Metformin Plus Insulin for Preexisting Diabetes or Gestational Diabetes in Early Pregnancy: The MOMPOD Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Insulin is recommended for pregnant persons with preexisting type 2 diabetes or diabetes diagnosed early in pregnancy. The addition of metformin to insulin may improve neonatal outcomes. Objective: To estimate the effect of metformin added to insulin for preexisting type 2 or diabetes diagnosed early in pregnancy on a composite adverse neonatal outcome. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial in 17 US centers enrolled pregnant adults aged 18 to 45 years with preexisting type 2 diabetes or diabetes diagnosed prior to 23 weeks' gestation between April 2019 and November 2021. Each participant was treated with insulin and was assigned to add either metformin or placebo. Follow-up was completed in May 2022. Intervention: Metformin 1000 mg or placebo orally twice per day from enrollment (11 weeks -<23 weeks) through delivery. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of neonatal complications including perinatal death, preterm birth, large or small for gestational age, and hyperbilirubinemia requiring phototherapy. Prespecified secondary outcomes included maternal hypoglycemia and neonatal fat mass at birth, and prespecified subgroup analyses by maternal body mass index less than 30 vs 30 or greater and those with preexisting vs diabetes early in pregnancy. Results: Of the 831 participants randomized, 794 took at least 1 dose of the study agent and were included in the primary analysis (397 in the placebo group and 397 in the metformin group). Participants' mean (SD) age was 32.9 (5.6) years; 234 (29%) were Black, and 412 (52%) were Hispanic. The composite adverse neonatal outcome occurred in 280 (71%) of the metformin group and in 292 (74%) of the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86 [95% CI 0.63-1.19]). The most commonly occurring events in the primary outcome in both groups were preterm birth, neonatal hypoglycemia, and delivery of a large-for-gestational-age infant. The study was halted at 75% accrual for futility in detecting a significant difference in the primary outcome. Prespecified secondary outcomes and subgroup analyses were similar between groups. Of individual components of the composite adverse neonatal outcome, metformin-exposed neonates had lower odds to be large for gestational age (adjusted odds ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.46-0.86]) when compared with the placebo group. Conclusions and Relevance: Using metformin plus insulin to treat preexisting type 2 or gestational diabetes diagnosed early in pregnancy did not reduce a composite neonatal adverse outcome. The effect of reduction in odds of a large-for-gestational-age infant observed after adding metformin to insulin warrants further investigation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02932475.

The Precision Interventions for Severe and/or Exacerbation-Prone (PrecISE) Asthma Network: An overview of Network organization, procedures, and interventions.

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease, with multiple underlying inflammatory pathways and structural airway abnormalities that impact disease persistence and severity. Recent progress has been made in developing targeted asthma therapeutics, especially for subjects with eosinophilic asthma. However, there is an unmet need for new approaches to treat patients with severe and exacerbation-prone asthma, who contribute disproportionately to disease burden. Extensive deep phenotyping has revealed the heterogeneous nature of severe asthma and identified distinct disease subtypes. A current challenge in the field is to translate new and emerging knowledge about different pathobiologic mechanisms in asthma into patient-specific therapies, with the ultimate goal of modifying the natural history of disease. Here, we describe the Precision Interventions for Severe and/or Exacerbation-Prone Asthma (PrecISE) Network, a groundbreaking collaborative effort of asthma researchers and biostatisticians from around the United States. The PrecISE Network was designed to conduct phase II/proof-of-concept clinical trials of precision interventions in the population with severe asthma, and is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Using an innovative adaptive platform trial design, the PrecISE Network will evaluate up to 6 interventions simultaneously in biomarker-defined subgroups of subjects. We review the development and organizational structure of the PrecISE Network, and choice of interventions being studied. We hope that the PrecISE Network will enhance our understanding of asthma subtypes and accelerate the development of therapeutics for severe asthma.

PrecISE: Precision Medicine in Severe Asthma: An adaptive platform trial with biomarker ascertainment.

