Abstract
Objective
This systematic review aimed to define the relationship between diabetes mellitus (DM) and the risk of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH).
Methods
Studies associated with DM and aSAH published until March 2016 were retrieved from Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. A random-effects model was used to calculate the relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Results
Eighteen observational studies were retrieved. The overall RRs for DM and aSAH were RRs = 0.59 (0.44, 0.79), with moderate heterogeneity (
Conclusion
A potential decreased risk of aSAH in DM patients was found in high quality studies. Further studies are required to confirm this causal relationship and to investigate the biological mechanisms.
Introduction
Aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) comprises 85% of all SAH cases.1,2 Approximately 17,000 people in the United States are affected by aSAH each year. 3 It has been deemed a serious subtype of stroke with high fatality rate and poses a significant threat to public health.1,4–8 Despite the recent advance in treatments and management, the poor prognosis has not been improved. 9 Effective prevention based on a better understanding of the etiology of aSAH is vital. Some researchers have reported that race, female sex, age, cigarette smoking, hypertension, heavy alcohol intake, and family history are predisposing risk factors for aSAH.10–14
Diabetes mellitus (DM) is the most common endocrine disorder and a major cause of disability worldwide. 15 It is calculated that the number of DM patients will increase from 246 million to 380 million over the next twenty years 16 due to burgeoning population, changed lifestyles, and population ageing. 17 DM influences the arterial wall by different mechanisms18–20 and is a well-known trigger for cerebral infarction.21,22
A recent study suggested that DM was associated with a decreased risk of saccular intracranial aneurysm rupture, which may cause aSAH. 23 However, multiple epidemiologic studies have produced inconsistent and inconclusive results regarding the relationship between DM and aSAH.10,24–40 Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the current evidence from published observational studies relating to the association between DM and the risk of aSAH.
Materials and methods
We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis in adherence to the guidelines of the Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. 41
Data sources and searches
Two investigators (X.Y. and C.J.) independently performed a systematic search of literature published until March 28, 2016 in Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. The following search terms were used: (diabetes OR diabetes mellitus) AND (intracranial aneurysm OR intracerebral aneurysm OR cerebral aneurysm OR subarachnoid haemorrhage) AND risk. No restrictions on language or types of publications were imposed. The reference lists of retrieved publications were also searched for additional relevant studies.
Study selection
Studies were included in our meta-analysis if they met the following criteria: 1) The study design was a cohort or case-control study; 2) the study described the impact of DM on the risk of aSAH; 3) the study presented odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios (HRs), or relative risks (RRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (or sufficient data to calculate them). In instances where multiple reports were based on the same study population, we included the most informative and comprehensive studies in our systematic review.
Data extraction and methodological quality assessment
Study selection and data extraction were conducted respectively by two investigators (X.Y. and C.J.). We extracted the following information using a standardized collection form: the first author’s last name, year of publication, study period, study design, number of aSAH patients and participants, source of controls, outcome data, and adjustment for major confounding factors.
The study quality of each included case-control or cohort study was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP). 42 These questions appraised the study validity, risk of bias in recruitment, exposure and outcome measurement, confounders, the reported results, generalizability, and transferability. Each single included study was independently assessed by two reviewers (X.Y. and C.J.). Any disagreements were judged by a third investigator (G.J.) and settled by consensus.
Statistical analysis
If the prevalence of aSAH was rare, ORs and HRs were considered equal to RRs.
43
So, a RR with 95% CI was used to measure the relationship between DM and aSAH. If outcomes for males and females were provided, then risk estimates for males and females were regarded as two separate results.
44
The Cochran’s Q test was used to assess the statistical heterogeneity (significant if
Results
Literature search
The electronic search yielded 1,295 potential articles. Duplicates and studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. After this, 18 studies were chosen for detailed appraisal. Among them, one study
49
only contained an abstract; three studies23,50,51 were neither case-control studies nor cohort studies; four studies52–55 did not report the association of DM with the risk of aSAH; one study
56
came from the same study population. The remaining nine studies30–38 of interest were found by manual searching. Thus, 18 studies10,24–40 were included in our meta-analysis. The flow chart of our searching process is shown in Figure 1.
Flow chart of the search procedure.
Description of included studies
Main characteristics of the included studies.
Abbreviations: NS, not stated; RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval; F, female; BMI, body mass index; HDL, high-density lipoprotein.
