Abstract
Background:
Multiple studies have suggested a potential association between multiple sclerosis (MS) and diabetes mellitus (DM). However, inconsistencies in the published literature—attributable to variations in statistical methods, sample size, and study design—have led to conflicting conclusions. Therefore, we conducted a systematic meta-analysis to clarify the relationship between MS and DM and to inform future mechanistic research.
Methods:
We performed a comprehensive literature search in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase databases for studies investigating the relationship between MS and DM, covering the period from database inception to July 2025. Two researchers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.3.
Results:
Seven studies involving 3,143,619 participants were included. The meta-analysis did not reveal a statistically significant overall association between MS and DM (HR = 1.05,95%CI:0.88-1.27, P = 0.58). However, DM was associated with an increased risk of developing MS (HR = 1.59, 95%CI:1.24-2.05, P = 0.0003). Furthermore, patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) also showed an elevated risk of MS (HR = 1.46,95%CI:1.10-1.94, P = 0.008).
Conclusions:
Current evidence indicates that DM, specifically T2DM, increases the risk of developing MS. However, a reverse association remains unconfirmed.
Introduction
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an immune-mediated inflammatory demyelinating disease of the central nervous system. Globally, it is estimated that 2.8 million people are living with MS. The female-to-male ratio is approximately 3:1, with a median age of onset at 32 years (1). The prevalence of MS varies significantly across countries and regions, a difference largely attributed to geographic latitude and its association with vitamin D exposure (2). The highest prevalence rates are observed in Western Europe and North America, followed by Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkan Peninsula, Australia and New Zealand. The lowest rates are found in Asia, Africa and the Middle East (3, 4). The pathogenesis of MS involves autoimmune dysregulation, where activated immune cells erroneously attack the myelin sheath, disrupting nerve conduction (5). This poses a serious threat to neurological function and quality of life, particularly among young and middle-aged adults.
Diabetes mellitus (DM) represents one of the most pressing global health challenges. In 2023, the overall prevalence of DM in China reached 13.7%, affecting approximately 233 million individuals - a 163% increase since 2005 (6, 7). Without effective intervention, nearly 30% of Chinese adults could be affected by DM by 2050 (6). Worldwide in 2024, 589 million adults aged 20–79 were living with DM, a number projected to rise to 853 million by 2050 (8). The intensifying trends of population aging and lifestyle changes are contributing to a growing disease burden attributable to DM. Based on etiology and pathogenesis, DM is primarily classified into several types, the most common being type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 (T2DM) (7). T1DM is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by the destruction of insulin-producing pancreatic β-cells, leading to absolute insulin deficiency (9). As the most prevalent subtype globally, T2DM is defined by core features of insulin resistance coupled with dysfunctional pancreatic β-cells (10).
Both DM and MS are chronic conditions involving immune system dysregulation (11). In clinical practice, the co-occurrence of MS and DM is increasingly observed. Epidemiological studies indicate that the risk of developing DM is significantly higher in patients with MS than in the general population, and this comorbidity rate continues to rise (12). Conversely, the risk of MS is also elevated among individuals with DM (13, 14). Population-based cohort studies have demonstrated a significant association between DM and an increased risk of MS (15), and the prevalence of DM is higher in MS patients compared to non-MS individuals (15, 16). One such study further confirmed that DM is associated with an elevated risk of developing MS (17). When both conditions coexist, patients face not only the neurological deficits caused by MS but also the metabolic disturbances triggered by DM, resulting in a more complex and challenging clinical presentation.
