Trends in the Use of Medications for Secondary Ischemic Stroke Prevention in Denmark, 2005-2021.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Understanding trends in the use of medications for secondary stroke prevention is crucial for identifying areas for improvement in stroke care. We examined the use of lipid-lowering, antihypertensive, glucose-lowering, oral anticoagulant, and antiplatelet medications after ischemic stroke hospitalization, from 2005 to 2021. METHODS: Using nationwide registries in Denmark, we identified a cohort of patients discharged from hospital with a first-time or recurrent ischemic stroke (N = 150,744). Stratified by calendar year, we ascertained the 180-day probability of filling a prescription for the abovementioned medications after discharge. We further assessed factors associated with medication use. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2021, lipid-lowering medication use increased from 58.3% to 82.0%; atorvastatin use rose from 2.1% to 64.8% and simvastatin use decreased from 55.7% to 8.6%. Antihypertensive medication use remained stable, at approximately 89%, and various antihypertensive classes were used comparably. Glucose-lowering medication use increased from 71.5% in 2005 to 84.1% in 2021, driven primarily by an increase in metformin use (from 28.0% to 59.5%). Use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors continually increased (from 1.7% to 17.5% and from 0.5% to 17.3%, respectively) between 2015 and 2021. Anticoagulant medication use rose from 45.9% in 2005 to 87.0% in 2021, primarily because of increased use of direct oral anticoagulant medications starting around 2010 and a decline in warfarin use. Antiplatelet use remained consistently high, at approximately 95%. Trends were consistent across subgroups of interest; however, overall medication use was lower in older patients (65 years and older), patients with severe stroke, and patients with neurologic and psychiatric comorbidities. DISCUSSION: Despite increasing trends in the use of 3 of 5 medication classes, the overall use of lipid-lowering, glucose-lowering, and oral anticoagulant medications was somewhat lower than expected according to clinical guidelines, particularly among older patients with more severe stroke and other comorbidities. The relatively low use in these subgroups may signify appropriate clinical decision making in consideration of frequent contraindications and reduced life expectancy or highlight potential areas of improvement for the care of patients with recent ischemic stroke.

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.

Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors and Nephrolithiasis Risk in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

Importance: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with an increased risk of kidney stones. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) might lower the risk of nephrolithiasis by altering urine composition. However, no studies have investigated the association between SGLT2i use and nephrolithiasis risk in patients receiving routine care in the US. Objective: To investigate the association between SGLT2i use and nephrolithiasis risk in clinical practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: This new-user, active comparator cohort study used data from commercially insured adults (aged ≥18 years) with T2D who initiated treatment with SGLT2is, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), or dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4is) between April 1, 2013, and December 31, 2020. The data were analyzed from July 2021 through June 2023. Exposure: New initiation of an SGLT2i, GLP-1RA, or DPP4i. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was nephrolithiasis diagnosed by International Classification of Diseases codes in the inpatient or outpatient setting. New SGLT2i users were 1:1 propensity score matched to new users of a GLP-1RA or DPP4i in pairwise comparisons. Incidence rates, rate differences (RDs), and estimated hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were calculated. Results: After 1:1 propensity score matching, a total of 716 406 adults with T2D (358 203 pairs) initiating an SGLT2i or a GLP-1RA (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [9.7] years for both groups; 51.4% vs 51.2% female; 48.6% vs 48.5% male) and 662 056 adults (331 028 pairs) initiating an SGLT2i or a DPP4i (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [9.3] vs 61.7 [10.1] years; 47.4% vs 47.3% female; 52.6% vs 52.7% male) were included. Over a median follow-up of 192 (IQR, 88-409) days, the risk of nephrolithiasis was lower in patients initiating an SGLT2i than among those initiating a GLP-1RA (14.9 vs 21.3 events per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.67-0.72]; RD, -6.4 [95% CI, -7.1 to -5.7]) or a DPP4i (14.6 vs 19.9 events per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.71-0.77]; RD, -5.3 [95% CI, -6.0 to -4.6]). The association between SGLT2i use and nephrolithiasis risk was similar by sex, race and ethnicity, history of chronic kidney disease, and obesity. The magnitude of the risk reduction with SGLT2i use was larger among adults aged younger than 70 years vs aged 70 years or older (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.79-0.91]; RD, -3.46 [95% CI, -4.87 to -2.05] per 1000 person-years; P for interaction <.001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that in adults with T2D, SGLT2i use may lower the risk of nephrolithiasis compared with GLP-1RAs or DPP4is and could help to inform decision-making when prescribing glucose-lowering agents for patients who may be at risk for developing nephrolithiasis.

