Real-World Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (OW GLP-1RAs) in Comparison with Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors (DPP-4is) for Glycemic Control and Weight Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (RELATE).

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of once-weekly (OW) glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) has been established in several trials in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); however, real-world evidence on their effectiveness is limited. This study evaluated the effectiveness of OW GLP-1RA regarding glycemic and weight outcomes, and relative to DPP-4i in a comparator analysis. METHODS: This observational cohort study evaluated glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and weight outcomes in people with T2DM with two or more prescription claims for the same OW GLP-1RA using a pre-post study design (including for a semaglutide OW T2DM subgroup, hereafter referred to as semaglutide). Comparator analysis for the same outcome was performed for OW GLP-1RAs versus DPP-4i and semaglutide subgroup versus DPP-4i. A linked patient population from the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus database and the Ambulatory Electronic Medical Records (AEMR) database was analyzed using data from January 2017 to April 2022. HbA1c and weight were assessed at baseline and at the end of the 12-month post-index period. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for imbalances in baseline patient characteristics in the comparator analysis. RESULTS: In the pre-post analysis, a greater numerical reduction in HbA1c and weight was observed for the semaglutide subgroup (N = 354) relative to the OW GLP-1RA cohort (N = 921). In the semaglutide subgroup, 52.5% and 34.2% of patients achieved HbA1c of < 7.0% and ≥ 5% weight loss, respectively. For the comparator analysis, the OW GLP-1RAs (N = 651) were significantly more effective (p < 0.001) in reducing HbA1c (- 1.5% vs. -  1.0%) and weight (- 3.2 kg vs. -  1.0 kg) than the DPP-4is (N = 431). Similarly, the semaglutide cohort (N = 251) also displayed more effectiveness (p < 0.001) in reducing HbA1c (- 1.7% vs. -  0.9%) and weight (- 4.1 kg vs. -  1.3 kg) than the respective DPP-4i cohort (N = 417). Patients initiating OW GLP-1RAs, including the semaglutide cohort, were at least twice as likely to achieve HbA1c and weight outcomes as well as composite outcomes compared with those initiating DPP-4is. CONCLUSION: The study reinforces that OW GLP-1RAs are more effective in glycemic control and weight reduction compared with DPP-4is in people with T2DM in the real-world setting. These findings align with the recommendation in the current guidelines for utilizing glucose-lowering treatment regimens that support weight-management goals in people with T2DM.

In type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are used for managing blood sugar levels and major adverse cardiovascular event risk reduction. In clinical trials, once-weekly (OW) GLP-1RAs showed better control of blood sugar levels and body weight than those administered daily, as well as another class of daily T2DM medications called dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is). However, there is limited evidence of OW GLP-1RAs-based routine care to confirm these findings. This study gathered prescription and outcomes data for people with T2DM (January 2017­April 2022) from two linked US databases. Body weight measurements and glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) test results (measuring average blood sugar levels) were used to evaluate the effectiveness of OW GLP-1RAs (exenatide, dulaglutide, and semaglutide) via a pre-post analysis, and compare OW GLP-1RAs with DPP-4is. We found that treatment with semaglutide lowered body weight and blood sugar levels to a greater extent than OW GLP-1RAs in the pre-post analysis. In the comparator analysis, people receiving OW GLP-1RAs, including semaglutide, were at least twice as likely to achieve reduced HbA_1c levels and body weight compared with those receiving DPP-4is. People receiving OW GLP-1RAs were three times more likely than those on DPP-4is to achieve the recommended target of HbA_1c < 7.0% and weight loss ≥ 5%, while treatment with semaglutide increased this likelihood by > 4.6 times. This study shows clear benefits of OW GLP-1RAs, building on current evidence for integration of this treatment into overall management of T2DM.

Minimally invasive versus open surgery for the correction of adult degenerative scoliosis: a systematic review.

While open surgery has been the primary surgical approach for adult degenerative scoliosis, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) represents an alternative option and appears to be associated with reduced morbidity. Given the lack of consensus, we aimed to conduct a systematic review on available literature comparing MIS versus open surgery for adult degenerative scoliosis. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched through December 16, 2019, for studies that compared both MIS and open surgery in patients with degenerative scoliosis. Four cohort studies reporting on 350 patients met the inclusion criteria. In two studies, patients undergoing open surgery were younger and had more severe disease at baseline as compared with MIS. Patients who underwent MIS had less blood loss, shorter length of stay, and a reduced rate of complications and infections. Both MIS and open surgery resulted in a significant change in pain and disability scores and both approaches provided significant correction of deformity in all studies, although open surgery was associated with a greater change in pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL) and sagittal vertical axis (SVA) in two and three studies, respectively. In patients with adult degenerative scoliosis undergoing surgery, both MIS and open approaches appeared to offer comparable improvements in pain and function. However, MIS was associated with better safety outcomes, while open surgery provided greater correction of spinal deformity. Further studies are needed to identify specific subset of patients who may benefit from one approach versus the other.

The safety and efficacy of steroid treatment for acute spinal cord injury: A Systematic Review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The role for steroids in acute spinal cord injury (ASCI) remains unclear; while some studies have demonstrated the risks of steroids outweigh the benefits,a meta-analyses conducted on heterogeneous patient populations have shown significant motor improvement at short-term but not at long-term follow-up. Given the heterogeneity of the patient population in previous meta-analyses and the publication of a recent trial not included in these meta-analyses, we sought to re-assess and update the safety and short-term and long-term efficacy of steroid treatment following ASCI in a more homogeneous patient population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library through June 2019 for studies evaluating the utility of steroids within the first 8 h following ASCI. Neurological and safety outcomes were extracted for patients treated and not treated with steroids. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using the random-effects model. RESULTS: Twelve studies, including five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and seven observational studies (OBSs), were meta-analyzed. Overall, methylprednisolone was not associated with significant short-term or long-term improvements in motor or neurological scores based on RCTs or OBSs. An increased risk of hyperglycemia was shown in both RCTs (RR: 13.7; 95% CI: 1.93, 97.4; 1 study) and OBSs (RR: 2.9; 95% CI: 1.55, 5.41; 1 study). Risk for pneumonia was increased with steroids; while this increase was not statistically significant in the RCTs (pooled RR: 1.16; 95% C.I: 0.59, 2.29; 3 studies), it reached statistical significance in the OBSs (pooled RR: 2.00; 95% C.I: 1.32, 3.02; 6 studies). There was no statistically significant increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, decubitus ulcers, surgical site infections, sepsis, atelectasis, venous thromboembolism, urinary tract infections, or mortality among steroid-treated ASCI patients compared to untreated controls in either RCTs or OBSs. CONCLUSIONS: Methylprednisolone therapy within the first 8 h following ASCI failed to show a statistically significant short-term or long-term improvement in patients' overall motor or neurological scores compared to controls who were not administered steroids. For the same comparison, there was an increased risk of pneumonia and hyperglycemia compared to controls. Routine use of methylprednisone following ASCI should be carefully considered in the context of these results.