In the context of T2DM, systemic effects extend to the central nervous system, impairing brain insulin signaling, inhibiting the differentiation of oligodendrocyte precursor cells, and reducing myelination (18). Persistent hyperglycemia impacts myelin metabolism through multiple pathways: first, by inducing oxidative stress that promotes lipid peroxidation in myelin, compromising its structural integrity (19); second, by accelerating the formation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs), which alter myelin protein structure and function upon binding while activating pro-inflammatory pathways (20); and third, by causing energy deficiency in oligodendrocytes, thereby hindering myelin synthesis (21). Furthermore, dyslipidemia associated with T2DM interferes with central nervous system function (22): disrupted cholesterol metabolism impairs the ability of oligodendrocytes to build myelin (23), and sphingolipid imbalance leads to the accumulation of neurotoxic species, damaging oligodendrocytes and inducing apoptosis (24). T2DM may also elevate the risk of MS through genetic susceptibility (25, 26) and environmental factors such as viral infections (27). In contrast, the link between T1DM and MS has a clearer immunogenetic basis (28). Both diseases share genetic risks primarily located within the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class II region (29). Certain single-nucleotide polymorphisms in immune-related pathways are also associated with this comorbidity, and overlapping immune features exist between the two conditions, although the probability of sharing fully pathogenic haplotypes is relatively low (30). This suggests that both T1DM and MS are polygenic disorders resulting from the interaction between genetic predisposition and environmental factors (29).
The evidence summarized above indicates a potential correlation between DM and MS. However, the nature of their connection and the bidirectional relationship between these diseases remain insufficiently clarified. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of bidirectional associations to systematically explore the interrelationship between MS and DM.
Methods
This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the latest version of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (31–33).
Search strategy
A systematic literature search was performed in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase electronic databases to identify studies investigating the interrelationship between MS and DM. The search covered the period from database inception to July 2025. We employed a combination of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and free-text keywords. The reference lists of eligible articles were also manually screened to identify additional relevant studies. Key search terms included “multiple sclerosis,” “diabetes mellitus,” “association,” and “risk.” The detailed search strategy for PubMed is provided in Supplementary Material Table S1.
Eligibility criteria
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Studies were selected based on the following PICOS framework:
P (Population): Patients with a confirmed clinical diagnosis of MS or DM;
I (Intervention): Diagnosis of DM (for assessing MS risk) or diagnosis of MS (for assessing DM risk).
C (Comparison): Individuals without DM (for MS risk studies) or individuals without MS (for DM risk studies).
O (Outcomes): Reported effect estimates (e.g., hazard ratio, risk ratio) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between MS and DM.
S (Study Design): Cohort studies (prospective or retrospective).
Exclusion criteria
1. Duplicate publications or studies using overlapping data sources.
2. Secondary research literature (e.g., reviews, meta-analyses, systematic reviews).
3. Studies lacking a control group or with a control group that did not meet the predefined criteria.
4. Studies with insufficient data or where the full text was unavailable.
Data extraction
Two investigators independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of identified records against the eligibility criteria. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion or by consultation with a third reviewer. Data from included studies were extracted into a standardized Excel spreadsheet. Extracted information included: first author, publication year, country, study design, sample size, participant age, follow-up duration, diagnostic criteria for MS/DM, adjusted variables, effect size estimates with 95% CIs, and risk of bias assessment results.
Biased risk assessment
The methodological quality of included cohort studies was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The NOS evaluates three domains: selection of study groups, comparability of groups, and ascertainment of exposure/outcome. Studies scoring 7–9 points were classified as high quality, 4–6 as medium quality, and below 4 as low quality. Disagreements in scoring were resolved by consensus or with input from a third reviewer.
Data synthesis and analysis
All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager (RevMan) software version 5.3. The association between DM and MS was quantified using hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed using Cochran’s Q test and the I² statistic, with a significance level set at α = 0.10. An I² value ≤ 50% and a P-value > 0.10 indicated low heterogeneity, in which case a fixed-effects model was applied; otherwise, a random-effects model was used. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by sequentially excluding each study to evaluate the robustness of the pooled results. Publication bias was assessed visually using funnel plots.
