Effectiveness and safety of empagliflozin: final results from the EMPRISE study.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Limited evidence exists on the comparative safety and effectiveness of empagliflozin against alternative glucose-lowering medications in individuals with type 2 diabetes with the broad spectrum of cardiovascular risk. The EMPagliflozin compaRative effectIveness and SafEty (EMPRISE) cohort study was designed to monitor the safety and effectiveness of empagliflozin periodically for a period of 5 years with data collection from electronic healthcare databases. METHODS: We identified individuals ≥18 years old with type 2 diabetes who initiated empagliflozin or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) from 2014 to 2019 using US Medicare and commercial claims databases. After 1:1 propensity score matching using 143 baseline characteristics, we identified four a priori-defined effectiveness outcomes: (1) myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke; (2) hospitalisation for heart failure (HHF); (3) major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE); and (4) cardiovascular mortality or HHF. Safety outcomes included lower-limb amputations, non-vertebral fractures, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), acute kidney injury (AKI), severe hypoglycaemia, retinopathy progression, and short-term kidney and bladder cancers. We estimated HRs and rate differences (RDs) per 1000 person-years, overall and stratified by age, sex, baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and heart failure. RESULTS: We identified 115,116 matched pairs. Compared with DPP-4i, empagliflozin was associated with lower risks of MI/stroke (HR 0.88 [95% CI 0.81, 0.96]; RD -2.08 [95% CI (-3.26, -0.90]), HHF (HR 0.50 [0.44, 0.56]; RD -5.35 [-6.22, -4.49]), MACE (HR 0.73 [0.62, 0.86]; RD -6.37 [-8.98, -3.77]) and cardiovascular mortality/HHF (HR 0.57 [0.47, 0.69]; RD -10.36 [-12.63, -8.12]). Absolute benefits were larger in older individuals and in those with ASCVD/heart failure. Empagliflozin was associated with an increased risk of DKA (HR 1.78 [1.44, 2.19]; RD 1.59 [1.08, 2.09]); decreased risks of AKI (HR 0.62 [0.54, 0.72]; RD -2.39 [-3.08, -1.71]), hypoglycaemia (HR 0.75 [0.67, 0.84]; RD -2.46 [-3.32, -1.60]) and retinopathy progression (HR 0.78 [0.63, 0.96)]; RD -9.49 [-16.97, -2.10]); and similar risks of other safety events. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Empagliflozin relative to DPP-4i was associated with risk reductions of MI or stroke, HHF, MACE and the composite of cardiovascular mortality or HHF. Absolute risk reductions were larger in older individuals and in those who had history of ASCVD or heart failure. Regarding the safety outcomes, empagliflozin was associated with an increased risk of DKA and lower risks of AKI, hypoglycaemia and progression to proliferative retinopathy, with no difference in the short-term risks of lower-extremity amputation, non-vertebral fractures, kidney and renal pelvis cancer, and bladder cancer.

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 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.

Confirming diagnoses of acute pancreatitis with commonly available electronic data.

BACKGROUND: Recorded diagnoses of acute pancreatitis (AP) are often inaccurate resulting in limited utility for case identification in large data sources, especially where electronic medical records (EMR) are not available. Our objectives were to validate diagnoses of AP and to identify an algorithm using additional data to enhance the identification of AP cases in different data sources. METHODS: We randomly sampled 550 persons with an AP diagnosis from inpatient data or outpatient or emergency department diagnoses immediately preceding a hospitalization and 150 negative controls with a differential diagnosis (cholangitis or cholecystitis). We conducted an EMR review to confirm cases of AP and used logistic regression to develop EMR-based and claims-based algorithms to identify confirmed AP cases with variables typically available in electronic data sources. Algorithm performance was assessed using the C statistic, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value. RESULTS: Of the 550 patients with an AP diagnosis, 467 (84.9%) were confirmed cases. An AP diagnosis alone had high sensitivity (98.9%), modest specificity (63.6%), and a C statistic of 0.813. An EMR-based model using an AP diagnosis, body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 , a serum lipase >3 times upper limit of normal and diabetes attained a C-statistic of 0.914. A claims-based model attained a C-statistic of 0.892 using an AP diagnosis and dichotomous variables for whether a serum lipase test and/or an abdominal ultrasound was performed. CONCLUSIONS: Our simple algorithms increased the accuracy of identification of AP cases providing widespread applicability to epidemiological and drug safety studies.