Severe asthma accounts for almost half the cost associated with asthma. Severe asthma is driven by heterogeneous molecular mechanisms. Conventional clinical trial design often lacks the power and efficiency to target subgroups with specific pathobiological mechanisms. Furthermore, the validation and approval of new asthma therapies is a lengthy process. A large proportion of that time is taken by clinical trials to validate asthma interventions. The National Institutes of Health Precision Medicine in Severe and/or Exacerbation Prone Asthma (PrecISE) program was established with the goal of designing and executing a trial that uses adaptive design techniques to rapidly evaluate novel interventions in biomarker-defined subgroups of severe asthma, while seeking to refine these biomarker subgroups, and to identify early markers of response to therapy. The novel trial design is an adaptive platform trial conducted under a single master protocol that incorporates precision medicine components. Furthermore, it includes innovative applications of futility analysis, cross-over design with use of shared placebo groups, and early futility analysis to permit more rapid identification of effective interventions. The development and rationale behind the study design are described. The interventions chosen for the initial investigation and the criteria used to identify these interventions are enumerated. The biomarker-based adaptive design and analytic scheme are detailed as well as special considerations involved in the final trial design.

The precision interventions for severe and/or exacerbation-prone asthma (PrecISE) adaptive platform trial: statistical considerations.

The Precision Interventions for Severe and/or Exacerbation-prone Asthma (PrecISE) study is an adaptive platform trial designed to investigate novel interventions to severe asthma. The study is conducted under a master protocol and utilizes a crossover design with each participant receiving up to five interventions and at least one placebo. Treatment assignments are based on the patients' biomarker profiles and precision health methods are incorporated into the interim and final analyses. We describe key elements of the PrecISE study including the multistage adaptive enrichment strategy, early stopping of an intervention for futility, power calculations, and the primary analysis strategy.

Clinical and biological predictors of response to standardised paediatric colitis therapy (PROTECT): a multicentre inception cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Lack of evidence-based outcomes data leads to uncertainty in developing treatment regimens in children who are newly diagnosed with ulcerative colitis. We hypothesised that pretreatment clinical, transcriptomic, and microbial factors predict disease course. METHODS: In this inception cohort study, we recruited paediatric patients aged 4-17 years with newly diagnosed ulcerative colitis from 29 centres in the USA and Canada. Patients initially received standardised mesalazine or corticosteroids, with pre-established criteria for escalation to immunomodulators (ie, thiopurines) or anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα) therapy. We used RNA sequencing to define rectal gene expression before treatment, and 16S sequencing to characterise rectal and faecal microbiota. The primary outcome was week 52 corticosteroid-free remission with no therapy beyond mesalazine. We assessed factors associated with the primary outcome using logistic regression models of the per-protocol population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01536535. FINDINGS: Between July 10, 2012, and April 21, 2015, of 467 patients recruited, 428 started medical therapy, of whom 400 (93%) were evaluable at 52 weeks and 386 (90%) completed the study period with no protocol violations. 150 (38%) of 400 participants achieved week 52 corticosteroid-free remission, of whom 147 (98%) were taking mesalazine and three (2%) were taking no medication. 74 (19%) of 400 were escalated to immunomodulators alone, 123 (31%) anti-TNFα therapy, and 25 (6%) colectomy. Low baseline clinical severity, high baseline haemoglobin, and week 4 clinical remission were associated with achieving week 52 corticosteroid-free remission (n=386, logistic model area under the curve [AUC] 0·70, 95% CI 0·65-0·75; specificity 77%, 95% CI 71-82). Baseline severity and remission by week 4 were validated in an independent cohort of 274 paediatric patients with newly diagnosed ulcerative colitis. After adjusting for clinical predictors, an antimicrobial peptide gene signature (odds ratio [OR] 0·57, 95% CI 0·39-0·81; p=0·002) and abundance of Ruminococcaceae (OR 1·43, 1·02-2·00; p=0·04), and Sutterella (OR 0·81, 0·65-1·00; p=0·05) were independently associated with week 52 corticosteroid-free remission. INTERPRETATION: Our findings support the utility of initial clinical activity and treatment response by 4 weeks to predict week 52 corticosteroid-free remission with mesalazine alone in children who are newly diagnosed with ulcerative colitis. The development of personalised clinical and biological signatures holds the promise of informing ulcerative colitis therapeutic decisions. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.

Effect of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors on colorectal cancer incidence and its precursors.

