Kidney and Cardiovascular Effectiveness of Empagliflozin Compared With Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

Placebo-controlled trials of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors demonstrate kidney and cardiovascular benefits for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). We used real-world data to compare the kidney and cardiovascular effectiveness of empagliflozin to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is), a commonly prescribed antiglycemic medication, in a diverse population with and without CKD. Using electronic health record data from 20 large US health systems, we leveraged propensity overlap weighting to compare the outcomes for empagliflozin and DPP4i initiators with type 2 diabetes between 2016 and 2020. The primary composite kidney outcome included 40% estimated glomerular filtration rate decrease, incident end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality through 2 years or censoring. We also assessed cardiovascular and safety outcomes. Of 62,197 new users, 20,279 initiated empagliflozin and 41,918 initiated DPP4i. Over a median follow-up of 1.1 years, empagliflozin prescription was associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65 to 0.87) than DPP4is. The risks for mortality (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.92) and a cardiovascular composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or all-cause mortality (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95) were also lower for empagliflozin initiators. No difference in heart failure hospitalization risk between groups was observed. Genital mycotic infections were more common in patients prescribed empagliflozin (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.58 to 1.88). Empagliflozin was associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome in patients with CKD (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.88) and those without CKD (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.94). In conclusion, the initiation of empagliflozin was associated with a significantly lower risk of kidney and cardiovascular outcomes than DPP4is over a median of just over 1 year. The association with a lower risk for clinical outcomes was apparent even for patients without known CKD at baseline.

Contemporary patterns of lipoprotein(a) testing and associated clinical care and outcomes.

Objective: Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, yet little is known about Lp(a) testing patterns in real-world practice. The objective of this analysis was to determine how Lp(a) testing is used in clinical practice in comparison with low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) testing alone, and to determine whether elevated Lp(a) level is associated with subsequent initiation of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) and incident cardiovascular (CV) events. Methods: This is an observational cohort study, based on lab tests administered between Jan 1, 2015 and Dec 31, 2019. We used electronic health record (EHR) data from 11 United States health systems participating in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet). We created two cohorts for comparison: 1) the Lp(a) cohort, of adults with an Lp(a) test and 2) the LDL-C cohort, of 4:1 date- and site-matched adults with an LDL-C test, but no Lp(a) test. The primary exposure was the presence of an Lp(a) or LDL-C test result. In the Lp(a) cohort, we used logistic regression to assess the relationship between Lp(a) results in mass units (< 50, 50-100, and > 100mg/dL) and molar units (<125, 125-250, > 250nmol/L) and initiation of LLT within 3 months. We used multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression to evaluate these Lp(a) levels and time to composite CV hospitalization, including hospitalization for myocardial infarction, revascularization and ischemic stroke. Results: Overall, 20,551 patients had Lp(a) test results and 2,584,773 patients had LDL-C test results (82,204 included in the matched LDL-C cohort). Compared with the LDL-C cohort, the Lp(a) cohort more frequently had prevalent ASCVD (24.3% vs. 8.5%) and multiple prior CV events (8.6% vs. 2.6%). Elevated Lp(a) was associated with greater odds of subsequent LLT initiation. Elevated Lp(a) reported in mass units was also associated with subsequent composite CV hospitalization [aHR (95% CI): Lp(a) 50-100mg/dL 1.25 (1.02-1.53), p<0.03, Lp(a) > 100mg/dL 1.23 (1.08-1.40), p<0.01]. Conclusion: Lp(a) testing is relatively infrequent in health systems across the U.S. As new therapies for Lp(a) emerge, improved patient and provider education is needed to increase awareness of the utility of this risk marker.

Evaluation of weight change and cardiometabolic risk factors in a real-world population of US adults with overweight or obesity.