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.

Empagliflozin and the Risk of Heart Failure Hospitalization in Routine Clinical Care.

BACKGROUND: The EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 diabetes Mellitus Patients) showed that empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, reduces the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) by 35%, on top of standard of care in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) and established cardiovascular disease. The EMPRISE (Empagliflozin Comparative Effectiveness and Safety) study aims to assess empagliflozin's effectiveness, safety, and healthcare utilization in routine care from August 2014 through September 2019. In this first interim analysis, we investigated the risk of HHF among T2D patients initiating empagliflozin versus sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor. METHODS: Within 2 commercial and 1 federal (Medicare) claims data sources in the United States, we identified a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort of T2D patients ≥18 years old initiating empagliflozin or sitagliptin from August 2014 through September 2016. The HHF outcome was defined as a HF discharge diagnosis in the primary position (HHF-specific); a broader definition was based on a HF discharge diagnosis in any position (HHF-broad). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were estimated controlling for over 140 baseline characteristics in each data source and pooled by fixed-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: After propensity-score matching, we identified 16,443 patient pairs who initiated empagliflozin or sitagliptin. Average age was approximately 59 years, almost 54% of the participants were males, and approximately 25% had records of existing cardiovascular disease. Compared with sitagliptin, the initiation of empagliflozin decreased the risk of HHF-specific by 50% (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28-0.91), and the risk of HHF-broad by 49% (HR, 0.51;95% CI, 0.39-0.68), over a mean follow-up of 5.3 months. The results were consistent in patients with and without baseline cardiovascular disease, and for empagliflozin at both the 10- and 25-mg daily doses; analyses comparing empagliflozin versus the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor class, and comparing sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor classes also produced consistent findings. CONCLUSIONS: The first interim analysis from EMPRISE showed that compared with sitagliptin, the initiation of empagliflozin was associated with a decreased risk of HHF among patients with T2D as treated in routine care, with and without a history of cardiovascular disease. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03363464.

Incidence of lower extremity amputations among patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in the United States from 2010 to 2014.

AIM: To compare the incidence of lower extremity amputation (LEA) among patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with those without diabetes using US commercial claims and to assess the presence of key co-morbidities and precipitating factors at the time of the LEA. METHODS: Cohorts were defined via IBM MarketScan research databases for beneficiaries with T1D and T2D during 2010-2014. For each T1D and T2D patient, one patient without a prior diabetic claim matched on calendar time, sex and age, was randomly selected. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Among the matched cohorts of 120 129 T1D patients and 1.7 million T2D patients, the incidence of LEA was higher among patients with T1D than patients with T2D, with the most frequent cases being minor LEAs (4.85 and 1.53 per 1000 patient years [PY], respectively), largely toe amputations (4.49 and 1.43 per 1000 PY, respectively). Compared with non-diabetic patients matched on age, sex and calendar time, T1D and T2D patients had more co-morbidities and a higher incidence of LEA (6.02 vs. 0.14 per 1000 PY; aHR, 22.47 [16.42-30.73] and 1.90 vs. 0.23 per 1000 PY; aHR, 4.64 [4.32-4.98]). CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed a higher incidence of LEA, especially minor LEA, in patients with T1D and T2D compared with those without diabetes, with a greater risk among patients with T1D than patients with T2D. Accounting for known and measurable risk factors for LEA reduced the relative hazard by nearly 50%; the majority of LEA cases were minor LEAs and toe amputations.