AIMS: Incretin-based antihyperglycemic therapies increase intestinal mucosal expansion and polyp growth in mouse models. We aimed to evaluate the effect of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1ra) initiation on colorectal cancer incidence. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study on US Medicare beneficiaries over age 66 from 2007 to 2013 without prevalent cancer. We identified three active-comparator and new-user cohorts: DPP-4i versus thiazolidinediones (TZD), DPP-4i versus sulphonylureas (SU), and GLP-1ra versus long acting insulin (LAI). Follow-up started from 6 months post-second prescription and ended 6 months after stopping (primary as-treated analysis). We estimated hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for incident colorectal cancer adjusting for measured confounders using propensity score weighting. RESULTS: The median duration of treatment ranged 0.7-0.9 years among DPP-4i cohorts. Based on 104 events among 39,334 DPP-4i and 63 events among 25,786 TZD initiators, there was no association between DPP-4i initiation and colorectal cancer (adjusted HR = 1.17 (CI 0.88, 1.71)). There were 73 events among 27,047 DPP-4i and 266 events among 76,012 SU initiators with the adjusted HR 0.98 (CI 0.74, 1.30). We identified 5600 GLP-1ra and 54,767 LAI initiators and the median duration of treatment was 0.8 and 1.2 years, respectively. The adjusted HR was 0.82 (CI 0.42, 1.58) based on <11 events among GLP-1ra versus 276 events among LAI initiators. CONCLUSION: Although limited by the short duration of treatment, our analyses based on real-world drug utilization patterns provide evidence of no short-term effect of incretin-based agents on colorectal cancer.

More realistic power estimation for new user, active comparator studies: an empirical example.

PURPOSE: Pharmacoepidemiologic studies are often expected to be sufficiently powered to study rare outcomes, but there is sequential loss of power with implementation of study design options minimizing bias. We illustrate this using a study comparing pancreatic cancer incidence after initiating dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) versus thiazolidinediones or sulfonylureas. METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries with at least one claim of DPP-4i or comparators during 2007-2009 and then applied the following steps: (i) exclude prevalent users, (ii) require a second prescription of same drug, (iii) exclude prevalent cancers, (iv) exclude patients age <66 years and (v) censor for treatment changes during follow-up. Power to detect hazard ratios (effect measure strongly driven by the number of events) ≥ 2.0 estimated after step 5 was compared with the naïve power estimated prior to step 1. RESULTS: There were 19,388 and 28,846 DPP-4i and thiazolidinedione initiators during 2007-2009. The number of drug initiators dropped most after requiring a second prescription, outcomes dropped most after excluding patients with prevalent cancer and person-time dropped most after requiring a second prescription and as-treated censoring. The naïve power (>99%) was considerably higher than the power obtained after the final step (~75%). CONCLUSIONS: In designing new-user active-comparator studies, one should be mindful how steps minimizing bias affect sample-size, number of outcomes and person-time. While actual numbers will depend on specific settings, application of generic losses in percentages will improve estimates of power compared with the naive approach mostly ignoring steps taken to increase validity.

Cancer incidence among those initiating insulin therapy with glargine versus human NPH insulin.

OBJECTIVE: To add to the evidence on comparative long-term effects of insulin analog glargine versus human NPH insulin on the risk for cancer. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We identified cohorts of initiators of glargine and human NPH without an insulin prescription during the prior 19 months among patients covered by the Inovalon Medical Outcomes Research for Effectiveness and Economics Registry (MORE2 Registry) between January 2003 and December 2010. Patients were required to have a second prescription of the same insulin within 180 days and to be free of cancer. We balanced cohorts on risk factors for cancer outcomes based on comorbidities, comedication, and health care use during the prior 12 months using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Incident cancer was defined as having two claims for cancer (any cancer) or the same cancer (breast, prostate, colon) within 2 months. We estimated adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% CI using weighted Cox models censoring for stopping, switching, or augmenting insulin treatment, end of enrollment, and mortality. RESULTS: More patients initiated glargine (43,306) than NPH (9,147). Initiators of glargine (NPH) were followed for 1.2 (1.1) years and 50,548 (10,011) person-years; 993 (178) developed cancer. The overall HR was 1.12 (95% CI 0.95-1.32). Results were consistent for breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancer; various durations of treatment; and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Patients initiating insulin glargine rather than NPH do not seem to be at an increased risk for cancer. While our study contributes significantly to our evidence base for long-term effects, this evidence is very limited mainly based on actual dynamics in insulin prescribing.