Stratified analysis in comparative effectiveness studies that emulate randomized trials.

PURPOSE: For observational cohort studies that employ matching by propensity scores (PS), preliminary stratification by consequential predictors of outcome better emulates stratified randomization and potentially reduces variance and bias through relaxed dependence on modeling assumptions. We assessed the impact of pre-stratification in two real-life examples. For both, prior evidence from placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) suggested small or no risk reduction, but observational analysis suggested protection, presumably the result of confounding bias. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The study populations consisted of Medicare beneficiaries (2014-18) with type 2 diabetes initiating either (i) empagliflozin versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) or (ii) empagliflozin versus glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA). The outcome was myocardial infarction or stroke. We estimated hazard ratios (HR) and rate differences (RD) after controlling for 143 pre-exposure covariates via 1:1 PS matching after (1) PS estimation in the total cohort (total-cohort PS-matching) and (2) PS estimation separately by baseline cardiovascular disease (stratified PS matching). RESULTS: Stratified PS matching resulted in HRs that exceeded those from total-cohort PS-matching by 13% and 9%, respectively, for the comparisons of empagliflozin to DPP-4i and GLP-1RA. Against both comparators, HRs and RDs after stratified PS matching were closer to the null, with slightly higher variances (2%-3%) than those after total-cohort PS matching. CONCLUSION: Stratified PS matching produced effect estimates closer to the expected trial findings than total-cohort PS matching. The price paid in increased variance was minimal.

Successful implementation of a stakeholder engagement program for pharmacoepidemiologic research.

PURPOSE: Rigorously conducted pharmacoepidemiologic research requires methodologically complex study designs and analysis yet evaluates problems of high importance to patients and clinicians. Despite this, participation in and mechanisms for stakeholder engagement in pharmacoepidemiologic research are not well-described. Here, we describe our approach and lessons learned from engaging stakeholders, of varying familiarity with research methods, in a rigorous multi-year pharmacoepidemiologic research program evaluating the comparative effectiveness of diabetes medications. METHODS: We recruited 5 patient and 4 clinician stakeholders; each was compensated for their time. Stakeholders received initial formal training in observational research and pharmacoepidemiologic methods sufficient to enable contribution to the research project. After onboarding, stakeholder engagement meetings were held virtually, in the evening, 2-3 times annually. Each was approximately 90 min and focused on 1-2 specific questions about the project, with preparatory materials sent in advance. RESULTS: Stakeholder meeting attendance was high (89%-100%), and all stakeholders engaged with the research project, both during and between meetings. Stakeholders reported positive experiences with meetings, satisfaction, and interest in the research project and its findings, and dedication to the success of the project's goals. They affirmed the value of receiving materials to review in advance and the effectiveness of a virtual platform. Their contributions included prioritizing and suggesting research questions, optimizing written evidence briefs for a lay audience, and guidance on broader topics such as research audience and methods of dissemination. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholder engagement in pharmacoepidemiologic research using complex study designs and analysis is feasible, acceptable, and positively impacts the research project.

High-Dose vs. Standard-Dose Influenza Vaccine and Cardiopulmonary Hospitalization or Mortality: Emulating the INVESTED Trial Using Insurance Claims Data.