Only one study distinguished between type 1 and type 2 DM; this study described the association between type 2 DM and the risk of aSAH. 40 Most studies did not define DM and confirmed DM through the patient’s medical history. Nevertheless, three10,24,39 studies defined DM according to the World Health Organization’s criteria, and one 27 used the definition established by the standard guidelines of the American Diabetes Association. In most studies, aSAH was diagnosed using computed tomography and/or cerebral angiography. Some studies used surgery or necropsy and cerebrospinal fluid analysis to confirm the diagnosis. A few studies30,37,40 confirmed aSAH from the medical history. Most studies reported participant satisfaction; two studies10,38 showed < 90% satisfaction and participant satisfaction was not reported in two studies.24,32
Methodological quality assessment
Summary of critical appraisal of case-control studies.
Y-Yes; N-No; H-High; L-Low; M-Moderate; C/T-Cannot tell.
Summary of critical appraisal of cohort studies.
Y-Yes; N-No; H-High; L-Low; M-Moderate; C/T-Cannot tell.
Qualitative association of DM and aSAH risk
Data were available on 2,005,419 participants, including 4,327 aSAH patients. All included studies except two24,35 reported reduced RRs for aSAH patients with DM versus non-DM. Knekt et.al. 10 and another two39,40 cohort studies did not show a significant reduction in the association between DM and aSAH risk with regard to sex. However, Inagawa reported a statistically inverse correlation between DM and aSAH risk in female participants, especially those who were ≥ 60 years of age.26,29 The largest cohort study 40 from England revealed a significantly decreased association [HR, 0.48 (0.26,0.89)] between DM and aSAH risk, while other European studies gave non-significant results. Most high quality studies were from Asia26,29,39 and these authors reported conflicting outcomes.
Synthetic association of DM and aSAH risk
RRs for the association of DM and aSAH risk were calculated in 18 studies and ranged from 0 – 2.7.10,24–40 Overall, DM significantly reduced the risk of aSAH [0.59 (0.44, 0.79)], with substantial heterogeneity ( Forest plots for the risk of diabetes mellitus and aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Subgroup analyses
Study design
Synthetic RRs for diabetes mellitus and aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Abbreviations: RR, relative risk; CI, confidence interval; BMI, body mass index.
Study quality assessed by CASP
No significant connection between DM and aSAH was discovered in low and moderate quality studies10,24,25,28,30–38 (RRs = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.47, 1.01;
Sensitivity analysis and publication bias
Outcomes were stable except for one study (Figure 3). No evidence of meaningful publication bias was indicated by the Begg funnel plot (Figure 4) and Egger’s test ( Sensitivity analyses for the risk of diabetes mellitus and aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Begg funnel plot for the risk of diabetes mellitus and aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.

Discussion
The incidence of cerebrovascular disease is 1.7 times higher in diabetic patients than non-diabetic persons. 57 The cerebrovascular complications of DM are restricted to atherosclerotic disease and cerebral infarction, and the frequency of cerebral infarction is higher than expected in diabetic patients.58,59 However, the Harvard Cooperative Stroke Registry reported a low occurrence of DM in patients with aSAH. 60 To date, the contribution of DM to the development of aSAH remains unclear. In our systematic review, all included studies except for two24,35 reported a decreased association between DM and aSAH risk. This meta-analysis using RRs from 15 case-control studies and three cohort studies included more than 2,000,000 individuals, therefore our findings indicate that DM reduces the risk of aSAH.
Strengths and limitations of this systematic review
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to focus on the association between DM and risk of aSAH. All available published studies with a sufficient number of participants for a qualitative and quantitative summary of the outcomes were included in this meta-analysis. Therefore, this study has more power than any individual study to investigate the relationship between DM and risk of aSAH.
Substantive heterogeneity between studies was monitored using the I2 statistic. The findings of observational studies should always be interpreted with caution. Subgroup analysis by study design showed that the majority of included studies were case-control studies, therefore our conclusions are chiefly based on case-control studies. Diabetic patients probably have a higher risk of dying from other diseases than non-diabetic individuals. Consequently, the likelihood of a SAH forming is reduced in DM patients compared with controls. 57 At the same time, recall and selective bias may be increased.
The most important limitation highlighted by the current systematic review was the paucity of high quality studies. Only half of the included studies were of high quality. Insufficient study quality may be a source of heterogeneity according to the subgroup analysis of study quality. The CASP clearly demonstrated that recruited controls were unrepresentative, identified a large number of unadjusted potential confounders, and showed that unprecise results are the main cause of poor study quality. Because the study quality was limited and the heterogeneity was moderate, it was not possible to show a stronger association for population characteristics, such as geographical areas and sex.
Study quality may have been a contributing factor to heterogeneity, but there were other potential sources. For example, only a few studies10,27,39 specifically defined DM. The lack of a consistent standard definition for DM may have affected the number of diabetic patients recruited in each study. Similarly, some studies30,39,40 did not describe the methods of aSAH diagnosis, which may also have contributed to heterogeneity.