Results
Study characteristics
A total of 1,124 relevant records were identified through database searches. After removing 667 duplicates, 457 records remained for title and abstract screening, which led to the exclusion of 435 articles. Following full-text review of the remaining 22 articles, 15 were excluded based on the predefined criteria. Finally, seven studies were included in the meta-analysis (Figure 1). All included studies were cohort designs, published between 2010 and 2024. The total sample size across studies was 3,143,619 participants. The methodological quality assessed by the NOS ranged from 6 to 8 points (Supplementary Material Table S2). The basic characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 1.
Figure 1
Table 1
| Author, year | Country | Study design | No. of patients | Age (median/mean) | Follow-up | Diagnostic criteria | Adjustment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kang et al., 2010 (49) | China | Cohort study | 5388 | NR | NR | ICD-9 | Gender, age, and socioeconomic status |
| Hou et al., 2017 (15) | China | Cohort study | 1228644 | NR | NR | ICD-9 | Age, `sex, income-based insurance premium, geographic area of living, urbanization status of living area, Charlson Comorbidity Index, frequency of medical visit, and selected co-morbidities, including allergy, Alzheimer’s disease, anterior horn cell disease, COPD, obesity, vitamin D deficiency, dyslipidemia, hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, spinal cord injury, stroke, thyroid disease, and traumatic brain injury, anxiety, depression, stress, tonsillectomy, and appendectomy. |
| Jacobsen et al., 2024 (50) | Denmark | Cohort study | 80256 | 42 | 19, years | ICD-10 | Age, sex, year of diagnosis, marital status, and comorbidities such as IHD, AF, COPD, rheumatoid arthritis, thyroid disease, mononucleosis, IBD, cancer, hypertension, and stroke. |
| Palladino et al., 2024 (46) | UK | Cohort study | 84823 | 44.9 | 30, years | ICD-X | Gender, ethnicity, region, deprivation index, number of primary care visits, smoking status, and electronic frailty index. |
| Cho et al., 2024 (45) | South Korea | Cohort study | 10806 | NR | MS vs controls: 4.5 vs 4.8 years | ICD-10 | Age, sex, income, hypertension, dyslipidemia, stroke, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, end-stage renal disease, cancer, and steroid use within 1 year. |
| Nielsen et al., 2021 (13) | Denmark | Cohort study | 1633436 | NR | NR | ICD-8, ICD-10 | Adjusted for age, sex, birth cohort (1year intervals 1978–1998 and ≧̸1999), as well as for maternal age (<20 20–29, 30–39, ≧̸40years), paternal age (<20, 20–29, 30–39, ≧̸40years), and maternal obesity. |
| Brnabic et al., 2024 (51) | America | Cohort study | 100266 | NR | 6, years | NR | Age, sex, region of residence, index year and payer type. Baseline clinical characteristics assessed during the pre-index period were hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, tobacco use, use of mobility aidsand chronic disease burden using the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Duration of patients’ follow-up period, discontinuation of index drug and time to drug discontinuation were also examined. |
Study characteristics.
UK, United Kingdom; NR, Not report; MS, Multiple Sclerosis; ICD, International Classification of Diseases; IHD, Ischemic heart disease; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases; IBD, Inflammatory bowel disease.
Risk of T2DM in patients with MS
Five studies reported data on the risk of T2DM in patients with MS. Significant heterogeneity was observed among these studies (I2 = 82%, P = 0.0002); therefore, a random-effects model was applied. The meta-analysis indicated no statistically significant difference in the risk of developing T2DM among MS patients (HR = 1.05, 95%CI:0.88-1.27, P = 0.58) (Figure 2).
Figure 2
Risk of MS in patients with DM
Two literature reports on the risk of MS in patients with DM. No significant heterogeneity was detected (I2 = 0%, P = 0.37), allowing for the use of a fixed-effect model. The meta-analysis demonstrated a significantly increased risk of developing MS among patients with DM (HR = 1.59, 95%CI:1.24-2.05, P = 0.0003) (Figure 3).
