Safety and effectiveness of SGLT2 inhibitors in a UK population with type 2 diabetes and aged over 70 years: an instrumental variable approach.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Older adults are under-represented in trials, meaning the benefits and risks of glucose-lowering agents in this age group are unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in people with type 2 diabetes aged over 70 years using causal analysis. METHODS: Hospital-linked UK primary care data (Clinical Practice Research Datalink, 2013-2020) were used to compare adverse events and effectiveness in individuals initiating SGLT2i compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i). Analysis was age-stratified: <70 years (SGLT2i n=66,810, DPP4i n=76,172), ≥70 years (SGLT2i n=10,419, DPP4i n=33,434). Outcomes were assessed using the instrumental variable causal inference method and prescriber preference as the instrument. RESULTS: Risk of diabetic ketoacidosis was increased with SGLT2i in those aged ≥70 (incidence rate ratio compared with DPP4i: 3.82 [95% CI 1.12, 13.03]), but not in those aged <70 (1.12 [0.41, 3.04]). However, incidence rates with SGLT2i in those ≥70 was low (29.6 [29.5, 29.7]) per 10,000 person-years. SGLT2i were associated with similarly increased risk of genital infection in both age groups (incidence rate ratio in those <70: 2.27 [2.03, 2.53]; ≥70: 2.16 [1.77, 2.63]). There was no evidence of an increased risk of volume depletion, poor micturition control, urinary frequency, falls or amputation with SGLT2i in either age group. In those ≥70, HbA1c reduction was similar between SGLT2i and DPP4i (-0.3 mmol/mol [-1.6, 1.1], -0.02% [0.1, 0.1]), but in those <70, SGLT2i were more effective (-4 mmol/mol [4.8, -3.1], -0.4% [-0.4, -0.3]). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Causal analysis suggests SGLT2i are effective in adults aged ≥70 years, but increase risk for genital infections and diabetic ketoacidosis. Our study extends RCT evidence to older adults with type 2 diabetes.

Phenotype-based targeted treatment of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: A precision medicine approach in type 2 diabetes could enhance targeting specific glucose-lowering therapies to individual patients most likely to benefit. We aimed to use the recently developed Bayesian causal forest (BCF) method to develop and validate an individualised treatment selection algorithm for two major type 2 diabetes drug classes, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA). METHODS: We designed a predictive algorithm using BCF to estimate individual-level conditional average treatment effects for 12-month glycaemic outcome (HbA1c) between SGLT2i and GLP1-RA, based on routine clinical features of 46,394 people with type 2 diabetes in primary care in England (Clinical Practice Research Datalink; 27,319 for model development, 19,075 for hold-out validation), with additional external validation in 2252 people with type 2 diabetes from Scotland (SCI-Diabetes [Tayside & Fife]). Differences in glycaemic outcome with GLP1-RA by sex seen in clinical data were replicated in clinical trial data (HARMONY programme: liraglutide [n=389] and albiglutide [n=1682]). As secondary outcomes, we evaluated the impacts of targeting therapy based on glycaemic response on weight change, tolerability and longer-term risk of new-onset microvascular complications, macrovascular complications and adverse kidney events. RESULTS: Model development identified marked heterogeneity in glycaemic response, with 4787 (17.5%) of the development cohort having a predicted HbA1c benefit >3 mmol/mol (>0.3%) with SGLT2i over GLP1-RA and 5551 (20.3%) having a predicted HbA1c benefit >3 mmol/mol with GLP1-RA over SGLT2i. Calibration was good in hold-back validation, and external validation in an independent Scottish dataset identified clear differences in glycaemic outcomes between those predicted to benefit from each therapy. Sex, with women markedly more responsive to GLP1-RA, was identified as a major treatment effect modifier in both the UK observational datasets and in clinical trial data: HARMONY-7 liraglutide (GLP1-RA): 4.4 mmol/mol (95% credible interval [95% CrI] 2.2, 6.3) (0.4% [95% CrI 0.2, 0.6]) greater response in women than men. Targeting the two therapies based on predicted glycaemic response was also associated with improvements in short-term tolerability and long-term risk of new-onset microvascular complications. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Precision medicine approaches can facilitate effective individualised treatment choice between SGLT2i and GLP1-RA therapies, and the use of routinely collected clinical features for treatment selection could support low-cost deployment in many countries.

