Evidence Hub

Agent-specific, histopathology-stratified hematologic malignancy risk among dpp-4 inhibitors, glp-1 receptor agonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors: a network meta-analysis of 270,471 participants

Lin PY, Zeng BS, Chen JJ, Zeng BY, Suen MW, Hung CM, Hsu CW, Stubbs B et al.

Journal of hematology & oncology, 2026

270,471 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are widely prescribed for their cardiometabolic benefits, yet their hematologic oncologic safety remains uncertain. Because hematologic malignancies are highly lethal and biologically heterogeneous, delineating drug-specific risks across histopathologic subtypes is clinically crucial. This histopathology-stratified network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated and compared the hematologic malignancy risks associated with individual agents from these drug classes. Following Cochrane guidance for adverse-event synthesis, we conducted this frequentist-based NMA of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary endpoint was incident hematologic malignancy, categorized a priori into leukemia (acute and chronic forms), lymphoma (Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin), and myeloma/plasma cell neoplasms. Bayesian models were used as sensitivity analyses. Seventy-five RCTs including 270,471 participants were eligible. Dulaglutide was associated with a significantly increased risk of overall hematologic malignancy (RR = 2.17, 95% CIs = 1.14–4.17). In contrast, tirzepatide (RR = 0.22, 95% CIs = 0.06–0.78) and linagliptin (RR = 0.51, 95% CIs = 0.27–0.95) were linked to a reduced overall risk. In histopathology-specific analyses, tirzepatide showed a significant protective association against non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, whereas no agent demonstrated clear signals…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 270,471 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free