Figure 3
Sensitivity analysis
A sensitivity analysis was performed by sequentially excluding each study. The overall pooled results remained stable regardless of which study was omitted. A secondary analysis focusing specifically on T2DM patients - excluding data pertaining to T1DM-also showed a significant association, with an increased risk of MS (HR = 1.46, 95%CI:1.10-1.94, P = 0.008) (Figure 4).
Figure 4
Publication bias
Funnel plots were generated to assess potential publication bias. Visual inspection revealed that the points were distributed in a roughly symmetrical pattern on both sides of the funnel, suggesting no significant publication bias (Figures 5, 6).
Figure 5
Figure 6
Discussion
This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the potential association between DM and multiple sclerosis MS. The primary finding indicates that DM significantly increases the risk of developing MS. This provides evidence-based support for a deeper understanding of the interplay between these two conditions. Although the overall bidirectional risk association between MS and DM was not statistically significant, the observed link from DM to MS suggests that metabolic dysregulation may play a significant role in MS pathogenesis. Chronic inflammation, immune system imbalance, and vascular complications associated with DM may collectively affect central nervous system homeostasis, thereby potentially elevating MS risk.
From a mechanistic perspective, MS is a central nervous system autoimmune disease (34). Its core pathology involves an imbalance in CD4+ T-cell subsets, leading to immune-inflammatory infiltration that attacks oligodendrocytes and results in demyelination (35). This process is driven by an interplay of genetic factors, such as HLA class II gene variants, and environmental triggers like viral infections (36, 37). The pathogenesis of DM subtypes, however, differs significantly. T1DM is also an autoimmune disorder, characterized by autoimmune destruction of pancreatic β-cells by autoreactive T cells, leading to absolute insulin deficiency. T1DM shares an immunogenetic background with MS—including HLA haplotypes and immune gene polymorphisms—which forms an important basis for their co-occurrence (28, 30). In contrast, T2DM is centered on insulin resistance and β-cell dysfunction. While lacking direct autoimmune targets, T2DM induces chronic low-grade inflammation and immune dysregulation. Through hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia, it can promote oxidative stress, accumulation of AGEs, and metabolic inflammation, potentially damaging oligodendrocytes, disrupting myelin metabolism, and exacerbating central nervous system inflammation, thereby intersecting with MS pathology T2DM (38). This offers a plausible pathway explaining how T2DM may increase MS risk. In summary, the association between T1DM and MS is founded on a shared immunogenetic basis, whereas T2DM likely contributes to MS pathogenesis primarily through metabolic-inflammatory pathways.
Research indicates that among children and adolescents with DM, the risk of developing MS is significantly elevated (39). A study by Hou et al. further reports an increased MS risk in both male and female patients with T2DM (15), with the risk being particularly high in female patients aged 50 years and younger. This aligns with our finding that DM significantly elevates MS risk. Patients with DM often exhibit a state of chronic low-grade inflammation, marked by significantly elevated serum levels of inflammatory factors such as interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and C-reactive protein (40). This systemic inflammation may disrupt immune balance within the central nervous system and potentially trigger MS onset. Additionally, DM can cause immune system dysfunction, impairing the normal activity of T cells and B cells, which may increase susceptibility to autoimmune diseases like MS. Vascular complications of DM may lead to cerebral microcirculatory disturbances, affecting normal myelin metabolism and repair, thus contributing to MS risk. Furthermore, hyperglycemia and insulin resistance can impair neuronal energy metabolism. Insulin resistance weakens nutrition and energy-related signaling mediated by insulin, severely disrupting neurometabolism and leading to neuronal injury (41). Hyperglycemia-induced activation of protein kinase C affects vascular endothelial growth factor expression, promoting vasoconstriction and hypoxia (42, 43). DM is also associated with reduced levels of neurotrophic and angiogenic factors, contributing to neuronal dysfunction (44).
