Evaluation for clinical benefit of metformin in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a national claims-based cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic progressive lung disease with high morbidity and limited treatment options. Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a common comorbid illness among patients with IPF and is often treated with metformin, the first-line agent in the management of T2DM. There is growing evidence demonstrating metformin's anti-fibrotic properties; however, there is little real-world clinical data regarding its potential effectiveness in IPF. This study aims to evaluate the clinical benefit of metformin in patients with IPF and T2DM. METHODS: This nationwide cohort study used de-identified administrative claims data from OptumLabs® Data Warehouse to identify 3599 adults with IPF and concomitant T2DM between January 1, 2014 and June 30, 2019. Two cohorts were created: a cohort treated with metformin (n = 1377) and a cohort not treated with metformin (n = 2222). A final 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort compared 1100 patients with IPF and T2DM receiving metformin to those with both diagnoses but not receiving metformin; matching accounted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, residence region, year, medications, oxygen use, smoking status, healthcare use, and comorbidities. Outcomes were all-cause mortality (primary) and hospitalizations (secondary). RESULTS: Among 2200 patients with IPF and T2DM included in this matched analysis, metformin therapy was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.58; p < 0.001) and hospitalizations (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93; p = 0.003) compared to patients not receiving metformin. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with IPF and T2DM, metformin therapy may be associated with improved clinical outcomes. However, further investigation with randomized clinical trials is necessary prior to metformin's broad implementation in the clinical management of IPF.

Adoption of the Antifibrotic Medications Pirfenidone and Nintedanib for Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.

Rationale: In October 2014, the antifibrotic medications pirfenidone and nintedanib became the first medications approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Since approval, there has been no nonregistry analysis of the real-world adoption of these medications in everyday clinical practice. Objectives: To evaluate the adoption, persistence, and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs of pirfenidone and nintedanib since their approval in the United States in 2014. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed by identifying privately insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with IPF. We then split the patients into three cohorts: those who were untreated and those who filled a prescription for either pirfenidone or nintedanib between October 1, 2014, and July 31, 2019. The primary outcome was adoption of the medications. Secondary outcomes included medication persistence and prescription drug costs. Results: A total of 10,996 patients with IPF were identified in the data set. A minority of patients (26.4%) with IPF identified in the cohort had started either medication since approval in 2014, with the adoption of both medications being comparable at around 13.2%. Those receiving the medications were younger (72 vs. 73.9 yr; P < 0.0001) and healthier (3.9 vs. 4.9 comorbidities; P < 0.0001) than those not receiving treatment. Men were significantly more likely to receive treatment than woman (30.0% vs. 21.9%; P < 0.0001). Among treated patients, 42.8% discontinued the medications during the study period. Patients' OOP expenses per month were high for both drugs (mean, $397.51 for nintedanib; mean, $394.49 for pirfenidone). Conclusions: The adoption of both the antifibrotic medications in the United States in everyday practice has been low since approval and may be associated with the high OOP cost.

The Shelf Life of a Safety Climate Assessment: How Long Until the Relationship with Safety-Critical Incidents Expires?

PURPOSE: This study investigates safety climate as both a leading (climate â†’ incident) and a lagging (incident â†’ climate) indicator of safety-critical incidents. This study examines the "shelf life" of a safety climate assessment and its relationships with incidents, both past and future, by examining series of incident rates in order to determine when these predictive relationships expire. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A survey was conducted at a large, multinational chemical manufacturing company, with 7,467 responses at 42 worksites in 12 countries linked to over 14,000 incident records during the 2 years prior and 2 years following the survey period. Regressions revealed that safety climate predicts incidents of varying levels of severity, but it predicts the most severe incidents over the shortest period of time. The same is true for incidents predicting safety climate, with more severe incidents having a shorter predictive window. For the most critical relationship (climate predicting more severe incidents), the ability of a safety climate assessment to predict incidents expires after 3 months. IMPLICATIONS: The choice of aggregation period in constructing incident rates is essential in understanding the safety climate-incident relationship. The common yearly count of incidents would make it seem that more severe incidents cannot be predicted by safety climate and also fails to show the strongest predictive effects of less severe incidents. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This research is the first to examine assumptions regarding aggregation periods when constructing safety-related incident rates. Our work guides organizations in planning their survey program, recommending more frequent measurement of safety climate.