Cardiorenal effectiveness of empagliflozin vs. glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: final-year results from the EMPRISE study.

BACKGROUND: No randomized clinical trials have directly compared the cardiorenal effectiveness of empagliflozin and GLP-1RA agents with demonstrated cardioprotective effects in patients with a broad spectrum of cardiovascular risk. We reported the final-year results of the EMPRISE study, a monitoring program designed to evaluate the cardiorenal effectiveness of empagliflozin across broad patient subgroups. METHODS: We identified patients ≥ 18 years old with type 2 diabetes who initiated empagliflozin or GLP-1RA from 2014 to 2019 using US Medicare and commercial claims databases. After 1:1 propensity score matching using 143 baseline characteristics, we evaluated risks of outcomes including myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE - MI, stroke, or cardiovascular mortality), a composite of HHF or cardiovascular mortality, and progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) (in patients with chronic kidney disease stages 3-4). We estimated hazard ratios (HR) and rate differences (RD) per 1,000 person-years, overall and within subgroups of age, sex, baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and heart failure (HF). RESULTS: We identified 141,541 matched pairs. Compared with GLP-1RA, empagliflozin was associated with similar risks of MI or stroke [HR: 0.99 (0.92, 1.07); RD: -0.23 (-1.25, 0.79)], and lower risks of HHF [HR: 0.50 (0.44, 0.56); RD: -2.28 (-2.98, -1.59)], MACE [HR: 0.90 (0.82, 0.99); RD: -2.54 (-4.76, -0.32)], cardiovascular mortality or HHF [HR: 0.77 (0.69, 0.86); RD: -4.11 (-5.95, -2.29)], and ESKD [0.75 (0.60, 0.94); RD: -6.77 (-11.97, -1.61)]. Absolute risk reductions were larger in older patients and in those with baseline ASCVD/HF. They did not differ by sex. CONCLUSIONS: The cardiovascular benefits of empagliflozin vs. cardioprotective GLP-1RA agents were larger in older patients and in patients with history of ASCVD or HF, while they did not differ by sex. In patients with advanced CKD, empagliflozin was associated with risk reductions of progression to ESKD.

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.

Comparative effectiveness of Empagliflozin in reducing the burden of recurrent cardiovascular hospitalizations among older adults with diabetes in routine clinical care.

BACKGROUND: The effect of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) on the total (first and recurrent) burden of cardiovascular (CV) hospitalizations, including hospitalization for heart failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke, is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of empagliflozin, an SGLT2i, on total CV hospitalizations among older adults with T2D. METHODS: Using data from Medicare fee-for-service (08/2014-09/2017), we identified 1:1 propensity score-matched cohorts of patients with T2D initiating empagliflozin versus sitagliptin or empagliflozin versus glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), balancing >140 baseline covariates. We compared the risk of first and recurrent hospitalizations with any CV condition as the primary discharge diagnosis (ICD-9: 390-459; ICD-10: I00-I99), hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF), and myocardial infarctions (MI) or stroke. We estimated treatment effects based on the Ghosh-Lin semiparametric model for recurrent events as primary and joint frailty model as secondary analysis. RESULTS: We included 11,429 matched-pairs of empagliflozin and sitagliptin initiators and 17,502 matched-pairs of empagliflozin and GLP1-RA initiators with an average age of 72 years. Empagliflozin was associated with a reduced risk of total CV hospitalizations (0.80 [0.69-0.93] vs sitagliptin; 0.88 [0.77-1.00] vs GLP-1RA) and total HHF (0.70 [0.51-0.98] vs sitagliptin; 0.76 [0.56-1.03] vs GLP1-RA) over a mean follow up of 6.3 months. No differences between treatments were observed for MI or stroke. Results were consistent for joint frailty models. CONCLUSION: Empagliflozin, compared to sitagliptin or to a lesser extent GLP1-RA, was associated with a reduction in the burden of total CV hospitalizations and HHF in older patients with T2D.

Effectiveness and safety of empagliflozin in routine care patients: Results from the EMPagliflozin compaRative effectIveness and SafEty (EMPRISE) study.