Dirichlet process mixture models to impute missing predictor data in counterfactual prediction models: an application to predict optimal type 2 diabetes therapy.

BACKGROUND: The handling of missing data is a challenge for inference and regression modelling. A particular challenge is dealing with missing predictor information, particularly when trying to build and make predictions from models for use in clinical practice. METHODS: We utilise a flexible Bayesian approach for handling missing predictor information in regression models. This provides practitioners with full posterior predictive distributions for both the missing predictor information (conditional on the observed predictors) and the outcome-of-interest. We apply this approach to a previously proposed counterfactual treatment selection model for type 2 diabetes second-line therapies. Our approach combines a regression model and a Dirichlet process mixture model (DPMM), where the former defines the treatment selection model, and the latter provides a flexible way to model the joint distribution of the predictors. RESULTS: We show that DPMMs can model complex relationships between predictor variables and can provide powerful means of fitting models to incomplete data (under missing-completely-at-random and missing-at-random assumptions). This framework ensures that the posterior distribution for the parameters and the conditional average treatment effect estimates automatically reflect the additional uncertainties associated with missing data due to the hierarchical model structure. We also demonstrate that in the presence of multiple missing predictors, the DPMM model can be used to explore which variable(s), if collected, could provide the most additional information about the likely outcome. CONCLUSIONS: When developing clinical prediction models, DPMMs offer a flexible way to model complex covariate structures and handle missing predictor information. DPMM-based counterfactual prediction models can also provide additional information to support clinical decision-making, including allowing predictions with appropriate uncertainty to be made for individuals with incomplete predictor data.

The impact of population-level HbA1c screening on reducing diabetes diagnostic delay in middle-aged adults: a UK Biobank analysis.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Screening programmes can detect cases of undiagnosed diabetes earlier than symptomatic or incidental diagnosis. However, the improvement in time to diagnosis achieved by screening programmes compared with routine clinical care is unclear. We aimed to use the UK Biobank population-based study to provide the first population-based estimate of the reduction in time to diabetes diagnosis that could be achieved by HbA1c-based screening in middle-aged adults. METHODS: We studied UK Biobank participants aged 40-70 years with HbA1c measured at enrolment (but not fed back to participants/clinicians) and linked primary and secondary healthcare data (n=179,923) and identified those with a pre-existing diabetes diagnosis (n=13,077, 7.3%). Among the remaining participants (n=166,846) without a diabetes diagnosis, we used an elevated enrolment HbA1c level (≥48 mmol/mol [≥6.5%]) to identify those with undiagnosed diabetes. For this group, we used Kaplan-Meier analysis to assess the time between enrolment HbA1c measurement and subsequent clinical diabetes diagnosis up to 10 years, and Cox regression to identify clinical factors associated with delayed diabetes diagnosis. RESULTS: In total, 1.0% (1703/166,846) of participants without a diabetes diagnosis had undiagnosed diabetes based on calibrated HbA1c levels at UK Biobank enrolment, with a median HbA1c level of 51.3 mmol/mol (IQR 49.1-57.2) (6.8% [6.6-7.4]). These participants represented an additional 13.0% of diabetes cases in the study population relative to the 13,077 participants with a diabetes diagnosis. The median time to clinical diagnosis for those with undiagnosed diabetes was 2.2 years, with a median HbA1c at clinical diagnosis of 58.2 mmol/mol (IQR 51.0-80.0) (7.5% [6.8-9.5]). Female participants with lower HbA1c and BMI measurements at enrolment experienced the longest delay to clinical diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Our population-based study shows that HbA1c screening in adults aged 40-70 years can reduce the time to diabetes diagnosis by a median of 2.2 years compared with routine clinical care. The findings support the use of HbA1c screening to reduce the time for which individuals are living with undiagnosed diabetes.