Regarding the risk of DM in MS patients, findings across studies are inconsistent. One cohort study found no significant difference in T2DM risk between MS patients and the general population (45), while another large population-based matched cohort study indicated a significantly increased risk of T2DM in MS patients following diagnosis (46). Although our meta-analysis did not find a statistically significant increase in DM risk among MS patients, the underlying mechanisms warrant further investigation. The inflammatory process in MS may induce a systemic inflammatory response, potentially affecting insulin sensitivity and increasing DM risk (47). The relatively high incidence of DM in MS patients might also be attributed to neurological demyelination-related motor dysfunction or side effects from treatments involving adrenocorticotropic hormone and glucocorticoids (48).
This study has several limitations. First, although the total sample size across included studies is large, the number of eligible studies is limited, which may introduce some bias. Second, the literature search was restricted to English-language publications, potentially leading to language bias. Finally, all included studies were retrospective cohort designs, and their findings may be subject to inherent biases associated with this study design.
Conclusions
In conclusion, current evidence suggests that T2DM is associated with an increased risk of developing MS, while a significant association between MS and an elevated risk of T2DM was not confirmed. Although our meta-analysis indicates an association, this does not establish causality. Clinicians should maintain heightened vigilance for MS when managing patients with T2DM, particularly those presenting with neurological symptoms. Conversely, regular blood glucose monitoring is advisable for MS patients to enable early detection and management of potential DM. Given the limitations of this study, large-scale, multi-center, long-term prospective cohort studies are needed to further clarify the nature of the association between DM and MS.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
MT: Project administration, Validation, Resources, Methodology, Conceptualization, Visualization, Formal analysis, Data curation, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition, Software, Writing – original draft. HT: Project administration, Validation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Software, Writing – original draft, Resources. HD: Methodology, Investigation, Supervision, Data curation, Conceptualization, Software, Writing – review & editing, Resources, Validation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Visualization. RL: Project administration, Validation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Data curation, Supervision, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Software, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition, Visualization, Resources, Investigation. GH: Supervision, Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Visualization, Resources, Funding acquisition, Project administration.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2026.1724167/full#supplementary-material
References
1
MocciaMVitturiBKRahmaniADiniGMontecuccoADebarbieriNet al. Spatial and temporal distribution of the prevalence of unemployment and early retirement in people with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review with meta-analysis. PloS One. (2022) 17:e0272156. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272156
2
HwangSGarcia-DominguezMAFitzgeraldKCSaylorDR. Association of multiple sclerosis prevalence with sociodemographic, health systems, and lifestyle factors on a national and regional level. Neurology. (2022) 99:e1813–e23. doi: 10.1212/wnl.0000000000200962
3
Koch-HenriksenNSørensenPS. The changing demographic pattern of multiple sclerosis epidemiology. Lancet Neurol. (2010) 9:520–32. doi: 10.1016/s1474-4422(10)70064-8
4
AbbastabarHBitarafanSMohammadpourZMohammadianinejadSEHarirchianMH. The trend of incidence, prevalence, and daly of multiple sclerosis in the middle east and northern africa region compared to global, west europe and, Iran’s corresponding values during 1990–2017: retrieved from global burden of diseases data. Multiple sclerosis related Disord. (2021) 52:102949. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2021.102949
5
GuptaNSShrivastavSKSinghIKKumariSJhaNKGuptaR. Decoding the molecular and cellular aspects of multiple sclerosis: from diagnosis to therapeutic strategies. Brain Res. (2025) 1863:149844. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2025.149844
6
ZhouY-CLiuJ-MZhaoZ-PZhouM-GNgM. The national and provincial prevalence and non-fatal burdens of diabetes in China from 2005 to 2023 with projections of prevalence to 2050. Military Med Res. (2025) 12:28. doi: 10.1186/s40779-025-00615-1
7
AbelEDGloynALEvans-MolinaCJosephJJMisraSPajvaniUBet al. Diabetes mellitus—Progress and opportunities in the evolving epidemic. Cell. (2024) 187:3789–820. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2024.06.029
8
IDF Diabetes Atlas 11th edition scientific committee ID, Atlas te. International Diabetes Federation (2025). Available online at: https://diabetesatlas.org/resources/idf-diabetes-atlas-2025/.
