Effects of Metformin on Survival and Toxicity in Patients with Metastatic Non Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Nivolumab summary

What is PACUPod: Oncology?

PACUPod is your trusted source for evidence-based insights tailored to advanced clinical pharmacists and physicians. Each episode dives into the latest primary literature, covering medication-focused studies across oncology, and many more. We break down study designs, highlight key findings, and objectively discuss clinical implications—without the hype—so you stay informed and ready to apply new evidence in practice. Whether you’re preparing for board certification or striving for excellence in patient care, PACUPod helps you make sense of the data, one study at a time.

Britany: Welcome back to PACULit, your go-to source for clinical literature updates. Today, we’re discussing a compelling study on metformin’s effects on survival and toxicity in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, or NSCLC, treated with nivolumab. Seth, this topic is highly relevant for pharmacists and physicians managing complex oncology cases.

Seth: Absolutely, Britany. Metastatic non-small cell lung cancer remains a leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Despite advances with immune checkpoint inhibitors such as nivolumab, survival improvements have been modest. Exploring adjunct therapies like metformin to enhance outcomes addresses a critical unmet need in oncology.

Britany: Metformin, traditionally used as an antidiabetic agent, has demonstrated immunomodulatory and anti-tumor effects in preclinical models. It may enhance T-cell activation, modulate the tumor microenvironment, and inhibit cancer cell metabolism. Observational studies suggest improved outcomes when metformin is combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors in various cancers, including non-small cell lung cancer.

Seth: However, it remains unclear whether the survival benefits are due to metformin’s direct pharmacologic effects or simply reflect the diabetic status of patients. Safety concerns, particularly hematologic toxicities such as thrombocytopenia, also require clarification. Given the high prevalence of diabetes among cancer patients, understanding these interactions is essential for optimizing therapy.

Britany: To provide context, non-small cell lung cancer accounts for approximately eighty-five percent of all lung cancers, with many patients presenting with metastatic disease at diagnosis. Diabetes prevalence in this population is significant, so metformin is often a concomitant medication. The study by Surmeli and colleagues, published in Medicina in 2025, is therefore timely and clinically relevant.

Seth: Surmeli et al. conducted a retrospective cohort study involving one hundred fifty-two patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer treated with nivolumab. They compared forty-two patients who were on metformin—all of whom had diabetes—to one hundred ten patients not receiving metformin.

Britany: Inclusion criteria included confirmed metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, treatment with nivolumab, and availability of survival and toxicity data. Although exclusion criteria were not explicitly detailed, it is likely that patients with incomplete data or inadequate follow-up were excluded.

Seth: The intervention group consisted of patients receiving metformin concurrently with nivolumab, while the control group received nivolumab alone. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival and the incidence of grade three to four thrombocytopenia. The study also examined the association between the number of nivolumab treatment cycles and mortality risk.

Britany: While the exact follow-up duration was not specified, it was sufficient to perform survival analyses. Multivariate adjustments were applied to identify prognostic factors. Notably, females comprised thirty-three point three percent of the metformin group compared to only eight point two percent in the non-metformin group, a statistically significant difference.

Seth: Gender differences can influence both clinical outcomes and toxicity profiles, so this is an important consideration. The key findings demonstrated that metformin use was associated with longer overall survival—five point zero two years versus four point six years in non-users—with a p-value less than zero point zero five, indicating statistical significance. However, progression-free survival did not differ significantly between groups.

Britany: Specifically, progression-free survival had a p-value of zero point three eight five, indicating no statistical difference. Importantly, the metformin group exhibited a higher incidence of grade three to four thrombocytopenia, which is clinically relevant. Additionally, a greater number of nivolumab cycles correlated with a reduced mortality risk, with an odds ratio of zero point six four.

Seth: That odds ratio had a ninety-five percent confidence interval ranging from zero point five four to zero point seven five, and a p-value less than zero point zero five, indicating a strong association. While prolonged nivolumab treatment may be beneficial, it also raises questions about cumulative toxicity that warrant further investigation.

Britany: Surmeli’s findings align with other retrospective evidence. For example, Gobbini and colleagues in 2025 reported that metformin use was linked to improved overall survival in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Seth: Similarly, multicenter retrospective analyses by Svaton et al. in 2020 and Wang et al. in 2024 support metformin as an independent favorable prognostic factor. Smaller studies, such as Afzal et al. in 2019, showed numerical survival improvements but were underpowered to reach statistical significance.