Recent UK type 2 diabetes treatment guidance represents a near whole population indication for SGLT2-inhibitor therapy.

Recent type 2 diabetes guidance from the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) proposes offering SGLT2-inhibitor therapy to people with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or heart failure, and considering SGLT2-inhibitor therapy for those at high-risk of cardiovascular disease defined as a 10-year cardiovascular risk of > 10% using the QRISK2 algorithm. We used a contemporary population-representative UK cohort of people with type 2 diabetes to assess the implications of this guidance. 93.1% of people currently on anti-hyperglycaemic treatment are now recommended or considered for SGLT2-inhibitor therapy under the new guidance, with the majority (59.6%) eligible on the basis of QRISK2 rather than established ASCVD or heart failure (33.6%). Applying these results to the approximately 2.20 million people in England currently on anti-hyperglycaemic medication suggests 1.75 million people will now be considered for additional SGLT2-inhibitor therapy, taking the total cost of SGLT2-inhibitor therapy in England to over £1 billion per year. Given that older people, those of non-white ethnic groups, and those at lower cardiovascular disease risk were underrepresented in the clinical trials which were used to inform this guidance, careful evaluation of the impact and safety of increased SGLT2-inhibitor prescribing across different populations is urgently required. Evidence of benefit should be weighed against the major cost implications for the UK National Health Service.

Comparison of causal forest and regression-based approaches to evaluate treatment effect heterogeneity: an application for type 2 diabetes precision medicine.

OBJECTIVE: Precision medicine requires reliable identification of variation in patient-level outcomes with different available treatments, often termed treatment effect heterogeneity. We aimed to evaluate the comparative utility of individualized treatment selection strategies based on predicted individual-level treatment effects from a causal forest machine learning algorithm and a penalized regression model. METHODS: Cohort study characterizing individual-level glucose-lowering response (6 month reduction in HbA1c) in people with type 2 diabetes initiating SGLT2-inhibitor or DPP4-inhibitor therapy. Model development set comprised 1,428 participants in the CANTATA-D and CANTATA-D2 randomised clinical trials of SGLT2-inhibitors versus DPP4-inhibitors. For external validation, calibration of observed versus predicted differences in HbA1c in patient strata defined by size of predicted HbA1c benefit was evaluated in 18,741 patients in UK primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink). RESULTS: Heterogeneity in treatment effects was detected in clinical trial participants with both approaches (proportion predicted to have a benefit on SGLT2-inhibitor therapy over DPP4-inhibitor therapy: causal forest: 98.6%; penalized regression: 81.7%). In validation, calibration was good with penalized regression but sub-optimal with causal forest. A strata with an HbA1c benefit > 10 mmol/mol with SGLT2-inhibitors (3.7% of patients, observed benefit 11.0 mmol/mol [95%CI 8.0-14.0]) was identified using penalized regression but not causal forest, and a much larger strata with an HbA1c benefit 5-10 mmol with SGLT2-inhibitors was identified with penalized regression (regression: 20.9% of patients, observed benefit 7.8 mmol/mol (95%CI 6.7-8.9); causal forest 11.6%, observed benefit 8.7 mmol/mol (95%CI 7.4-10.1). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with recent results for outcome prediction with clinical data, when evaluating treatment effect heterogeneity researchers should not rely on causal forest or other similar machine learning algorithms alone, and must compare outputs with standard regression, which in this evaluation was superior.