The INVESTED trial did not show benefits of high-dose (HD) vaccine vs. standard-dose (SD) for a primary composite outcome of cardiopulmonary hospitalization or all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.96-1.15) and its components (all-cause mortality HR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.84-1.21, cardiopulmonary hospitalization HR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.96-1.16) during three influenza seasons (2016-2019) among participants with recent myocardial infarction or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). We emulated INVESTED using Medicare claims data to assess whether the real-world evidence (RWE) study reached similar conclusions. We identified 1:1 propensity score (PS)-matched trial-eligible Medicare beneficiaries aged > 65 years and with prior HHF who received an HD or SD vaccine for the 2016-2019 seasons. We also re-analyzed the INVESTED trial data restricting to participants > 65 years with prior HHF to align eligibility criteria more closely with the RWE study. We compared HRs from the trial and RWE study for the main outcomes. Among 53,393 pairs of PS-matched Medicare beneficiaries, the HD vaccine group showed lower risk of the primary composite outcome (HR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.95-0.98) and all-cause mortality (HR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.91-0.95), and similar risk of cardiopulmonary hospitalization (HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.96-1.00), compared with SD. The RWE and trial results were closely concordant after the trial population was limited to participants > 65 years with prior HHF: trial-based results for the primary composite outcome (HR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.89-1.17), all-cause mortality (HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.72-1.16), and cardiopulmonary hospitalization (HR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.88-1.18). Although similar to the main trial results, the RWE was closer to the results from trial participants with aligned eligibility criteria. This study affirms the importance of considering different distributions of baseline patient characteristics when comparing trial findings to RWE.

Safety of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Other Second-Line Antidiabetics in Early Pregnancy.

Importance: Increasing use of second-line noninsulin antidiabetic medication (ADM) in pregnant individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) may result in fetal exposure, but their teratogenic risk is unknown. Objective: To evaluate periconceptional use of second-line noninsulin ADMs and whether it is associated with increased risk of major congenital malformations (MCMs) in the infant. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational population-based cohort study used data from 4 Nordic countries (2009-2020), the US MarketScan Database (2012-2021), and the Israeli Maccabi Health Services database (2009-2020). Pregnant women with T2D were identified and their live-born infants were followed until up to 1 year after birth. Exposure: Periconceptional exposure was defined as 1 or more prescription fill of sulfonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or insulin (active comparator) from 90 days before pregnancy to end of first trimester. Main Outcomes and Measures: Relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs for MCMs were estimated using log-binomial regression models, adjusting for key confounders in each cohort and meta-analyzed. Results: Periconceptional exposure to second-line noninsulin ADMs differed between countries (32, 295, and 73 per 100 000 pregnancies in the Nordics, US, and Israel, respectively), and increased over the study period, especially in the US. The standardized prevalence of MCMs was 3.7% in all infants (n = 3 514 865), 5.3% in the infants born to women with T2D (n = 51 826), and among infants exposed to sulfonylureas was 9.7% (n = 1362); DPP-4 inhibitors, 6.1% (n = 687); GLP-1 receptor agonists, 8.3% (n = 938); SGLT2 inhibitors, 7.0% (n = 335); and insulin, 7.8% (n = 5078). Compared with insulin, adjusted RRs for MCMs were 1.18 (95% CI, 0.94-1.48), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.64-1.06), 0.95 (95% CI, 0.72-1.26), and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.65-1.46) for infants exposed to sulfonylureas, DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Use of second-line noninsulin ADMs is rapidly increasing for treatment of T2D and other indications, resulting in an increasing number of exposed pregnancies. Although some estimates were imprecise, results did not indicate a large increased risk of MCMs above the risk conferred by maternal T2D requiring second-line treatment. Although reassuring, confirmation from other studies is needed, and continuous monitoring will provide more precise estimates as data accumulate.

A population-based cohort defined risk of hyperkalemia after initiating SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP1 receptor agonists or DPP-4 inhibitors to patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes.