9
EizirikDLPasqualiLCnopM. Pancreatic B-cells in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: different pathways to failure. Nat Rev Endocrinol. (2020) 16:349–62. doi: 10.1038/s41574-020-0355-7
10
KalyaniRRNeumillerJJMaruthurNMWexlerDJ. Diagnosis and treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults. Jama. (2025) 334:984. doi: 10.1001/jama.2025.5956
11
PozzilliVGrassoEATomassiniV. Similarities and differences between multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes. Diabetes/metabolism Res Rev. (2021) 38:e3505. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3505
12
TetteyPSimpsonSTaylorBVvan der MeiIAF. The co-occurrence of multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes: shared aetiologic features and clinical implication for ms aetiology. J neurological Sci. (2015) 348:126–31. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2014.11.019
13
NielsenNMGørtzSHjalgrimHRostgaardKMungerKLAscherioAet al. Maternal diabetes and risk of multiple sclerosis in the offspring: A danish nationwide register-based cohort study. Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills Basingstoke England). (2021) 27:1686–94. doi: 10.1177/1352458520977120
14
KnipMKukkoMKulmalaPVeijolaRSimellOÅkerblomHKet al. Humoral beta-cell autoimmunity in relation to hla-defined disease susceptibility in preclinical and clinical type 1 diabetes. Am J Med Genet. (2002) 115:48–54. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.10343
15
HouW-HLiC-YChangH-HSunYTsaiC-C. A population-based cohort study suggests an increased risk of multiple sclerosis incidence in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Epidemiol. (2017) 27:235–41. doi: 10.1016/j.je.2016.06.006
16
NielsenNMWestergaardTFrischMRostgaardKWohlfahrtJKoch-HenriksenNet al. Type 1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol. (2006) 63:1001. doi: 10.1001/archneur.63.7.1001
17
WimberleyTHorsdalHTBrikellILaursenTMAstrupAFanelliGet al. Temporally ordered associations between type 2 diabetes and brain disorders – a danish register-based cohort study. BMC Psychiatry. (2022) 22:573. doi: 10.1186/s12888-022-04163-z
18
MaSWangJWangYDaiXXuFGaoXet al. Diabetes mellitus impairs white matter repair and long-term functional deficits after cerebral ischemia. Stroke. (2018) 49:2453–63. doi: 10.1161/strokeaha.118.021452
19
Román-PintosLMVillegas-RiveraGRodríguez-CarrizalezADMiranda-DíazAGCardona-MuñozEG. Diabetic polyneuropathy in type 2 diabetes mellitus: inflammation, oxidative stress, and mitochondrial function. J Diabetes Res. (2016) 2016:1–16. doi: 10.1155/2016/3425617
20
SugimotoKYasujimaMYagihashiS. Role of advanced glycation end products in diabetic neuropathy. Curr Pharm design. (2008) 14:953–61. doi: 10.2174/138161208784139774
21
da RosaPMMeiraLAMSouzaDOBoberminLDQuincozes-SantosALeiteMC. High-glucose medium induces cellular differentiation and changes in metabolic functionality of oligodendroglia. Mol Biol Rep. (2019) 46:4817–26. doi: 10.1007/s11033-019-04930-4
22
KozakovaMPalomboC. Lipids and cardiovascular organ damage in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cardiol Cardiovasc Med. (2020) 04:346–60. doi: 10.26502/fccm.92920132
23
SkattebølLLundbyRØveråsMHSowaPCeliusEGHarboHFet al. Quantitative susceptibility mapping of paramagnetic rim lesions in early multiple sclerosis: A cross-sectional study of brain age and disability. NeuroImage Rep. (2025) 5:100277. doi: 10.1016/j.ynirp.2025.100277
24
Barranco-AltirribaMAlonsoNWeberRJMLloydGRHernandezMYanesOet al. Lipidome characterisation and sex-specific differences in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cardiovasc Diabetol. (2024) 23:109. doi: 10.1186/s12933-024-02202-5
