Estimating utility values for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis health states: a discrete choice experiment.

Background: This study estimated utility values for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Previous studies have assumed that health-related quality of life does not vary between the early stages of NASH. Materials & Methods: Discrete choice experiment (DCE) surveys estimated the value of avoiding fibrosis progression. Patients also completed the EQ-5D-5L. Marginal rates of substitution estimated utility change associated with fibrosis progression. Results: DCE surveys were completed by the UK general public (n = 520) and patients with NASH (n = 154). The utility decline between fibrosis stages F1 and F4 decompensated was between -0.521 to -0.646 (depending on method). Conclusion: Three methods were used to estimate utilities for NASH, each one showed sensitivity to advancing fibrosis, including in the early stages, which is often considered asymptomatic.

Liver, renal, genitourinary and diabetic ketoacidosis risks among new users of empagliflozin versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes: Post-authorization safety study based on multinational cohorts.

AIM: To estimate risks of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), acute liver injury (ALI), acute kidney injury (AKI), chronic kidney disease (CKD), severe complications of urinary tract infection (UTI) and genital infection (GI) among patients with type 2 diabetes initiating empagliflozin versus those initiating a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this large multinational, observational, new-user cohort study in UK, Danish and US healthcare data sources, patients initiated empagliflozin or a DPP-4 inhibitor between August 2014 and August 2019, were aged ≥18 years, and had ≥12 months' continuous health plan enrolment. Incidence rates by exposure and incidence rate ratios, adjusted for propensity-score deciles, were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 64 599 empagliflozin initiators and 203 315 DPP-4 inhibitor initiators were included. There was an increased risk [pooled adjusted incidence rate ratios (95% confidence interval)] of DKA [2.19 (1.74-2.76)] and decreased risks of ALI [0.77 (0.50-1.19) in patients without predisposing conditions of liver disease; 0.70 (0.56-0.88) in all patients] and AKI [0.54 (0.41-0.73)]. In the UK data, there was an increased risk of GI [males: 4.04 (3.46-4.71); females: 3.24 (2.81-3.74)] and decreased risks of CKD [0.53 (0.43-0.65)] and severe complications of UTI [0.51 (0.37-0.72)]. The results were generally consistent in subgroup and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with DDP-4 inhibitor use, empagliflozin use was associated with increased risks of DKA and GI and decreased risks of ALI, AKI, CKD and severe complications of UTI. These associations are consistent with previous studies and known class effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, including renoprotective effects and beneficial effects on alanine aminotransferase levels.

Empagliflozin is associated with lower cardiovascular risk compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in adults with and without cardiovascular disease: EMPagliflozin compaRative effectIveness and SafEty (EMPRISE) study results from Europe and Asia.

BACKGROUND: Studies that have reported lower risk for cardiovascular outcomes in users of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors (SGLT-2i) are limited by residual cofounding and lack of information on prior cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study compared risk of cardiovascular events in patients within routine care settings in Europe and Asia with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating empagliflozin compared to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) stratified by pre-existing CVD and history of heart failure (HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Adults initiating empagliflozin and DPP-4i in 2014-2018/19 from 11 countries in Europe and Asia were compared using propensity score matching and Cox proportional hazards regression to assess differences in rates of primary outcomes: hospitalisation for heart failure (HHF), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke; and secondary outcomes: cardiovascular mortality (CVM), coronary revascularisation procedure, composite outcome including HHF or CVM, and 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: MI, stroke and CVM). Country-specific results were meta-analysed and pooled hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) from random-effects models are presented. In total, 85,244 empagliflozin/DPP4i PS-matched patient pairs were included with overall mean follow-up of 0.7 years. Among those with pre-existing CVD, lower risk was observed for HHF (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.64-0.86), CVM (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.38-0.80), HHF or CVM (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.48-0.67) and stroke (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.67-0.94) in patients initiating empagliflozin vs DPP-4i. Similar patterns were observed among patients without pre-existing CVD and those with and without pre-existing HF. CONCLUSION: These results from diverse patient populations in routine care settings across Europe and Asia demonstrate that initiation of empagliflozin compared to DPP-4i results in favourable cardioprotective effects regardless of pre-existing CVD or HF status.

Comparative Effectiveness of Empagliflozin vs Liraglutide or Sitagliptin in Older Adults With Diverse Patient Characteristics.