AIM: To investigate effectiveness and safety outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating empagliflozin versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor treatment across the broad spectrum of cardiovascular risk. METHODS: In a population-based cohort study we identified 39 072 pairs of 1:1 propensity score-matched adult patients with T2D initiating empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors, using data from 2 US commercial insurance databases and Medicare between August 2014 and September 2017. The primary outcomes were a composite of myocardial infarction (MI)/stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). Safety outcomes were bone fractures, lower-limb amputations (LLAs), diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and acute kidney injury (AKI). We estimated pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusting for more than 140 baseline covariates. RESULTS: Study participants had a mean age of 60 years and only 28% had established cardiovascular disease. Compared to DPP-4 inhibitors, empagliflozin was associated with similar risk of MI/stroke (HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.81-1.21]), and lower risk of HHF (HR 0.48 [95% CI 0.35-0.67] and 0.63 [95% CI 0.54-0.74], based on a primary and any heart failure discharge diagnosis, respectively). The HR was 0.52 (95% CI 0.38-0.72) for all-cause mortality (ACM) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.70-0.98) for a composite of MI/stroke/ACM. Empagliflozin was associated with a similar risk of LLA and fractures, an increased risk of DKA (HR 1.71 [95% CI 1.08-2.71]) and a decreased risk of AKI (HR 0.60 [95% CI 0.43-0.85]). CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, the initiation of empagliflozin versus a DPP-4 inhibitor was associated with a lower risk of HHF, ACM and MI/stroke/ACM, a similar risk of MI/stroke, and a safety profile consistent with documented information.

Health Care Costs by Type of Expenditure across eGFR Stages among Patients with and without Diabetes, Cardiovascular Disease, and Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: CKD is associated with higher health care costs that increase with disease progression. However, research is lacking on the type of health care costs associated with CKD across all stages in a general population with a substantial comorbidity burden. METHODS: Using electronic medical records of an integrated delivery system, we evaluated health care costs by expenditure type in general and in patients with CKD by eGFR and presence of comorbidities. We categorized 146,132 patients with eGFR data in 2016 or 2017 and examined nonmutually exclusive groups according to presence of diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, or heart failure. We used 1 year of follow-up data to calculate outpatient, inpatient, emergency, pharmaceutical, dialysis, and total health care costs by eGFR (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes-defined eGFR categories), adjusted for age, sex, and nonwhite race. RESULTS: Mean total health care costs among patients with CKD without comorbidities were 31% higher than among patients without CKD ($7374 versus $5631, respectively). Hospitalizations accounted for 35% of total costs among those with CKD and no comorbidities but up to 55% among patients with CKD and heart failure. The proportion of costs attributable to hospitalizations accelerated with declining kidney function, reaching as high as 66%. CONCLUSIONS: Poorer kidney function and the presence of diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, or heart failure drive substantial health care costs and increase the proportion of costs attributable to inpatient care. The large contribution of inpatient costs begins in earlier stages of CKD and escalates as kidney function declines. Additional therapies to reduce CKD incidence, slow CKD progression, and lower hospitalization risk are needed to benefit patients and reduce CKD's economic burden.

Multimorbidity: can general practitioners identify the health conditions most important to their patients? Results from a national cross-sectional study in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: Faced with patients suffering from more than one chronic condition, or multimorbidity, general practitioners (GPs) must establish diagnostic and treatment priorities. Patients also set their own priorities to handle the everyday burdens associated with their multimorbidity and these may be different from the priorities established by their GP. A shared patient-GP agenda, driven by knowledge of each other's priorities, would seem central to managing patients with multimorbidity. We evaluated GPs' ability to identify the health condition most important to their patients. METHODS: Data on 888 patients were collected as part of a cross-sectional Swiss study on multimorbidity in family medicine. For the main analyses on patients-GP agreement, data from 572 of these patients could be included. GPs were asked to identify the two conditions which their patient considered most important, and we tested whether either of them agreed with the condition mentioned as most important by the patient. In the main analysis, we studied the agreement rate between GPs and patients by grouping items medically-related into 46 groups of conditions. Socio-demographic and clinical variables were fitted into univariate and multivariate models. RESULTS: In 54.9% of cases, GPs were able to identify the health condition most important to the patient. In the multivariate model, the only variable significantly associated with patient-GP agreement was the number of chronic conditions: the higher the number of conditions, the less likely the agreement. CONCLUSION: GPs were able to correctly identify the health condition most important to their patients in half of the cases. It therefore seems important that GPs learn how to better adapt treatment targets and priorities by taking patients' perspectives into account.