25
KatsoulisKPaschouSAHatziETigasSGeorgiouITsatsoulisA. Tcf7l2 gene variants predispose to the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus among individuals with metabolic syndrome. Hormones. (2018) 17:359–65. doi: 10.1007/s42000-018-0047-z
26
MojsakPMiniewskaKGodlewskiAAdamska-PatrunoESamczukPRey-StolleFet al. A Preliminary Study Showing the Impact of Genetic and Dietary Factors on Gc–Ms-Based Plasma Metabolome of Patients with and without Prox1-Genetic Predisposition to T2dm up to 5 Years Prior to Prediabetes Appearance. Curr Issues Mol Biol. (2021) 43:513–28. doi: 10.3390/cimb43020039
27
JankoskyCDeussingEGibsonRLHaverkosHW. Viruses and vitamin D in the etiology of type 1 diabetes mellitus and multiple sclerosis. Virus Res. (2012) 163:424–30. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2011.11.010
28
AlmeidaCVenadeGDuarteDVazANascimentoE. Type 1 diabetes mellitus and multiple sclerosis: an association to consider. Cureus. (2022) 14:e30762. doi: 10.7759/cureus.30762
29
MarrosuMGCoccoELaiMSpinicciGPischeddaMPContuP. Patients with multiple sclerosis and risk of type 1 diabetes mellitus in sardinia, Italy: A cohort study. Lancet. (2002) 359:1461–5. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08431-3
30
HandelAEHandunnetthiLEbersGCRamagopalanSV. Type 1 diabetes mellitus and multiple sclerosis: common etiological features. Nat Rev Endocrinol. (2009) 5:655–64. doi: 10.1038/nrendo.2009.216
31
ChenZJiangTPengYQiangXYangFHuHet al. Acupuncture and moxibustion treating lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Acupuncture Herbal Med. (2022) 2:84–90. doi: 10.1097/HM9.0000000000000029
32
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPMBoutronIHoffmannTCMulrowCDet al. The prisma 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (Clinical Res ed). (2021) 372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
33
ZhuZYuanXZhengYDouBLiuLLohPYet al. Effectiveness of acupuncture in managing aromatase inhibitor-related arthralgia in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acupuncture Herbal Med. (2025) 5:352–65. doi: 10.1097/HM9.0000000000000172
34
RamagopalanSVDymentDAValdarWHerreraBMCriscuoliMYeeIMLet al. Autoimmune disease in families with multiple sclerosis: A population-based study. Lancet Neurol. (2007) 6:604–10. doi: 10.1016/s1474-4422(07)70132-1
35
BasakJMajsterekIStangelM. Mirna-dependent cd4+ T cell differentiation in the pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Int. (2021) 2021:1–11. doi: 10.1155/2021/8825588
36
HoppmannNGraetzCPaterkaMPoisa-BeiroLLarochelleCHasanMet al. New candidates for cd4 T cell pathogenicity in experimental neuroinflammation and multiple sclerosis. Brain. (2015) 138:902–17. doi: 10.1093/brain/awu408
37
MestreLAlonsoGFeliúAMechaMMartínCVillarLMet al. Aging and neuroinflammation: changes in immune cell responses, axon integrity, and motor function in a viral model of progressive multiple sclerosis. Aging Cell. (2021) 20:e13440. doi: 10.1111/acel.13440
38
LuXXieQPanXZhangRZhangXPengGet al. Type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults: pathogenesis, prevention and therapy. Signal Transduction Targeted Ther. (2024) 9:262. doi: 10.1038/s41392-024-01951-9
39
BechtoldSBlaschekARaileKDostAFreibergCAskenasMet al. Higher relative risk for multiple sclerosis in a pediatric and adolescent diabetic population: analysis from dpv database. Diabetes Care. (2014) 37:96–101. doi: 10.2337/dc13-1414
40
KernPARanganathanSLiCWoodLRanganathanG. Adipose tissue tumor necrosis factor and interleukin-6 expression in human obesity and insulin resistance. Am J Physiology-Endocrinology Metab. (2001) 280:E745–E51. doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.2001.280.5.E745
