Clinical Scorecard: Use of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Adults With Diabetes and a History of Cancer
At a Glance
Category
Detail
Condition
Injectable GLP-1 receptor agonist use among US adults with diagnosed diabetes, by cancer history
Key Mechanisms
GLP-1 receptor agonists improve glycemic control, facilitate weight loss, and lower cardiovascular and kidney risk in adults with type 2 diabetes.
Target Population
US adults aged 18 years or older with diagnosed diabetes; the primary analysis included 3,615 respondents, including 674 cancer survivors.
Care Setting
Nationally representative, cross-sectional analysis of 2024 National Health Interview Survey data; the study did not evaluate a specific clinical care setting.
Key Highlights
Adjusted current injectable GLP-1 RA use was 20.5% among adults with a cancer history and 26.5% among those without one.
Cancer history was associated with lower adjusted odds of current injectable GLP-1 RA use (aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.96).
Cancer survivors had higher prevalences of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease than adults without cancer history.
Among adults with type 2 diabetes in the sensitivity analysis, the association was directionally similar but not statistically significant (aOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.58-1.10).
The cross-sectional data could not establish why use differed or whether treatment was clinically appropriate.
Guideline-Based Recommendations
Diagnosis
Management
Monitoring & Follow-up
Risks
The study relied on self-reported diabetes, cancer history, and medication use.
The cross-sectional design cannot establish causes of differences in medication use.
The medication question assessed injectable noninsulin glucose- or weight-reducing drugs; oral GLP-1 RA use was not captured.
Patient & Prescribing Data
Adults with diagnosed diabetes in the 2024 NHIS; cancer history required a clinician diagnosis, and respondents reporting only nonmelanoma skin cancer were excluded.
Unadjusted injectable GLP-1 RA use was 20.0% among cancer survivors versus 27.9% among those without cancer history. Adjusted standardized use was 20.5% versus 26.5%, respectively. The study did not determine whether prescribing differences reflected eligibility, preferences, treatment priorities, or health-system factors.
Clinical Best Practices
Interpret the reported association as observational; the study does not establish causation or treatment appropriateness.
Note that the primary analysis included all adults with diagnosed diabetes, while a prespecified sensitivity analysis was restricted to adults with type 2 diabetes.
Consider the study's stated limitations when applying its findings: self-reported measures, cross-sectional design, and lack of oral GLP-1 RA exposure data.