Hyperkalemia is a common adverse event in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes and limits the use of guideline-recommended therapies such as renin-angiotensin system inhibitors. Here, we evaluated the comparative effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) on the risk of hyperkalemia. We conducted a population-based active-comparator, new-user cohort study using claims data from Medicare and two large United States commercial insurance databases (April 2013-April 2022). People with CKD stages 3-4 and type 2 diabetes who newly initiated SGLT-2i vs. DPP-4i (141671 patients), GLP-1RA vs. DPP-4i (159545 patients) and SGLT-2i vs. GLP-1RA (93033 patients) were included. The primary outcome was hyperkalemia diagnosed in inpatient or outpatient settings. Secondary outcomes included hyperkalemia diagnosed in inpatient or emergency department setting, and serum potassium levels of 5.5 mmol/L or more. Pooled hazard ratios and rate differences were estimated after propensity score matching to adjust for over 140 potential confounders. Initiation of SGLT-2i was associated with a lower risk of hyperkalemia compared with DPP-4i (hazard ratio 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.68-0.80) and contrasted to GLP-1RA (0.92; 0.86-0.99). Compared with DPP-4i, GLP-1RA were also associated with a lower risk of hyperkalemia (0.80; 0.75-0.86). Corresponding absolute rate differences/1000 person-years were -24.8 (95% confidence interval -31.8 to -17.7), -5.0 (-10.9 to 0.8), and -17.7 (-23.4 to -12.1), respectively. Similar findings were observed for the secondary outcomes, among subgroups, and across single agents within the SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA classes. Thus, SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA are associated with a lower risk of hyperkalemia than DPP-4i in patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes, further supporting the use of these drugs in this population.

Real-World Continuous EEG Utilization and Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients With Acute Cerebrovascular Diseases.

PURPOSE: Continuous electroencephalography (cEEG) is recommended for hospitalized patients with cerebrovascular diseases and suspected seizures or unexplained neurologic decline. We sought to (1) identify areas of practice variation in cEEG utilization, (2) determine predictors of cEEG utilization, (3) evaluate whether cEEG utilization is associated with outcomes in patients with cerebrovascular diseases. METHODS: This cohort study of the Premier Healthcare Database (2014-2020), included hospitalized patients age >18 years with cerebrovascular diseases (identified by ICD codes). Continuous electroencephalography was identified by International Classification of Diseases (ICD)/Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Multivariable lasso logistic regression was used to identify predictors of cEEG utilization and in-hospital mortality. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed to determine the relation between cEEG use and mortality. RESULTS: 1,179,471 admissions were included; 16,777 (1.4%) underwent cEEG. Total number of cEEGs increased by 364% over 5 years (average 32%/year). On multivariable analysis, top five predictors of cEEG use included seizure diagnosis, hospitals with >500 beds, regions Northeast and South, and anesthetic use. Top predictors of mortality included use of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, anesthetics, antiseizure medications, and age. Propensity analysis showed that cEEG was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (Average Treatment Effect -0.015 [95% confidence interval -0.028 to -0.003], Odds ratio 0.746 [95% confidence interval, 0.618-0.900]). CONCLUSIONS: There has been a national increase in cEEG utilization for hospitalized patients with cerebrovascular diseases, with practice variation. cEEG utilization was associated with lower in-hospital mortality. Larger comparative studies of cEEG-guided treatments are indicated to inform best practices, guide policy changes for increased access, and create guidelines on triaging and transferring patients to centers with cEEG capability.

Comparative Cardiovascular Effectiveness and Safety of SGLT-2 Inhibitors, GLP-1 Receptor Agonists, and DPP-4 Inhibitors According to Frailty in Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative cardiovascular effectiveness and safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) in older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) across different frailty strata. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed three 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort studies, each stratified by three frailty strata, using data from Medicare beneficiaries (2013-2019) with T2D who initiated SGLT-2is, GLP-1RAs, or DPP-4is. In time-to-event analyses, we assessed the primary cardiovascular effectiveness composite outcome of acute myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome was a composite of severe adverse events that have been linked to SGLT-2i or GLP-1RA use. RESULTS: Compared with DPP-4is, the overall hazard ratio (HR) for the primary effectiveness outcome associated with SGLT-2is (n = 120,202 matched pairs) was 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.75), corresponding to an incidence rate difference (IRD) of -13.35 (95% CI -15.06 to -11.64). IRD ranged from -6.74 (95% CI -8.61 to -4.87) in nonfrail to -27.24 (95% CI -41.64 to -12.84) in frail people (P for interaction < 0.01). Consistent benefits were observed for GLP-1RAs compared with DPP-4is (n = 113,864), with an overall HR of 0.74 (95% CI 0.71-0.77) and an IRD of -15.49 (95% CI -17.46 to -13.52). IRD in the lowest frailty stratum was -7.02 (95% CI -9.23 to -4.81) and -25.88 (95% CI -38.30 to -13.46) in the highest (P for interaction < 0.01). Results for SGLT-2is versus GLP-1RAs (n = 89,865) were comparable. Severe adverse events were not more frequent with SGLT-2is or GLP-1RAs than DPP-4is. CONCLUSIONS: SGLT-2is and GLP-1RAs safely improved cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality, with the largest absolute benefits among frail people.

