin is associated with higher colon cancer mortality. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:4182–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen J, Yuan S, Fu T, et al. Gastrointestinal consequences of type 2 diabetes Mellitus and impaired glycemic homeostasis: a mendelian randomization study. Diabetes Care. 2023;46:828–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Nolêto IRSG, Iles B, Alencar MS, et al. Alendronate-induced gastric damage in normoglycemic and hyperglycemic rats is reversed by metformin. Eur J Pharmacol. 2019;856:172410.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wanchaitanawong W, Thinrungroj N, Chattipakorn SC, Chattipakorn N, Shinlapawittayatorn K. Repurposing metformin as a potential treatment for inflammatory bowel disease: evidence from cell to the clinic. Int Immunopharmacol. 2022;112:109230.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tseng C-H. Metformin Use is Associated with a lower risk of inflammatory bowel disease in patients with type 2 diabetes Mellitus. J Crohns Colitis. 2021;15:64–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tseng C-H. Metformin reduces the risk of diverticula of intestine in Taiwanese patients with type 2 diabetes Mellitus. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:739141.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Tseng C-H. Metformin reduces gastric cancer risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Aging. 2016;8:1636–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Tseng C-H. Metformin is associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer in Taiwanese patients with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort analysis. Diabetes Metab. 2017;43:438–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tseng C-H. Diabetes, metformin use, and colon cancer: a population-based cohort study in Taiwan. Eur J Endocrinol. 2012;167:409–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tseng C-H. Metformin and Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2018;41:e42–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tseng C-H. Diabetes, insulin use and Helicobacter pylori eradication: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Gastroenterol. 2012;12:46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Dulskas A, Patasius A, Kaceniene A, Linkeviciute-Ulinskiene D, Zabuliene L, Smailyte G. A cohort study of antihyperglycemic medication exposure and gastric Cancer risk. J Clin Med. 2020;9:435.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Valent F. Diabetes mellitus and cancer of the digestive organs: an Italian population-based cohort study. J Diabetes Complications. 2015;29:1056–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sekula P, Del Greco MF, Pattaro C, Köttgen A. Mendelian randomization as an Approach to assess causality using Observational Data. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;27:3253–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Walker VM, Davey Smith G, Davies NM, Martin RM. Mendelian randomization: a novel approach for the prediction of adverse drug events and drug repurposing opportunities. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46:2078–89.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Qin C, Diaz-Gallo L-M, Tang B, Wang Y, Nguyen T-D, Harder A, Lu Y, Padyukov L, Askling J, Hägg S. Repurposing antidiabetic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: results from a two-sample mendelian randomization study. Eur J Epidemiol. 2023;38:809–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Chaudhury A, Duvoor C, Reddy Dendi VS, et al. Clinical review of antidiabetic drugs: implications for type 2 diabetes Mellitus Management. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2017;8:6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 9. Pharmacologic approaches to Glycemic Treatment: standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022. Diabetes Care. 2022;45:S125–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhang Y, Liu S, Wang Y, Wang Y. Causal relationship between particulate matter 2.5 and hypothyroidism: a two-sample mendelian randomization study. Front Public Health. 2022;10:1000103.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Wishart DS, Feunang YD, Guo AC, et al. DrugBank 5.0: a major update to the DrugBank database for 2018. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46:D1074–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gaulton A, Hersey A, Nowotka M, et al. The ChEMBL database in 2017. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:D945–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Guo J, Liu R, Sheng F, Wu Q, Xu R, He H, Zhang G, Huang J, Zhang Z, Zhang R. Association between antihypertensive drugs and oral cancer: a drug target mendelian randomization study. Front Pharmacol. 2023;14:1294297.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Liang Z, Zhang Z, Tan X, Zeng P. Lipids, cholesterols, statins and liver cancer: a mendelian randomization study. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1251873.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Burgess S, Thompson SG, CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration. Avoiding bias from weak instruments in mendelian randomization studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40:755–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dowarah J, Singh VP. Anti-diabetic drugs recent approaches and advancements. Bioorg Med Chem. 2020;28:115263.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Burgess S, Butterworth A, Thompson SG. Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data. Genet Epidemiol. 2013;37:658–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Fu S, Zhang L, Ma F, Xue S, Sun T, Xu Z. Effects of Selenium on chronic kidney disease: a mendelian randomization study. Nutrients. 2022;14:4458.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Bowden J, Del Greco MF, Minelli C, Zhao Q, Lawlor DA, Sheehan NA, Thompson J, Davey Smith G. Improving the accuracy of two-sample summary-data mendelian randomization: moving beyond the NOME assumption. Int J Epidemiol. 2019;48:728–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Burgess S, Thompson SG. Interpreting findings from mendelian randomization using the MR-Egger method. Eur J Epidemiol. 2017;32:377–89.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Lee YH, Song GG. Uric acid level, gout and bone mineral density: a mendelian randomization study. Eur J Clin Invest. 2019;49:e13156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. H G, Z J, E B, et al. The MR-Base platform supports systematic causal inference across the human phenome. eLife. 2018. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.34408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Careyva B, Stello B. Diabetes Mellitus: management of gastrointestinal complications. Am Fam Physician. 2016;94:980–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zawada AE, Moszak M, Skrzypczak D, Grzymisławski M. Gastrointestinal complications in patients with diabetes mellitus. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2018;27:567–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Yuan S, Larsson SC. Adiposity, diabetes, lifestyle factors and risk of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a mendelian randomization study. Eur J Epidemiol. 2022;37:747–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Xiao X, Wu X, Yi L, You F, Li X, Xiao C. Causal linkage between type 2 diabetes mellitus and inflammatory bowel disease: an integrated mendelian randomization study and bioinformatics analysis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2024;15:1275699.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Mizuno Y, Oomura Y. Glucose responding neurons in the nucleus tractus solitarius of the rat: in vitro study. Brain Res. 1984;307:109–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Hollis JB, Castell DO, Braddom RL. Esophageal function in diabetes mellitus and its relation to peripheral neuropathy. Gastroenterology. 1977;73:1098–102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Syrine G, Mariem MK, Hend K, Imed L. Relationship between esophageal motility disorders and Autonomic Nervous System in Diabetic patients: Pilot North African Study. Am J Mens Health. 2022;16:15579883221098588.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Wu Y, Shi L, Wu Y, Xu W, Wang L, Ren M. Protective effect of gliclazide on diabetic peripheral neuropathy through Drp-1 mediated-oxidative stress and apoptosis. Neurosci Lett. 2012;523:45–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Yao H, Feng J, Zheng Q, Wei Y, Wang S, Feng W. The effects of gliclazide, methylcobalamin, and gliclazide + methylcobalamin combination therapy on diabetic peripheral neuropathy in rats. Life Sci. 2016;161:60–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Baumgart DC, Sandborn WJ. Crohn’s disease. Lancet. 2012;380:1590–605.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Torres J, Mehandru S, Colombel J-F, Peyrin-Biroulet L. Crohn’s disease. Lancet. 2017;389:1741–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Boeckxstaens G. Mast cells and inflammatory bowel disease. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2015;25:45–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Chidrawar V, Alsuwayt B. Defining the role of CFTR channel blocker and ClC-2 activator in DNBS induced gastrointestinal inflammation. Saudi Pharm J. 2021;29:291–304.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Rugge M, Genta RM. Staging and grading of chronic gastritis. Hum Pathol. 2005;36:228–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Chukwunonso Obi B, Chinwuba Okoye T, Okpashi VE, Nonye Igwe C, Olisah Alumanah E. (2016) Comparative Study of the Antioxidant Effects of Metformin, Glibenclamide, and Repaglinide in Alloxan-Induced Diabetic Rats. J Diabetes Res 2016:1635361.