DR15-DQ6 remains dominantly protective against type 1 diabetes throughout the first five decades of life.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Among white European children developing type 1 diabetes, the otherwise common HLA haplotype DR15-DQ6 is rare, and highly protective. Adult-onset type 1 diabetes is now known to represent more overall cases than childhood onset, but it is not known whether DR15-DQ6 is protective in older-adult-onset type 1 diabetes. We sought to quantify DR15-DQ6 protection against type 1 diabetes as age of onset increased. METHODS: In two independent cohorts we assessed the proportion of type 1 diabetes cases presenting through the first 50 years of life with DR15-DQ6, compared with population controls. In the After Diabetes Diagnosis Research Support System-2 (ADDRESS-2) cohort (n = 1458) clinician-diagnosed type 1 diabetes was confirmed by positivity for one or more islet-specific autoantibodies. In UK Biobank (n = 2502), we estimated type 1 diabetes incidence rates relative to baseline HLA risk for each HLA group using Poisson regression. Analyses were restricted to white Europeans and were performed in three groups according to age at type 1 diabetes onset: 0-18 years, 19-30 years and 31-50 years. RESULTS: DR15-DQ6 was protective against type 1 diabetes through to age 50 years (OR < 1 for each age group, all p < 0.001). The following ORs for type 1 diabetes, relative to a neutral HLA genotype, were observed in ADDRESS-2: age 5-18 years OR 0.16 (95% CI 0.08, 0.31); age 19-30 years OR 0.10 (0.04, 0.23); and age 31-50 years OR 0.37 (0.21, 0.68). DR15-DQ6 also remained highly protective at all ages in UK Biobank. Without DR15-DQ6, the presence of major type 1 diabetes high-risk haplotype (either DR3-DQ2 or DR4-DQ8) was associated with increased risk of type 1 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: HLA DR15-DQ6 confers dominant protection from type 1 diabetes across the first five decades of life.

Choice of HbA1c threshold for identifying individuals at high risk of type 2 diabetes and implications for diabetes prevention programmes: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is common and increasing in prevalence. It is possible to prevent or delay T2D using lifestyle intervention programmes. Entry to these programmes is usually determined by a measure of glycaemia in the 'intermediate' range. This paper investigated the relationship between HbA1c and future diabetes risk and determined the impact of varying thresholds to identify those at high risk of developing T2D. METHODS: We studied 4227 participants without diabetes aged ≥ 40 years recruited to the Exeter 10,000 population cohort in South West England. HbA1c was measured at study recruitment with repeat HbA1c available as part of usual care. Absolute risk of developing diabetes within 5 years, defined by HbA1c ≥ 48 mmol/mol (6.5%), according to baseline HbA1c, was assessed by a flexible parametric survival model. RESULTS: The overall absolute 5-year risk (95% CI) of developing T2D in the cohort was 4.2% (3.6, 4.8%). This rose to 7.1% (6.1, 8.2%) in the 56% (n = 2358/4224) of participants classified 'high-risk' with HbA1c ≥ 39 mmol/mol (5.7%; ADA criteria). Under IEC criteria, HbA1c ≥ 42 mmol/mol (6.0%), 22% (n = 929/4277) of the cohort was classified high-risk with 5-year risk 14.9% (12.6, 17.2%). Those with the highest HbA1c values (44-47 mmol/mol [6.2-6.4%]) had much higher 5-year risk, 26.4% (22.0, 30.5%) compared with 2.1% (1.5, 2.6%) for 39-41 mmol/mol (5.7-5.9%) and 7.0% (5.4, 8.6%) for 42-43 mmol/mol (6.0-6.1%). Changing the entry criterion to prevention programmes from 39 to 42 mmol/mol (5.7-6.0%) reduced the proportion classified high-risk by 61%, and increased the positive predictive value (PPV) from 5.8 to 12.4% with negligible impact on the negative predictive value (NPV), 99.6% to 99.1%. Increasing the threshold further, to 44 mmol/mol (6.2%), reduced those classified high-risk by 59%, and markedly increased the PPV from 12.4 to 23.2% and had little impact on the NPV (99.1% to 98.5%). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of people are identified as high-risk using current thresholds. Increasing the risk threshold markedly reduces the number of people that would be classified as high-risk and entered into prevention programmes, although this must be balanced against cases missed. Raising the entry threshold would allow limited intervention opportunities to be focused on those most likely to develop T2D.

