Back

Oral Metformin May Exacerbate Diabetic Neuropathy: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study

Wang, X.; Wu, Y.; Ma, N.; Chen, J.; Chen, Y.; Shi, J.

2025-02-13 endocrinology
10.1101/2025.02.11.25322054 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveGiven the important role of metformin in diabetes treatment and the uncertainty regarding its relationship with diabetic neuropathy, this study aims to assess the causal relationship between metformin and diabetic neuropathy using Mendelian randomization. MethodsInstrumental variables were derived from publicly available genome-wide association study datasets. Two study cohorts were assigned: a training cohort (exposure ID: ukb-a-159) and a testing cohort (ID: ukb-b-14609), with the outcome ID being finn-b-DM_NEUROPATHY for both. The primary analysis used inverse variance weighting (IVW) for Mendelian randomization, supplemented by weighted median (WMed), weighted mode (WM), simple mode (SM), and MR Egger regression (MER). To test for heterogeneity, pleiotropy, and publication bias, we conducted leave-one-out sensitivity analyses, MR Egger regression, and further assessed with funnel plots. ResultsMendelian randomization analysis showed a significant positive causal relationship between metformin and diabetic neuropathy in both the training set (IVW: logOR 14.73, 95% CI [9.60, 19.86], p=1.78E-08) and the testing set (IVW: logOR 15.83, 95% CI [11.10, 20.56], p=5.54E-11). The WMed, WM, SM, and MER models all consistently supported this conclusion, with no evidence of pleiotropy or heterogeneity, indicating robust results. ConclusionFrom an epidemiological perspective, this study reveals a significant positive correlation between metformin use and diabetic neuropathy through Mendelian randomization analysis. This finding not only provides new insights into the field of diabetes treatment but also suggests that the use of metformin may be associated with the potential side effect of increased risk of diabetic neuropathy.

Matching journals

The top 14 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.