Contemporary trends in the utilization of second-line pharmacological therapies for type 2 diabetes in the United States and the United Kingdom.

AIM: To examine trends of second-line glucose-lowering therapies among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating first-line metformin in the United States and the United Kingdom, overall and by subgroups of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and calendar time. METHODS: Using the US Optum Clinformatics and the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we identified adults with T2D who initiated first-line metformin or sulphonylurea monotherapy, separately, from 2013 to 2019. Within both cohorts, we identified patterns of second-line medications through June 2021. We stratified patterns by CVD and calendar time to investigate the impact of rapidly evolving treatment guidelines. RESULTS: We identified 148 511 and 169 316 patients initiating treatment with metformin monotherapy in the United States and the United Kingdom, respectively. Throughout the study period, sulphonylureas and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors were the most frequently initiated second-line medications in the United States (43.4% and 18.2%, respectively) and the United Kingdom (42.5% and 35.8%, respectively). After 2018, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists were more commonly used as second-line agents in the United States and the United Kingdom, although these agents were not preferentially prescribed among patients with CVD. Initiation of first-line sulphonylureas was much less common, and most sulphonylurea initiators had metformin added as the second-line agent. CONCLUSIONS: This international cohort study shows that sulphonylureas remain the most common second-line medications prescribed following metformin in both the United States and the United Kingdom. Despite recommendations, the use of newer glucose-lowering therapies with cardiovascular benefits remains low.

Achieving comparability in glycemic control between antidiabetic treatment strategies in pregnancy when using real world data.

PURPOSE: Healthcare utilization databases often lack information on glycemic control, a key confounder when studying the safety of antidiabetic treatments, since patients with worse control are channeled to second-line agents, in particular insulin, versus first-line agents such as metformin. We evaluated whether adjustment for measured characteristics attains balance in glycemic control when comparing antidiabetic treatment strategies in pregnant women with pregestational type 2 diabetes (T2DM). METHODS: In a US insurance claims database, we identified 3360 women with T2DM pregnant between 2004 and 2015, of whom a subset of 996 had data on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c ) levels. We selected insulin only as the comparator group and used propensity score (PS)-matching on comorbidities and proxies of diabetes severity, but not on HbA1c , to adjust for confounding. We used standardized differences (st.diff) to assess balance in claims-based covariates and mean HbA1c (% ± SD) in the subset. RESULTS: There were imbalances in claims-based covariates before PS-matching, with smaller differences when both treatment strategies included insulin. After PS-matching, balance was achieved in most claims-based covariates (st.diff <0.1). Mean HbA1c was similar before and after PS-matching when both treatments included insulin (e.g., 7.1 ± 1.5 vs. 7.7 ± 1.8 and 7.1 ± 1.5 vs. 7.5 ± 1.7, respectively, for metformin + insulin vs. insulin only). Differences in mean HbA1c remained after PS-matching when non-insulin treatments were compared to treatments including insulin (e.g., 6.3 ± 1.1 vs. 7.6 ± 1.7 for metformin only vs. insulin only). CONCLUSIONS: Balance in both claims-based characteristics and glycemic control was attained after restricting the population to women with T2DM and comparing treatment strategies indicated for patients with similar diabetes severity. When comparing treatment strategies with versus without insulin, differences in glycemic control persisted after PS-matching even when balance was attained for other measured characteristics.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors vs. sitagliptin in heart failure and type 2 diabetes: an observational cohort study.

