Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists Do Not Increase Aspiration During Upper Endoscopy in Patients With Diabetes.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Glucagon-like peptide-1-receptor agonists (GLP1-RAs) have been associated with greater retention of gastric contents, however, there is minimal controlled, population-based data evaluating the potential adverse effects of GLP1-RA in the periprocedural setting. We aimed to determine if there is increased risk of aspiration and aspiration-related complications after upper endoscopy in patients using GLP1-RAs. METHODS: We used a nationwide commercial administrative claims database to conduct a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 18 to 64 with type 2 diabetes who underwent outpatient upper endoscopy from 2005 to 2021. We identified 6,806,046 unique upper endoscopy procedures. We compared claims for aspiration and associated pulmonary adverse events in the 14 days after upper endoscopy between users of GLP1-RAs, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4is), and chronic opioids. We adjusted for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity score, underlying respiratory disease, and gastroparesis. RESULTS: We found that pulmonary adverse events after upper endoscopy are rare, ranging from 6 to 25 events per 10,000 procedures. When comparing GLP1-RAs with DPP4i, crude relative risks of aspiration (0.67; 95% CI, 0.25-1.75), aspiration pneumonia (0.95; 95% CI, 0.40-2.29), pneumonia (1.07; 95% CI, 0.62-1.86), or respiratory failure (0.75; 95% CI, 0.38-1.48) were not higher in patients prescribed a GLP1-RA. When comparing GLP1-RAs with opioids, crude relative risks were 0.42 (95% CI, 0.15-1.16) for aspiration, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.24-1.52) for aspiration pneumonia, 0.30 (95% CI, 0.19-0.49) for pneumonia, and 0.24 (95% CI, 0.13-0.45) for respiratory failure. These results were consistent across several sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: GLP1-RA use is not associated with an increased risk of pulmonary complications after upper endoscopy compared with DPP4i use in patients with type 2 diabetes.

A Framework for the Use and Likelihood of Regulatory Acceptance of Single-Arm Trials.

BACKGROUND: Single-arm clinical trials (SAT) are common in drug and biologic submissions for rare or life-threatening conditions, especially when no therapeutic options exist. External control arms (ECAs) improve interpretation of SATs but pose methodological and regulatory challenges. OBJECTIVE: Through narrative reviews and expert input, we developed a framework for considerations that might influence regulatory use and likelihood of regulatory acceptance of an SAT, identifying non-oncology first indication approvals as an area of interest. We systematically analyzed FDA and EMA approvals using SATs as pivotal evidence. The framework guided outcome abstraction on regulatory responses. METHODS: We examined all non-oncology FDA and EMA drug and biologic approvals for first indications from 2019 to 2022 to identify those with SAT as pivotal safety or efficacy evidence. We abstracted outcomes, key study design features, regulator responses to SAT and (where applicable) ECA design, and product label content. RESULTS: Among 20 SAT-based FDA approvals and 17 SAT-based EMA approvals, most common indications were progressive rare diseases with high unmet need/limited therapeutic options and a natural history without spontaneous improvement. Of the types of comparators, most were natural history cohorts (45% FDA; 47% EMA) and baseline controls (40% FDA; 47% EMA). Common critiques were of non-contemporaneous ECAs, subjective endpoints, and baseline covariate imbalance between arms. CONCLUSION: Based on recent FDA and EMA approvals, the likelihood of regulatory success for SATs with ECAs depends on many design, analytic, and data quality considerations. Our framework is useful in early drug development when considering SAT strategies for evidence generation.