Importance: Limited evidence is available on the comparative effectiveness of empagliflozin vs alternative second-line glucose-lowering agents in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) receiving routine care who have a broad spectrum of cardiorenal risk. Objective: To evaluate the association of empagliflozin with cardiovascular outcomes relative to liraglutide and sitagliptin, stratified by age, sex, baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), heart failure (HF), and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective comparative effectiveness cohort study used deidentified Medicare claims data from August 1, 2014, to September 30, 2018, with follow-up from drug initiation until treatment changes, death, or gap in Medicare enrollment (>30 days). Data analysis was performed from October 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries older than 65 years with T2D were included. A total of 45 788 patients (22 894 propensity score-matched pairs initiating treatment with either empagliflozin or liraglutide) were included in cohort 1, and 45 624 patients (22 812 propensity score-matched pairs initiating treatment with either empagliflozin or sitagliptin) were included in cohort 2. Exposures: Empagliflozin vs liraglutide (cohort 1) or empagliflozin vs sitagliptin (cohort 2). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were (1) modified major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), including a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, and (2) hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). Hazard ratios (HRs) and rate differences (RDs) per 1000 person-years were estimated, adjusting for 143 baseline covariates using 1:1 propensity score matching. Results: Among 45 788 patients in cohort 1, the mean (SD) age was 71.9 (5.1) years; 23 396 patients (51.1%) were female, 22 392 (48.9%) were male, and 38 049 (83.1%) were White. Among 45 624 patients in cohort 2, the mean (SD) age was 72.1 (5.1) years; 21 418 patients (46.9%) were female, 24 206 (53.1%) were male, and 37 814 (82.9%) were White. Relative to patients initiating liraglutide, those initiating empagliflozin had a similar risk of the modified MACE outcome (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79-1.03) and a reduced risk of HHF (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82). Across subgroups, empagliflozin was associated with a lower risk of the modified MACE outcome in patients with a history of ASCVD (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98) and HF (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60-1.00) compared with liraglutide, and potential heterogeneity in estimates was observed by sex (male: HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.71-1.01]; female: HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.94-1.42]; P = .02 for homogeneity). However, reductions in the risk of HHF were observed across most subgroups (eg, ASCVD: HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.51-0.85]; HF: HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.49-0.88]). Compared with sitagliptin, empagliflozin was associated with reduced risks of the modified MACE outcome (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.77) and HHF (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.36-0.56), which were consistent across all subgroups. Absolute benefits of empagliflozin vs sitagliptin were larger in patients with a history of ASCVD (modified MACE: RD, -17.6 [95% CI, -24.9 to -10.4]; HHF: RD, -16.7 [95% CI, -21.7 to -11.9]), HF (modified MACE: RD, -41.1 [95% CI, -59.9 to -22.6]; HHF: RD, -50.4 [95% CI, -67.5 to -33.9]), or CKD (modified MACE: RD, -26.7 [95% CI, -41.3 to -12.3]; HHF: RD, -31.9 [95% CI, -43.5 to -20.8]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness study of older adults, empagliflozin was associated with a lower risk of HHF (relative to both liraglutide and sitagliptin) and the modified MACE outcome (relative to sitagliptin), with larger absolute benefits in patients with established cardiorenal diseases. These findings suggest that older adults with T2D might benefit more from empagliflozin vs liraglutide or sitagliptin with respect to the risk of HHF; with respect to the risk of MACEs, empagliflozin might be preferable to liraglutide only in patients with cardiovascular disease history and to sitagliptin across all patient subgroups.

Comorbidities and cause-specific outcomes in heart failure across the ejection fraction spectrum: A blueprint for clinical trial design.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidities may differently affect treatment response and cause-specific outcomes in heart failure (HF) with preserved (HFpEF) vs. mid-range/mildly-reduced (HFmrEF) vs. reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction (EF), complicating trial design. In patients with HF, we performed a comprehensive analysis of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), atrial fibrillation (AF) chronic kidney disease (CKD), and cause-specific outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 42,583 patients from the Swedish HF registry (23% HFpEF, 21% HFmrEF, 56% HFrEF), 24% had T2DM, 51% CKD, 56% AF, and 8% all three comorbidities. HFpEF had higher prevalence of CKD and AF, HFmrEF had intermediate prevalence of AF, and prevalence of T2DM was similar across the EF spectrum. Patients with T2DM, AF and/or CKD were more likely to have also other comorbidities and more severe HF. Risk of cardiovascular (CV) events was highest in HFrEF vs. HFpEF and HFmrEF; non-CV risk was highest in HFpEF vs. HFmrEF vs. HFrEF. T2DM increased CV and non-CV events similarly but less so in HFpEF. CKD increased CV events somewhat more than non-CV events and less so in HFpEF. AF increased CV events considerably more than non-CV events and more so in HFpEF and HFmrEF. CONCLUSION: HFpEF is distinguished from HFmrEF and HFrEF by more comorbidities, non-CV events, but lower effect of T2DM and CKD on events. CV events are most frequent in HFrEF. To enrich for CV vs. non-CV events, trialists should not exclude patients with lower EF, AF and/or CKD, who report higher CV risk.