Whether individuals in real-world settings are able to lose weight and improve cardiometabolic risk factors over time is unclear. We aimed to determine the management of and degree of body weight change over 2 years among individuals with overweight or obesity, and to assess associated changes in cardiometabolic risk factors and clinical outcomes. Using data from 11 large health systems within the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Network in the U.S., we collected the following data on adults with a recorded BMI ≥25 kg/m2 between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016: body-mass index (BMI), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC), triglycerides and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). We found that among 882,712 individuals with BMI ≥25 kg/m2 (median age 59 years; 56% female), 52% maintained stable weight over 2 years and 1.3% utilized weight loss pharmacotherapy. Weight loss of 10% was associated with small but significant lowering of mean SBP (-2.69 mmHg [95% CI -2.88, -2.50]), DBP (-1.26 mmHg [95% CI -1.35, -1.18]), LDL-C (-2.60 mg/dL [95% CI -3.14, -2.05]), and HbA1c (-0.27% [95% CI -0.35, -0.19]) in the same 12 months. However, these changes were not sustained over the following year. In this study of adults with BMI ≥25 kg/m2, the majority had stable weight over 2 years, pharmacotherapies for weight loss were under-used, and small changes in cardiometabolic risk factors with weight loss were not sustained, possibly due to failure to maintain weight loss.

Seasonal variation in blood pressure control across US health systems.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize seasonal variation in US population-based blood pressure (BP) control and BP-related metrics and evaluate the association between outdoor temperature and BP control variation. METHODS: We queried electronic health records (EHRs) from 26 health systems, representing 21 states, to summarize BP metrics by quarters of 12-month periods from January 2017 to March 2020. Patients with at least one ambulatory visit during the measurement period and a hypertension diagnosis during the first 6 months or prior to the measurement period were included. Changes in BP control, BP improvement, medication intensification, average SBP reduction after medication intensification across quarters and association with outdoor temperature were analyzed using weighted generalized linear models with repeated measures. RESULTS: Among 1 818 041 people with hypertension, the majority were more than 65 years of age (52.2%), female (52.1%), white non-Hispanic (69.8%) and had stage 1/2 hypertension (64.8%). Overall, BP control and process metrics were highest in quarters 2 and 3, and lowest in quarters 1 and 4. Quarter 2 had the highest percentage of improved BP (31.95 ±â€Š0.90%) and average SBP reduction after medication intensification (16 ±â€Š0.23 mmHg). Quarter 3 had the highest percentage of BP controlled (62.25 ±â€Š2.55%) and lowest with medication intensification (9.73 ±â€Š0.60%). Results were largely consistent in adjusted models. Average temperature was associated with BP control metrics in unadjusted models, but associations were attenuated following adjustment. CONCLUSION: In this large, national, EHR-based study, BP control and BP-related process metrics improved during spring/summer months, but outdoor temperature was not associated with performance following adjustment for potential confounders.

Fitness of real-world data for clinical trial data collection: Results and lessons from a HARMONY Outcomes ancillary study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the extensive use of real-world data for retrospective, observational clinical research, our understanding of how real-world data might increase the efficiency of data collection in patient-level randomized clinical trials is largely unknown. The structure of real-world data is inherently heterogeneous, with each source electronic health record and claims database different from the next. Their fitness-for-use as data sources for multisite trials in the United States has not been established. METHODS: For a subset of participants in the HARMONY Outcomes Trial, we obtained electronic health record data from recruiting sites or Medicare claims data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. For baseline characteristics and follow-up events, we assessed the level of agreement between these real-world data and data documented in the trial database. RESULTS: Real-world data-derived demographic information tended to agree with trial-reported demographic information, although real-world data were less accurate in identifying medical history. The ability of real-world data to identify baseline medication usage differed by real-world data source, with claims data demonstrating substantially better performance than electronic health record data. The limited number of lab results in the collected electronic health record data matched closely with values in the trial database. There were not enough follow-up events in the ancillary study population to draw meaningful conclusions about the performance of real-world data for identification of events. Based on the conduct of this ancillary study, the challenges and opportunities of using real-world data within clinical trials are discussed. CONCLUSION: Based on a subset of participants from the HARMONY Outcomes Trial, our results suggest that electronic health record or claims data, as currently available, are unlikely to be a complete substitute for trial data collection of medical history or baseline lab results, but that Medicare claims were able to identify most medications. The limited size of the study population prevents us from drawing strong conclusions based on these results, and other studies are clearly needed to confirm or refute these findings.

The use of electronic health records for recruitment in clinical trials: a mixed methods analysis of the Harmony Outcomes Electronic Health Record Ancillary Study.