The association between mechanical ventilator compatible bed occupancy and mortality risk in intensive care patients with COVID-19: a national retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The literature paints a complex picture of the association between mortality risk and ICU strain. In this study, we sought to determine if there is an association between mortality risk in intensive care units (ICU) and occupancy of beds compatible with mechanical ventilation, as a proxy for strain. METHODS: A national retrospective observational cohort study of 89 English hospital trusts (i.e. groups of hospitals functioning as single operational units). Seven thousand one hundred thirty-three adults admitted to an ICU in England between 2 April and 1 December, 2020 (inclusive), with presumed or confirmed COVID-19, for whom data was submitted to the national surveillance programme and met study inclusion criteria. A Bayesian hierarchical approach was used to model the association between hospital trust level (mechanical ventilation compatible), bed occupancy, and in-hospital all-cause mortality. Results were adjusted for unit characteristics (pre-pandemic size), individual patient-level demographic characteristics (age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation index, time-to-ICU admission), and recorded chronic comorbidities (obesity, diabetes, respiratory disease, liver disease, heart disease, hypertension, immunosuppression, neurological disease, renal disease). RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five thousand six hundred patient days were observed, with a mortality rate of 19.4 per 1000 patient days. Adjusting for patient-level factors, mortality was higher for admissions during periods of high occupancy (> 85% occupancy versus the baseline of 45 to 85%) [OR 1.23 (95% posterior credible interval (PCI): 1.08 to 1.39)]. In contrast, mortality was decreased for admissions during periods of low occupancy (< 45% relative to the baseline) [OR 0.83 (95% PCI 0.75 to 0.94)]. CONCLUSION: Increasing occupancy of beds compatible with mechanical ventilation, a proxy for operational strain, is associated with a higher mortality risk for individuals admitted to ICU. Further research is required to establish if this is a causal relationship or whether it reflects strain on other operational factors such as staff. If causal, the result highlights the importance of strategies to keep ICU occupancy low to mitigate the impact of this type of resource saturation.

Improving Survival of Critical Care Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 in England: A National Cohort Study, March to June 2020.

OBJECTIVES: To measure temporal trends in survival over time in people with severe coronavirus disease 2019 requiring critical care (high dependency unit or ICU) management, and to assess whether temporal variation in mortality was explained by changes in patient demographics and comorbidity burden over time. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort; based on data reported to the COVID-19 Hospitalisation in England Surveillance System. The primary outcome was in-hospital 30-day all-cause mortality. Unadjusted survival was estimated by calendar week of admission, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted survival, controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, major comorbidities, and geographical region. SETTING: One hundred eight English critical care units. PATIENTS: All adult (18 yr +) coronavirus disease 2019 specific critical care admissions between March 1, 2020, and June 27, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one thousand eighty-two critical care patients (high dependency unit n = 15,367; ICU n = 5,715) were included. Unadjusted survival at 30 days was lowest for people admitted in late March in both high dependency unit (71.6% survival) and ICU (58.0% survival). By the end of June, survival had improved to 92.7% in high dependency unit and 80.4% in ICU. Improvements in survival remained after adjustment for patient characteristics (age, sex, ethnicity, and major comorbidities) and geographical region. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a substantial improvement in survival amongst people admitted to critical care with coronavirus disease 2019 in England, with markedly higher survival rates in people admitted in May and June compared with those admitted in March and April. Our analysis suggests this improvement is not due to temporal changes in the age, sex, ethnicity, or major comorbidity burden of admitted patients.