Prospective population-based cohort studies have shown that BMI and cholesterol levels may be related to DM and may protect against aSAH.10,61,62 Information about important risk factors such as BMI39,40 and cholesterol levels26,39,40 were only collected in a few studies. Other important risk factors such as cigarette smoking, hypotension, and alcohol consumption were generally inconsistent among the included studies. These factors have been associated with an increased risk of aSAH,10–14 but very few studies adjusted for them. This may explain the unprecise findings regarding risk of aSAH among the included studies.
Because the collected information was limited, we could not distinguish between type 1 and type 2 DM. This might have prevented identification of a genuine association between DM and risk of aSAH. For example, in type 1 diabetic patients, the prevalence of nonaneurysmal SAH was high in a prospective cohort study. 55 Because the quality of the included studies was generally poor, we did not calculate the RR and 95% CI to detect more sources of heterogeneity, such as the methods for measuring diabetes, antidiabetic drugs, and duration of diabetes in each study. Notably, antidiabetic drugs were used by 9% of type 2 diabetic patients in a comparative study, but was not related to the risk of aSAH according to multivariate analysis.
We did not perform an exhaustive search of the published literature in all electronic databases; therefore we may have missed several pertinent published or unpublished studies. Finally, we found little proof of publication bias in our meta-analysis. However, potential publication bias might have had an impact on our findings, as statistical tests have shown.47,48
Comparison with previous studies
Feigin et al. performed a meta-analysis 63 to evaluate various SAH risk factors published before 2005. Surprisingly, they found that DM was associated with a reduced risk of SAH [RR, 0.3 (0 to 2.2) including one 10 longitudinal study [OR, 0.7 (0.5 to 0.8)] and six25,30,31,33,38,56 case-control studies]. However, the sample size and study quality were questionable in this study. The sample size and study quality 25,27,29,39,40 were better in the present meta-analysis [RR, 0.38 (0.27, 0.54)]. Our study yielded a narrower 95% CI of pooled aSAH RR associated with DM compared with the earlier meta-analysis, indicating that our results are more precise.
Only two of the included studies reported an increased association between DM and the risk of aSAH, largely because of small sample sizes and univariate analysis. If an increased association between DM and aSAH is confirmed by future studies, then special determination assessment will be affected, including cerebral angiography of patients with DM and recent symptoms of third nerve palsy. 64
Hypothetical causes for the reduction of DM and aSAH risk
Although there are no confirmed biological theories to support our finding, several putative explanations exist. Patients with DM may modify their lifestyles (e.g., more exercise, better diet, less smoking and drinking) and receive medication for hypertension, which is an independent risk factor of aSAH. 64 Inagawa suggested that an inverse association exists between DM and aneurysm rupture, which might be linked to the atherosclerotic wall because atherosclerotic aneurysms are less likely to rupture. 29 This might also explain why the decreased association is stronger in older diabetic patients than younger diabetic patients. 29 Similar to saccharification of the extracellular matrix and cross-linking between elastin and avitene in the aortic wall, 65 diabetes-mediated alterations might exist in the hemal extracellular matrix. 40 Furthermore, the 9p21.3 locus has been related to DM and saccular IAs,66,67 although it is not part of the linkage disequilibrium block. A genetic connection that enhances type 2 DM and reduces the risk of aSAH is likely to exist. 23
Implication for future research
Future studies will need to be well-designed and carefully powered to address the following points: (1) consideration of more potential confounding factors, such as BMI, cholesterol level, smoking, hypertension, and drinking; (2) adjustment for or exclusion of chronic diseases (heart disease was associated with a decreased risk of aSAH, possibly due to reduced strenuous physical activity); (3) investigation of possible therapeutic mechanisms; (4) classification of DM as type 1 and type 2 to determine a potential causal relationship.
Conclusions and unanswered questions
In conclusion, most of the studies included in our systematic review are lacking in quality. Analysis of the high quality studies identified a potential decreased risk of aSAH in subjects with DM. However, the causal relationship between DM and aSAH remains to be elucidated. Further high quality epidemiological cohort and animal studies are necessary to investigate whether DM and aSAH are correlated and to elucidate the underlying biological mechanisms.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding
This work was supported by Suzhou Key Medical Center (Szzx201501), grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81571115, 81422013, and 81471196), Scientific Department of Jiangsu Province (No. BL2014045), Suzhou Government (No. LCZX201301, SZS201413, and SYS201332), and A Project Funded by the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions.