BACKGROUND: The electronic health record (EHR) contains a wealth of clinical data that may be used to streamline the identification of potential clinical trial participants. However, there is little empirical information on site-level facilitators of and barriers to optimal use of EHR systems with respect to trial recruitment. METHODS: We conducted qualitative focus groups and quantitative surveys as part of the EHR Ancillary Study, which is being conducted alongside the multicenter, global, Harmony Outcomes Trial comparing albiglutide to standard care for the prevention of cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes. Subject matter experts used findings from focus groups to draft a 20-question survey examining the use of the EHR for participant identification, common site recruitment strategies, and variation in perceived barriers to optimal use of the EHR. The final survey was fielded with 446 site investigators actively enrolling participants in the main trial. RESULTS: Nearly two-thirds of respondents were study coordinators (63.2%), 23.1% were principal investigators, and 13.7% held other research roles. Approximately half of the respondents reported using the EHR to find potential trial participants. Of these, 79.4% reported using EHR searches in conjunction with other recruitment methods, including reviewing of upcoming clinic schedules (75.3%) and contacting past trial participants (71.2%). Important barriers to optimal use of the EHR included the lack of availability of certain research-focused EHR modules and limitations on the ability to contact patients cared for by other providers. Of survey respondents who did not use the EHR to find potential participants, one-quarter reported that the EHR was not accessible in their country; this finding varied from 2.6% of respondents in North America to 50% of respondents in the Asia Pacific. CONCLUSIONS: While EHR screening was commonly used for recruitment in a cardiovascular outcomes trial, important technical, governance, and regulatory barriers persist. Multifaceted, scalable, and customizable strategies are needed to support the optimal use of the EHR for trial participant identification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02465515. Registered on 8 June 2015.

Research Use of Electronic Health Records: Patients' Views on Alternative Approaches to Permission.

Background: The increased use of electronic health records (EHRs) has resulted in new opportunities for research, but also raises concerns regarding privacy, confidentiality, and patient awareness. Because public trust is essential to the success of the research enterprise, patient perspectives are essential to the development and implementation of ethical approaches to the research use of EHRs. Yet, little is known about patients' views and expectations regarding various approaches to seeking permission for research use of their EHR data. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 120 patients in four counties in diverse regions of the southeastern United States: Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, and the Piedmont area of North Carolina. We asked participants to consider, from multiple stakeholder perspectives, the advantages and disadvantages of three approaches to notifying patients of, or obtaining permission for, research use of their EHR data; whether they believed it would be acceptable if their healthcare organization used each approach; and which approach would be most appropriate. Results: Nearly all participants said General Notification, Broad Permission, and Categorical Permission would each be acceptable approaches to notification of, or permission for, EHR research. Over half identified Broad Permission as the most appropriate approach. Across all of these discussions, major themes included the importance of clarity, simplicity, and usability of patient-facing materials, as well as the level of transparency, trustworthiness, and respect for patients the approach conveys. Conclusions: Our findings help to inform the development and implementation of ethical approaches to the research use of EHRs by identifying key patient considerations regarding various approaches to permission and suggesting potential actions for healthcare organizations and researchers.

Comparison of Approaches for Notification and Authorization in Pragmatic Clinical Research Evaluating Commonly Used Medical Practices.

BACKGROUND: For pragmatic clinical research comparing commonly used treatments, questions exist about if and how to notify participants about it and secure their authorization for participation. OBJECTIVE: To determine how patients react when they seek clinical care and encounter one of several different pragmatic clinical research studies. RESEARCH DESIGN: In an online survey using a between-subjects experimental design, respondents read and responded to 1 of 24 hypothetical research scenarios reflecting different types of studies and approaches to notification and authorization (eg, general notification, oral consent, written consent). SUBJECTS: English-speaking US adults 18 years and older. MEASURES: Willingness to participate in the hypothetical study, acceptability of the notification and authorization approach, understanding of the study, perceptions of benefit/harm, trust, and perception of amount of study information received. RESULTS: Willingness to participate did not differ by notification and authorization approach. Some (21%-36%) of the patients randomized to general notification with an explicit opt-out provision were not aware they would be enrolled by default. Acceptability was greatest for and similar among notification and authorization approaches that actively engaged the patient (eg, oral or written consent) and lower for approaches with less engagement (eg, general notification). Problems of understanding were found among 20%-55% of respondents, depending on the particular scenario. Most respondents (77%-94%) felt that participation in the hypothetical study posed no risks of harm to their health or privacy. CONCLUSIONS: Current attitudes about notification and authorization approaches and difficulties understanding pragmatic clinical research pose significant challenges for pragmatic research. Data from this study provide a starting point to developing solutions to these surprisingly complex issues.