  58. Yu Q, Shi H, Ding Z, Wang Z, Yao H, Lin R. The E3 ubiquitin ligase TRIM31 attenuates NLRP3 inflammasome activation in Helicobacter pylori-associated gastritis by regulating ROS and autophagy. Cell Commun Signal. 2023;21:1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Investigating regulatory patterns of NLRP. 3 Inflammasome features and association with immune microenvironment in Crohn’s disease - PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36685554/. Accessed 16 May 2024.

  60. Tytgat GNJ. Etiopathogenetic principles and peptic ulcer disease classification. Dig Dis. 2011;29:454–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Ismail Ha, Khalifa F, Hassan MMA, Ashour MK OM. Investigation of the mechanisms underlying the gastroprotective effect of nicorandil. Pharmacology. 2007;79:76–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Thulé PM, Umpierrez G. Sulfonylureas: a new look at old therapy. Curr Diab Rep. 2014;14:473.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Tomai F, Crea F, Gaspardone A, Versaci F, De Paulis R, Penta de Peppo A, Chiariello L, Gioffrè PA. Ischemic preconditioning during coronary angioplasty is prevented by glibenclamide, a selective ATP-sensitive K + channel blocker. Circulation. 1994;90:700–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Roberts NB, Sheers R, Taylor WH. Secretion of total pepsin and pepsin 1 in healthy volunteers in response to pentagastrin and to insulin-induced hypoglycaemia. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2007;42:555–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Jennings PE, Scott NA, Saniabadi AR, Belch JJ. Effects of gliclazide on platelet reactivity and free radicals in type II diabetic patients: clinical assessment. Metabolism. 1992;41:36–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Sola D, Rossi L, Schianca GPC, Maffioli P, Bigliocca M, Mella R, Corlianò F, Fra GP, Bartoli E, Derosa G. Sulfonylureas and their use in clinical practice. Arch Med Sci. 2015;11:840–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude to the IEU Open GWAS project (https://gwas.mrcieu.ac.uk/datasets/) for providing the site summary data on the outcome of this study, which has been instrumental in its inception.

Funding

This study was supported by the Shandong Medical and Health Science and Technology Development Program (202204070951) and the Shandong Provincial Traditional Chinese Medicine Science and Technology Project (No.2021M175). Our funding status does not affect the results of the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Acupuncture and moxibustion, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China

    Mingyan Ju, Menglin Gong & Yuying Li

  2. College of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China

    Tingting Deng

  3. Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, Shandong, China

    Xuemin Jia

  4. Bone Biomechanics Engineering Laboratory of Shandong Province, Shandong Medicinal Biotechnology Center (School of Biomedical Sciences), Neck-Shoulder and Lumbocrural Pain Hospital of Shandong First Medical University, Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China

    Fanjie Liu

  5. Affiliated Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China

    Ying Yin

Authors
  1. Mingyan Ju
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tingting Deng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xuemin Jia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Menglin Gong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yuying Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fanjie Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ying Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: MJ. Formal analysis: XJ. Investigation: MG, YL. Methodology: TD, XJ. Writing–original draft: MJ. Writing–review & editing: MJ. Supervision: FL, YY. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Fanjie Liu or Ying Yin.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Statement

The summary data we have utilized in our analysis are sourced from publicly accessible websites.The study did not involve any human or animal experiments, observations, or interventions.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors Mingyan Ju, Tingting Deng, Xuemin Jia, Menglin Gong, Yuying Li, Fanjie Liu, Ying Yi confirm that that they have no affiliations or memberships in any consortium or organization with financial interests pertaining to the subject matter of this article. Thus, there are no commercial or financial conflicts of interest involved.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

13098_2024_1359_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Supplementary Material 1: Leave one method for analysis chart. A: Exposure: Sulfonylureas, outcome: GERD; B: Exposure: Sulfonylureas, outcome: GU; C: Exposure: Sulfonylureas, outcome: Chronic gastritis; D: Exposure: Sulfonylureas, outcome: Acute gastritis; E: Exposure: Sulfonylureas, outcome: GC; F: Exposure: Sulfonylureas, outcome: IBS; G: Exposure: Sulfonylureas, outcome: UC; H: Exposure: Sulfonylureas, outcome: CD; I: Exposure: Sulfonylureas, outcome: CRC; J: Exposure: Sulfonylureas, outcome: Diabetes; K: Exposure: Sulfonylureas, outcome: Helicobacter pylori; L: Exposure: Sulfonylureas, outcome: FD); M: Exposure: Sulfonylureas, outcome: diverticulosis

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ju, M., Deng, T., Jia, X. et al. The causal relationship between anti-diabetic drugs and gastrointestinal disorders: a drug-targeted mendelian randomization study. Diabetol Metab Syndr 16, 141 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13098-024-01359-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13098-024-01359-z

Keywords

Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome

ISSN: 1758-5996

Contact us