Kidney disease progression and all-cause mortality across estimated glomerular filtration rate and albuminuria categories among patients with vs. without type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Studies of progression of kidney dysfunction typically focus on renal replacement therapy or percentage decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as outcomes. Our aim was to compare real-world patients with and without T2D to estimate progression from and to clinically defined categories of kidney disease and all-cause mortality. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study of 31,931 patients with and 33,201 age/sex matched patients without type 2 diabetes (T2D) who had a serum creatinine and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) or dipstick proteinuria (DP) values. We used the first available serum creatinine value between 2006 and 2012 to calculate baseline eGFR and categorized them and the corresponding UACR/DP values using the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) categories. To assess our primary outcomes, we extracted probabilities of eGFR progression or mortality from life-table analyses and conducted multivariable Cox regression analyses of relative risk adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking, ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and use of renal-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors. RESULTS: Patterns of eGFR decline were comparable among patients with vs. without T2D with larger percentage declines at higher albuminuria levels across all eGFR categories. eGFR decline was generally larger among T2D patients, particularly in those with severely increased albuminuria. Across all CKD categories, risk of progression to the next higher category of eGFR was substantially increased with increasing albuminuria. For example, the risk was 23.5, 36.2, and 65.1% among T2D patients with eGFR 30-59 ml/min/1.73m2 and UACR < 30, 30-299, and > 300 mg/dL, respectively (p < 0.001). Other comparisons were similarly significant. Among patients with low eGFR and normal to mildly increased albuminuria, the relative risk was up to 8-fold greater for all-cause mortality compared with the non-CKD subgroup (eGFR> 60 ml/min/1.73m2 with normal to mildly increased albuminuria). CONCLUSIONS: Presence of albuminuria was associated with accelerated eGFR decline independent of T2D. Risk for adverse outcomes was remarkably high among patients with CKD and normal to mildly increased albuminuria levels. Independent of T2D or albuminuria, a substantial risk for adverse outcomes exists for CKD patients in a routine care setting.

Correction to: Kidney disease progression and all-cause mortality across estimated glomerular filtration rate and albuminuria categories among patients with vs. without type 2 diabetes.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

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.

From chronic conditions to relevance in multimorbidity: a four-step study in family medicine.

BACKGROUND: Chronic conditions and multimorbidity (MM) are major concerns in family medicine (FM). OBJECTIVES: Based on the International Classification of Primary Care, Second Edition (ICPC-2), this study aimed to list (i)the chronic conditions and (ii)those most relevant to MM in FM. METHODS: A panel of FM experts used a four-step process to identify chronic conditions among ICPC-2 items and list chronic conditions most relevant in MM. They also evaluated the importance of eight criteria, previously identified in the literature, for characterizing chronic conditions. Step one involved a focus group of five experts. Steps two, three and four involved 10, 25 and 25 experts, respectively. They rated ICPC-2 items via an online questionnaire using a Likert scale from 1 (never chronic/irrelevant in MM) to 9 (always chronic/always relevant in MM). A median value cut-off was used to evaluate appropriateness of each item and the inter-percentile range adjusted for symmetry to determine the agreement/disagreement between experts. In parallel, in steps two and three, experts rated the importance of eight criteria to characterize chronic conditions, using a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). RESULTS: Of the ICPC-2's 686 items, experts identified 139 chronic conditions, of which 75 were deemed most relevant in the context of MM. Four of the eight criteria were retained as important to define chronic conditions: duration, sequelae, recurrence/pattern and the diagnosis itself. CONCLUSION: Using this list of 75 chronic conditions most relevant in the context of MM should enhance the validity of studies of MM in FM.

[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.

[Prioritization strategies in the care of multimorbid patients in family medicine]. / Stratégies de priorisation dans la prise en charge des patients multimorbides en médecine de famille.