Prevalence and incidence of urinary tract and genital infections among patients with and without type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Epidemiological data on genitourinary infections (GUIs) comparing patients with and without type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is scant. We aimed to estimate the incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs), genital infections (GIs), or any GUI in total and stratified by history of GUI and sex. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We identified 39,295 patients in the Kaiser Permanente Northwest health plan with T2DM and an equal number of age and sex matched patients without diabetes. The cohort was followed for up to 9years (2006-2014). We calculated incidence rates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) of any GUI, UTIs and GIs adjusting for age, sex, race, BMI, presence of chronic kidney disease, annual number of outpatient visits, and diuretic use. RESULTS: Adjusted incidence of any GUI was 97.2/1000person-years (p-y) (95% CI 95.5-98.8) among the T2DM cohort vs. 79.7/1000 p-y (78.3-81.2) among those without diabetes. T2DM was associated with an adjusted 25% increased risk of UTI (rate ratio 1.25, 95% CI 1.22-1.29), a 26% increased risk of GI (1.26, 1.22-1.31) and a 22% increased risk of any GUI (1.22, 1.19-1.25). Incidence rates were lower among those with no GUI history, but the relative risks were similar. Women in both groups had higher incidence rates of GUIs than men. CONCLUSIONS: T2DM was associated with increased risks of any GUI, UTIs and GIs. Incidence rates of UTIs were higher than rates of GIs, but the relative risk of GIs was essentially identical. A similar pattern was observed when stratifying by sex. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY: RESEARCH QUESTIONS.

Determinants associated with deprivation in multimorbid patients in primary care-A cross-sectional study in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: Deprivation usually encompasses material, social, and health components. It has been shown to be associated with greater risks of developing chronic health conditions and of worse outcome in multimorbidity. The DipCare questionnaire, an instrument developed and validated in Switzerland for use in primary care, identifies patients subject to potentially higher levels of deprivation. OBJECTIVES: To identifying determinants of the material, social, and health profiles associated with deprivation in a sample of multimorbid, primary care patients, and thus set priorities in screening for deprivation in this population. DESIGN: Secondary analysis from a nationwide cross-sectional study in Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 886 adult patients suffering from at least three chronic health conditions. MAIN MEASURES: The outcomes of interest were the patients' levels of deprivation as measured using the DipCare questionnaire. Classification And Regression Tree analysis identified the independent variables that separated the examined population into groups with increasing deprivation scores. Finally, a sensitivity analysis (multivariate regression) confirmed the robustness of our results. KEY RESULTS: Being aged under 64 years old was associated with higher overall, material, and health deprivation; being aged over 77 years old was associated with higher social deprivation. Other variables associated with deprivation were the level of education, marital status, and the presence of depression or chronic pain. CONCLUSION: Specific profiles, such as being younger, were associated with higher levels of overall, material, and health deprivation in multimorbid patients. In contrast, patients over 77 years old reported higher levels of social deprivation. Furthermore, chronic pain and depression added to the score for health deprivation. It is important that GPs consider the possibility of deprivation in these multimorbid patients and are able to identify it, both in order to encourage treatment adherence and limit any forgoing of care for financial reasons.

[Multimorbidity in primary care from GPs' and patients' perspectives: a national database]. / La multimorbidité en médecine de famille du point de vue du médecin et du patient: une banque de données nationale.

Multimorbidity is often synonym with complexity and generally implies multiple medical treatments. In many cases, treatment guidelines traditionally defined for single conditions are not easily applicable. Primary care for individuals with multimorbidity requires complex patient-centered care and good communication between the patient and the general practitioner (GP). This often includes prioritizing among the different chronic conditions. The burden related to multimorbidity from the GP and the patients' perspective, as well as the prioritization of care between in patients with multimorbidity, has not been studied extensively yet. We report here the preliminary results of a national research aiming at characterizing these aspects in a sample of patients identified through their GP and suffering from at least 3 chronic conditions.

Multimorbidity in primary care: protocol of a national cross-sectional study in Switzerland.

INTRODUCTION: With the ageing of the population and the general improvement of care, an increasing number of people are living with multiple chronic health conditions or 'multimorbidity'. Multimorbidity often implies multiple medical treatments. As a consequence, the risk of adverse events and the time spent by patients for their treatments increase exponentially. In many cases, treatment guidelines traditionally defined for single conditions are not easily applicable. Primary care for individuals with multimorbidity requires complex patient-centred care and good communication between the patient and the general practitioner (GP). This often includes prioritising among the different chronic conditions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The main objectives of this study are to describe the burden related to multimorbidity (disease-related burden and burden of treatment) in primary care and to identify the factors influencing it. Other objectives include evaluating patients' perception of treatment burden and quality of life, assessing factors influencing that perception, and investigating prioritisation in the management of multimorbidity from the perspectives of GPs and patients. For this cross-sectional study, patient enrolment will take place in GP's private practices across Switzerland. A convenient sample of 100 GPs will participate; overall, 1000 patients with at least three chronic health conditions will be enrolled. Data will be collected as paper-based questionnaires for GPs and delayed telephone interview questionnaires for patients. GPs will provide demographic and practice-related data. In addition, each GP will complete a paper-based questionnaire for each patient that they enrol. Each patient will complete a telephone interview questionnaire. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the research ethics committee of Canton Vaud, Switzerland (Protocol 315/14). The results of the study will be reported in international peer-reviewed journals.