41
EidSARumoraAEBeirowskiBBennettDLHurJSavelieffMGet al. New perspectives in diabetic neuropathy. Neuron. (2023) 111:2623–41. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2023.05.003
42
MizukamiHOsonoiS. Collateral glucose-utlizing pathwaya in diabetic polyneuropathy. Int J Mol Sci. (2020) 22:94. doi: 10.3390/ijms22010094
43
BansalDBadhanYGudalaKSchifanoF. Ruboxistaurin for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Diabetes Metab J. (2013) 37:375. doi: 10.4093/dmj.2013.37.5.375
44
LeinningerGMVincentAMFeldmanEL. The role of growth factors in diabetic peripheral neuropathy. J Peripheral Nervous System. (2004) 9:26–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1085-9489.2004.09105.x
45
ChoEBHanKJungJ-HChungYHKwonSParkJet al. The risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in multiple sclerosis and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: A nationwide cohort study. Multiple sclerosis related Disord. (2024) 85:105519. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2024.105519
46
PalladinoRChatawayJMathewMMajeedAMarrieRA. Trajectories and management of vascular risk following the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: A population-based matched cohort study between 1987 and 2018 in england. Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills Basingstoke England). (2024) 30:1653–63. doi: 10.1177/13524585241287388
47
MaghbooliZNaser MoghadasiARezaeimaneshNOmidifarAVarzandiTSahraianMA. The possible role of interleukin-6 as a regulator of insulin sensitivity in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. BMC Neurol. (2021) 21:167. doi: 10.1186/s12883-021-02198-5
48
HusseinWIReddySS. Prevalence of diabetes in patients with multiple sclerosis. Diabetes Care. (2006) 29:1984–5. doi: 10.2337/dc06-0811
49
KangJHChenYHLinHC. Comorbidities amongst patients with multiple sclerosis: a population-based controlled study. Eur J Neurol. (2010) 17:1215–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.02971.x
50
JacobsenJRKristensenSLFosbølELKøberLWestergaardLMPerssonFet al. Association of multiple sclerosis with incident diabetes: a nationwide cohort study. Diabetes & metabolism. (2024) 50(5):101551. doi: 10.1016/j.diabet.2024.101551
51
BrnabicAJMCurtisSEJohnstonJALoAZagarAJLipkovichIet al. Incidence of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease in patients with multiple sclerosis initiating disease-modifying therapies: retrospective cohort study using a frequentist model averaging statistical framework. PloS one. (2024) 19(3):e0300708. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300708
Summary
Keywords
cohort studies, diabetes mellitus, meta-analysis, multiple sclerosis, risk of disease
Citation
Tang M, Tang H, Deng H, Liu R and He G (2026) Diabetes mellitus and risk of multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Endocrinol. 17:1724167. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2026.1724167
Received
13 October 2025
Revised
02 February 2026
Accepted
02 February 2026
Published
18 February 2026
Volume
17 - 2026
Edited by
Maurizio Delvecchio, University of L’Aquila, Italy
Reviewed by
Isabella Panfoli, University of Genoa, Italy
Dongmei Jia, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, China
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Tang, Tang, Deng, Liu and He.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Gongjing He, 15334509400@163.com; Ruihan Liu, ruihan_l@163.com
These authors share first authorhip
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.