Britany: The Phase One B trial by Kubo and colleagues in 2025 is also noteworthy. It demonstrated that the combination of metformin and nivolumab was well tolerated, with preliminary signals of efficacy, addressing key safety questions.

Seth: That trial explored dose-finding and pharmacokinetics, which are essential for optimizing metformin dosing in this context. However, Phase Three randomized controlled trials are still needed to confirm efficacy and establish causality.

Britany: From a clinical standpoint, vigilant hematologic monitoring is necessary. The increased risk of grade three to four thrombocytopenia with concurrent metformin and nivolumab means platelet counts should be closely monitored, and therapy adjusted as needed to mitigate bleeding risk.

Seth: Potential drug interactions are also important. Metformin is primarily cleared renally, and nivolumab’s immune-related adverse events can affect renal function, potentially altering metformin pharmacokinetics and increasing toxicity risk.

Britany: Special populations, such as elderly patients or those with impaired renal function, require careful consideration. Dose adjustments or alternative therapies may be necessary to balance efficacy and safety in these groups.

Seth: Given that many metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients have comorbid diabetes, metformin is a common concomitant medication. Understanding these interactions helps optimize immunotherapy outcomes while minimizing adverse effects.

Britany: To summarize, Surmeli et al. add to the growing body of evidence that concurrent metformin use in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with nivolumab improves overall survival but increases the risk of thrombocytopenia. This dual effect highlights the need for individualized patient monitoring.

Seth: Until prospective randomized trials are available, clinicians should weigh the survival benefits against hematologic toxicity, monitor patients closely, and consider diabetic status, renal function, and treatment duration when managing therapy.

Britany: Future research should focus on prospective trials to confirm these findings, optimize metformin dosing, and identify predictive biomarkers to select patients most likely to benefit from this combination.

Seth: Integrating correlative science to elucidate metformin’s immunomodulatory mechanisms will be key to advancing personalized cancer therapy.

Britany: Before we close, Seth, it’s worth discussing some practical considerations for clinicians. For instance, when initiating nivolumab in a diabetic patient already on metformin, baseline platelet counts and renal function tests should be obtained. Regular monitoring every two to four weeks during treatment can help detect early hematologic toxicity.

Seth: That is an excellent point, Britany. Additionally, patient education is crucial. Patients should be informed about signs of thrombocytopenia, such as unusual bruising, petechiae, or bleeding gums, so they can report symptoms promptly. Early intervention can prevent severe complications.

Britany: Another consideration is the timing of metformin initiation. Some clinicians might wonder if starting metformin concurrently with nivolumab in non-diabetic patients could confer similar benefits. However, current evidence is limited to diabetic populations, and off-label use should be approached cautiously.

Seth: Right. The immunomodulatory effects of metformin might differ in non-diabetic patients, and safety profiles could vary. Until more data are available, metformin should primarily be continued in patients with established indications, such as type two diabetes.

Britany: The potential impact of metformin on other immune-related adverse events beyond thrombocytopenia remains to be fully elucidated. For example, whether metformin influences the incidence of pneumonitis or colitis during immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy is an open question.

Seth: That is an important area for future research. Understanding the broader immunologic effects of metformin could help tailor supportive care and toxicity management strategies.

Britany: From a pharmacoeconomic perspective, metformin is an inexpensive and widely available medication. If future prospective trials confirm its survival benefit in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving nivolumab, it could represent a cost-effective adjunct therapy.

Seth: Indeed, especially in resource-limited settings where access to novel combination therapies may be restricted. Incorporating metformin could improve outcomes without substantially increasing treatment costs.

Britany: To sum up, while current retrospective data are promising, careful patient selection, vigilant monitoring, and further prospective studies are essential before widespread adoption of metformin as an adjunct to immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

Seth: Well said, Britany. We look forward to seeing how this field evolves. Thank you for the insightful discussion.

Britany: Thank you, Seth. And thank you to our listeners for joining us on PACULit. Be sure to review the full study by Surmeli et al., published in Medicina in 2025, and stay tuned for upcoming trials clarifying metformin’s role in immunotherapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

Seth: Until next time, keep pushing clinical knowledge to improve patient care.

Britany: That wraps up today’s PACULit update. Stay safe and informed.