Evidence Hub

Safety and Efficacy of Metformin for Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. A U.S-Based Real-World Data Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study

Azzam AY, Nassar M, Al Zomia AS, Elswedy A, Morsy MM, Mohamed AA, Elamin O, Elsayed OS et al.

medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024

1,268 participants

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) remains a challenging condition to manage, with limited therapeutic options. This study investigated the potential of metformin as a novel treatment for IIH, exploring its effects on disease outcomes and safety profile.

METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX database, analyzing data from 2009 to August 2024. Patients diagnosed with IIH were included, with exclusions for other causes of elevated intracranial pressure and pre-existing diabetes. Propensity score matching was employed to balance cohorts according to age, sex, race, ethnicity, Hemoglobin A1C, and baseline body mass index (BMI) at the time of metformin initiation. Outcomes were assessed at various follow-up points up to 24 months.

RESULTS: Our study initially comprised 1,268 patients in the metformin group and 49,262 in the control group, with notable disparities in several parameters. Post-matching, both cohorts were refined to 1,267 patients each after matching with metformin group. Metformin-treated patients showed significantly lower risks of papilledema, headache, and refractory IIH status at all follow-up points (p<0.0001). The metformin group also had reduced rates of therapeutic spinal punctures and acetazolamide continuation. BMI reductions were more pronounced in the metformin group, with significant differences observed from 6 months onward (p<0.0001). Notably, metformin's beneficial effects persisted independently of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,268 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