The aging of the population together with the increasing life expectancy lead to a drastic increase in the number of patients with multi-morbidity (MM). Caring for these patients is time-consuming and the treatment of multiple conditions might be burdensome. Therefore both general practitioner (GP) and patients need to establish priorities and, among others, to decide which pathology to treat primarily or to which treatment to renounce. How they do this is currently unknown. This qualitative study based on individual interviews reports prioritization's strategies used by five GPs and five of their patients in Switzerland. Our study underlined the importance of the discussion between GPs and their patients and the use of the shared decision-making in the prioritization process.

Poor adherence to and persistence with biologics in generalized pustular psoriasis: A claim-based study using real-world data from two large US databases.

Background: Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare skin disease characterized by episodes of widespread sterile pustules. Methods: A retrospective cohort study using data from the US IBM MarketScan Commercial and Optum Clinformatics Data Mart databases between October 1, 2015 and March 31, 2020 was performed to describe adherence and persistence to biologics in patients with GPP. Patients were aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed GPP (International Classification of Diseases code L40.1) and had ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient claims. Results: Biologics were dispensed to 110 of 502 (22%) and 73 of 528 (14%) patients from MarketScan and Optum databases, respectively. The mean proportion of days covered (PDC) (range) was similar in both databases (MarketScan, 65% [8%-100%]; Optum, 59% [8%-99%]), and good adherence (≥80% PDC) was uncommon (MarketScan, 36%; Optum, 24%). Mean (standard deviation) persistence was similar in both databases (MarketScan, 287 [122] days; Optum, 261 [134] days). In Optum, the mean PDC was similar between age categories; good adherence was more common in patients aged 18 to 64 years (28%) versus ≥65 years (13%). Mean persistence was longer in patients aged 18 to 64 years (267 days) versus ≥65 years (242 days). Conclusions: Overall, adherence and persistence were generally poor and varied according to the biologic class, database, and age. Improving adherence may help improve GPP treatment outcomes.

Health Care Utilization and Costs Associated With Empagliflozin in Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: We compared health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs for inpatient and outpatient services and dispensed medications in older adults with type 2 diabetes initiating empagliflozin versus dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4is). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The study population included U.S. Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with diabetes (age ≥65 years) initiating empagliflozin or DPP-4is (August 2014 to September 2018). We estimated rate ratios (RRs) for HCRU outcomes using zero-inflated negative binomial regression and per-member per-year (PMPY) cost differences using generalized linear model with gamma distributions, overall and stratified by baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD), after adjusting for 143 baseline covariates using 1:1 propensity score matching. RESULTS: We identified 23,335 matched pairs (mean age 72 years, 51% with baseline CVD). HCRU rates were lower in empagliflozin versus DPP-4i initiators (number of inpatient days, RR 0.89 [95% CI 0.82, 0.97]; number of emergency department [ED] visits, 0.86 [0.82, 0.91]; number of hospitalizations, 0.86 [0.79, 0.93]; number of office visits, 0.96 [0.95, 0.98]). Inpatient cost (-$713 PMPY [95% CI -847, -579), outpatient cost (-$198 PMPY[-272, -124]), and total cost of care (-$1,109 PMPY [-1,478, -739]) were lower for empagliflozin versus DPP-4is, although diabetes medication cost was higher in empagliflozin initiators ($454 PMPY [95% CI 284, 567]). In the CVD subgroup, total cost was lower for empagliflozin initiators (-$2,005 PMPY [-2,451, -1,337]), while the difference was attenuated in the non-CVD subgroup (-$296 PMPY[-740, 148]). CONCLUSIONS: Among older adults with diabetes, empagliflozin was associated with a lower number of inpatient days, hospitalizations, ED visits, and office visits and with lower costs of care compared with DPP-4is, especially in those with history of CVD.

The clinical burden of newly diagnosed Heart failure among patients with Reduced, mildly Reduced, and preserved ejection fraction.