Trends in 28-Day Mortality of Critical Care Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 in the United Kingdom: A National Cohort Study, March 2020 to January 2021.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the previously described trend of improving mortality in people with coronavirus disease 2019 in critical care during the first wave was maintained, plateaued, or reversed during the second wave in United Kingdom, when B117 became the dominant strain. DESIGN: National retrospective cohort study. SETTING: All English hospital trusts (i.e., groups of hospitals functioning as single operational units), reporting critical care admissions (high dependency unit and ICU) to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalization in England Surveillance System. PATIENTS: A total of 49,862 (34,336 high dependency unit and 15,526 ICU) patients admitted between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021 (inclusive). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was inhospital 28-day mortality by calendar month of admission, from March 2020 to January 2021. Unadjusted mortality was estimated, and Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate adjusted mortality, controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, major comorbidities, social deprivation, geographic location, and operational strain (using bed occupancy as a proxy). Mortality fell to trough levels in June 2020 (ICU: 22.5% [95% CI, 18.2-27.4], high dependency unit: 8.0% [95% CI, 6.4-9.6]) but then subsequently increased up to January 2021: (ICU: 30.6% [95% CI, 29.0-32.2] and high dependency unit, 16.2% [95% CI, 15.3-17.1]). Comparing patients admitted during June-September 2020 with those admitted during December 2020-January 2021, the adjusted mortality was 59% (CI range, 39-82) higher in high dependency unit and 88% (CI range, 62-118) higher in ICU for the later period. This increased mortality was seen in all subgroups including those under 65. CONCLUSIONS: There was a marked deterioration in outcomes for patients admitted to critical care at the peak of the second wave of coronavirus disease 2019 in United Kingdom (December 2020-January 2021), compared with the post-first-wave period (June 2020-September 2020). The deterioration was independent of recorded patient characteristics and occupancy levels. Further research is required to determine to what extent this deterioration reflects the impact of the B117 variant of concern.

What to do with diabetes therapies when HbA1c lowering is inadequate: add, switch, or continue? A MASTERMIND study.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear what to do when people with type 2 diabetes have had no or a limited glycemic response to a recently introduced medication. Intra-individual HbA1c variability can obscure true response. Some guidelines suggest stopping apparently ineffective therapy, but no studies have addressed this issue. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort analysis using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), we assessed the outcome of 55,530 patients with type 2 diabetes starting their second or third non-insulin glucose-lowering medication, with a baseline HbA1c > 58 mmol/mol (7.5%). For those with no HbA1c improvement or a limited response at 6 months (HbA1c fall < 5.5 mmol/mol [0.5%]), we compared HbA1c 12 months later in those who continued their treatment unchanged, switched to new treatment, or added new treatment. RESULTS: An increase or a limited reduction in HbA1c was common, occurring in 21.9% (12,168/55,230), who had a mean HbA1c increase of 2.5 mmol/mol (0.2%). After this limited response, continuing therapy was more frequent (n = 9308; 74%) than switching (n = 1177; 9%) or adding (n = 2163; 17%). Twelve months later, in those who switched medication, HbA1c fell (- 6.8 mmol/mol [- 0.6%], 95%CI - 7.7, - 6.0) only slightly more than those who continued unchanged (- 5.1 mmol/mol [- 0.5%], 95%CI - 5.5, - 4.8). Adding another new therapy was associated with a substantially better reduction (- 12.4 mmol/mol [- 1.1%], 95%CI - 13.1, - 11.7). Propensity score-matched subgroups demonstrated similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Where glucose-lowering therapy does not appear effective on initial HbA1c testing, changing agents does not improve glycemic control. The initial agent should be continued with another therapy added.

Time trends in prescribing of type 2 diabetes drugs, glycaemic response and risk factors: A retrospective analysis of primary care data, 2010-2017.

AIM: To describe population-level time trends in prescribing patterns of type 2 diabetes therapy, and in short-term clinical outcomes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c], weight, blood pressure, hypoglycaemia and treatment discontinuation) after initiating new therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 81 532 people with type 2 diabetes initiating a first- to fourth-line drug in primary care between 2010 and 2017 inclusive in United Kingdom electronic health records (Clinical Practice Research Datalink). Trends in new prescriptions and subsequent 6- and 12-month adjusted changes in glycaemic response (reduction in HbA1c), weight, blood pressure and rates of hypoglycaemia and treatment discontinuation were examined. RESULTS: Use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors as second-line therapy near doubled (41% of new prescriptions in 2017 vs. 22% in 2010), replacing sulphonylureas as the most common second-line drug (29% in 2017 vs. 53% in 2010). Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors, introduced in 2013, comprised 17% of new first- to fourth-line prescriptions by 2017. First-line use of metformin remained stable (91% of new prescriptions in 2017 vs. 91% in 2010). Over the study period there was little change in average glycaemic response and in the proportion of people discontinuing treatment. There was a modest reduction in weight after initiating second- and third-line therapy (improvement in weight change 2017 vs. 2010 for second-line therapy: -1.5 kg, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.9, -1.1; P < 0.001), and a slight reduction in systolic blood pressure after initiating first-, second- and third-line therapy (improvement in systolic blood pressure change 2017 vs. 2010 range: -1.7 to -2.1 mmHg; all P < 0.001). Hypoglycaemia rates decreased over time with second-line therapy (incidence rate ratio 0.94 per year, 95% CI 0.88, 1.00; P = 0.04), mirroring the decline in use of sulphonylureas. CONCLUSIONS: Recent changes in prescribing of therapy for people with type 2 diabetes have not led to a change in glycaemic response and have resulted in modest improvements in other population-level short-term clinical outcomes.

Time trends and geographical variation in prescribing of drugs for diabetes in England from 1998 to 2017.

AIMS: To measure the variation in prescribing of second-line non-insulin diabetes drugs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated time trends for the period 1998 to 2016, using England's publicly available prescribing datasets, and stratified these by the order in which they were prescribed to patients using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. We calculated the proportion of each class of diabetes drug as a percentage of the total per year. We evaluated geographical variation in prescribing using general practice-level data for the latest 12 months (to August 2017), with aggregation to Clinical Commissioning Groups. We calculated percentiles and ranges, and plotted maps. RESULTS: Prescribing of therapy after metformin is changing rapidly. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor use has increased markedly, with DPP-4 inhibitors now the most common second-line drug (43% prescriptions in 2016). The use of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors also increased rapidly (14% new second-line, 27% new third-line prescriptions in 2016). There was wide geographical variation in choice of therapies and average spend per patient. In contrast, metformin was consistently used as a first-line treatment in accordance with guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: In England there is extensive geographical variation in the prescribing of diabetes drugs after metformin, and increasing use of higher-cost DPP-4 inhibitors and SGLT-2 inhibitors compared with low-cost sulphonylureas. Our findings strongly support the case for comparative effectiveness trials of current diabetes drugs.

Risk factor associations for severe COVID-19, influenza and pneumonia in people with diabetes to inform future pandemic preparations: UK population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare clinical and sociodemographic risk factors for severe COVID-19, influenza and pneumonia, in people with diabetes. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING: UK primary care records (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) linked to mortality and hospital records. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with type 1 and type 2 diabetes (COVID-19 cohort: n=43 033 type 1 diabetes and n=584 854 type 2 diabetes, influenza and pneumonia cohort: n=42 488 type 1 diabetes and n=585 289 type 2 diabetes). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: COVID-19 hospitalisation from 1 February 2020 to 31 October 2020 (pre-COVID-19 vaccination roll-out), and influenza and pneumonia hospitalisation from 1 September 2016 to 31 May 2019 (pre-COVID-19 pandemic). Secondary outcomes were COVID-19 and pneumonia mortality. Associations between clinical and sociodemographic risk factors and each outcome were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. In people with type 2 diabetes, we explored modifying effects of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body mass index (BMI) by age, sex and ethnicity. RESULTS: In type 2 diabetes, poor glycaemic control and severe obesity were consistently associated with increased risk of hospitalisation for COVID-19, influenza and pneumonia. The highest HbA1c and BMI-associated relative risks were observed in people aged under 70 years. Sociodemographic-associated risk differed markedly by respiratory infection, particularly for ethnicity. Compared with people of white ethnicity, black and south Asian groups had a greater risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation, but a lesser risk of pneumonia hospitalisation. Risk factor associations for type 1 diabetes and for type 2 diabetes mortality were broadly consistent with the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical risk factors of high HbA1c and severe obesity are consistently associated with severe outcomes from COVID-19, influenza and pneumonia, especially in younger people. In contrast, associations with sociodemographic risk factors differed by type of respiratory infection. This emphasises that risk stratification should be specific to individual respiratory infections.