AIMS: The effectiveness of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in patients with heart failure (HF) in routine clinical practice is not extensively studied. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of SGLT2i vs. sitagliptin in older adults with HF and type 2 diabetes and to investigate whether there were any differences between agents within the SGLT2i class or for reduced and preserved ejection fraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using Medicare claims data (April 2013 to December 2019), 16 253 SGLT2i initiators vs. 43 352 initiators of sitagliptin aged ≥65 years with type 2 diabetes and HF were included. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, hospitalization for HF or urgent visit requiring intravenous diuretics; secondary outcomes included its individual components. Propensity score fine stratification weighted Cox regression was used to adjust for 100 pre-exposure characteristics. Mean age was 74 years; 49.8% were women. Initiation of SGLT2i vs. sitagliptin was associated with a lower risk of the primary composite outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; 95% confidence interval 0.67-0.77]. The adjusted HRs were 0.70 (0.63-0.78) for all-cause mortality, 0.64 (0.58-0.70) for hospitalization for HF, and 0.77 (0.69-0.86) for urgent visit requiring intravenous diuretics. Similar associations with the primary composite outcome were observed for all three agents within the SGLT2i class, for reduced and preserved ejection fraction, and subgroups based on demographics, comorbidities, and other HF treatments. Bias-calibrated HRs for the primary endpoint using negative and positive control outcomes ranged between 0.81 and 0.89, suggesting that the observed benefit could not be fully explained by residual confounding. CONCLUSION: In routine US clinical practice, SGLT2i demonstrated robust clinical effectiveness in older adults with HF and type 2 diabetes compared with sitagliptin, with no evidence of heterogeneity across the SGLT2i class or across ejection fraction.

Frailty and uptake of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Frail older adults may be less likely to receive guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT)-renin-angiotensin blockers, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists-for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We aimed to examine the uptake of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and GDMT in frail older adults with HFrEF. METHODS: Using 2015-2019 Medicare data, we estimated the proportion of beneficiaries with HFrEF receiving ARNI and GDMT each year by frailty status, defined by a claims-based frailty index. Logistic regression was used to identify clinical characteristics associated with ARNI initiation. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to examine the association of GDMT use in 2015 and death or heart failure hospitalization in 2016-2019. RESULTS: Among 147,506-180,386 beneficiaries with HFrEF (mean age: 77 years; 27% women; 42.6-49.1% frail) in 2015-2019, the proportion of patients receiving ARNI increased in both non-frail (0.4%-16.4%) and frail (0.3%-13.7%) patients (p for yearly-trend-by-frailty = 0.970). Among those not receiving a renin-angiotensin system blocker, patients with age ≥ 85 years (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.89 [0.80-0.99]), dementia (0.88 [0.81-0.96]), and frailty (0.87 [0.81-0.94]) were less likely to initiate ARNI. The proportion of patients receiving all 3 GDMT classes increased in non-frail patients (22.0%-27.0%) but changed minimally in frail patients (19.6%-21.8%). Regardless of frailty status, treatment with at least 1 class of GDMT was associated with lower death or heart failure hospitalization than no GDMT medications (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.94 [0.91-0.97], 0.92 [0.89-0.94], 0.94 [0.91-0.97] for 1, 2, and 3 classes, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest an evidence-practice gap in the use of ARNI and GDMT in Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF, particularly those with frailty. Efforts to narrow this gap are needed to reduce the burden of HFrEF in older adults.

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.

Use of Real-World Data in Population Science to Improve the Prevention and Care of Diabetes-Related Outcomes.

The past decade of population research for diabetes has seen a dramatic proliferation of the use of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) generation from non-research settings, including both health and non-health sources, to influence decisions related to optimal diabetes care. A common attribute of these new data is that they were not collected for research purposes yet have the potential to enrich the information around the characteristics of individuals, risk factors, interventions, and health effects. This has expanded the role of subdisciplines like comparative effectiveness research and precision medicine, new quasi-experimental study designs, new research platforms like distributed data networks, and new analytic approaches for clinical prediction of prognosis or treatment response. The result of these developments is a greater potential to progress diabetes treatment and prevention through the increasing range of populations, interventions, outcomes, and settings that can be efficiently examined. However, this proliferation also carries an increased threat of bias and misleading findings. The level of evidence that may be derived from RWD is ultimately a function of the data quality and the rigorous application of study design and analysis. This report reviews the current landscape and applications of RWD in clinical effectiveness and population health research for diabetes and summarizes opportunities and best practices in the conduct, reporting, and dissemination of RWD to optimize its value and limit its drawbacks.