Background: Contemporary analyses of the distribution of heart failure (HF) patients by groups of ejection fraction are not available or are limited to hospitalized patients. Our objective was to quantify the per-person and system level clinical burden of a broad population of HF patients. Methods: We studied 16,516 patients with a new HF diagnosis recorded in the electronic medical record of a U.S. integrated delivery system between 2005 and 2017. We used the diagnosis date as the index date and the nearest echocardiogram result to classify patients as HFrEF (n = 2,430), HFmrEF (n = 1,646), HFpEF (n = 12,440) and followed them through 2019 for major clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations [HHF], all-cause hospitalizations, incident chronic kidney disease [CKD], progression of eGFR category, progression of CKD, incident type 2 diabetes [T2D], and progression to insulin use). We compared age and sex adjusted incidence rates and rate ratios of the outcomes between the HF types. Results: Incidence rates for most outcomes were significantly higher among patients with HFrEF compared with HFpEF. HHF was 59 % greater, mortality 31 % greater, and CKD incidence 55 % greater, (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). However, the larger size of the HFpEF group generated 4.7-6.7 times as many total outcomes. Conclusions: Regardless of subtype, the presence of HF was associated with poor clinical outcomes. Incidence rates were higher for HFrEF than HFpEF, but as the latter represented 75% of the study population, HFpEF caused a greater overall burden on the health care system, reflecting the high unmet need of target therapies for HFpEF.

Empagliflozin is associated with lower risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in routine care in East Asia: Results from the EMPRISE study.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: The EMPA-REG OUTCOME® trial demonstrated benefits of empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), on cardiovascular, renal outcomes and all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease. The EMPRISE study program evaluates how these effects translate in a broad population of patients with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical care across countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included patients ≥18 years with type 2 diabetes initiating empagliflozin or any dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) from large administrative databases in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Propensity score-matched (1:1) 'as-treated' analyses comparing the risk of cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality between empagliflozin and DPP-4i use were performed in each country. Pooled hazard ratios (pHR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed using random effects meta-analysis models comparing both empagliflozin and SGLT2i with DPP-4i use, respectively. Intention-to-treat and subgroup analyses in patients with/without cardiovascular disease and in patients receiving 10 mg empagliflozin were performed. RESULTS: The study included 28,712 and 70,233 matched patient pairs for empagliflozin/DPP-4i and SGLT2i/DPP-4i analyses, respectively. The risk of composite outcomes including (i) hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and all-cause mortality was lower with empagliflozin (pHR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.86) and SGLT2i (0.71, 0.65-0.77); (ii) combined myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality was also lower with empagliflozin (0.74, 0.61-0.88) and SGLT2i (0.69, 0.60-0.78) compared to DPP-4i. The intention-to-treat and three subgroup analyses were consistent with results of the main analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that both empagliflozin and SGLT2i compared with DPP-4i are associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in routine clinical care in East Asia.

Prognostic Factors of COVID-19: An Umbrella Review Endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the urgency for updated evidence to inform public health and clinical care placed systematic literature reviews (SLRs) at the cornerstone of research. We aimed to summarize evidence on prognostic factors for COVID-19 outcomes through published SLRs and to critically assess quality elements in the findings' interpretation. An umbrella review was conducted via electronic databases from January 2020 to April 2022. All SLRs (and meta-analyses) in English were considered. Data screening and extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. AMSTAR 2 tool was used to assess SLR quality. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD4202232576). Out of 4,564 publications, 171 SLRs were included of which 3 were umbrella reviews. Our primary analysis included 35 SLRs published in 2022, which incorporated studies since the beginning of the pandemic. Consistent findings showed that, for adults, older age, obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer were more strongly predictive of risk of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and mortality due to COVID-19. Male sex was associated with higher risk of short-term adverse outcomes, but female sex was associated with higher risk of long COVID. For children, socioeconomic determinants that may unravel COVID-19 disparities were rarely reported. This review highlights key prognostic factors of COVID-19, which can help clinicians and health officers identify high-risk groups for optimal care. Findings can also help optimize confounding adjustment and patient phenotyping in comparative effectiveness research. A living SLR approach may facilitate dissemination of new findings. This paper is endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology.