Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2019
Cardiovascular safety of linagliptin compared with other oral glucose-lowering agents in patients with type 2 diabetes: A sequential monitoring programme in routine care.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Patorno Elisabetta, Gopalakrishnan Chandrasekar, Brodovicz Kimberly G, Meyers Andrea, Bartels Dorothee B, Liu Jun, Kulldorff Martin, Schneeweiss Sebastian
Аннотация
AIM: To evaluate the safety of linagliptin versus other glucose-lowering medications in a multi-year monitoring programme using insurance claims data.
METHODS: In two commercial US claims databases, we identified three pairwise 1:1 propensity-score (PS)-matched cohorts of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) aged ≥18 years initiating linagliptin or a comparator (other dipeptidyl peptidase-4 [DPP-4] inhibitors [n = 31 492 pairs], pioglitazone [n = 23 316 pairs], or second-generation sulphonylureas [n = 19 731 pairs]) between May 2011 and December 2015. The primary endpoint was the risk of a composite cardiovascular (CV) outcome (hospitalization for myocardial infarction, stroke, unstable angina, or coronary revascularization). We estimated pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), controlling for >100 baseline characteristics.
RESULTS: Patient characteristics were well balanced after PS-matching. The mean age was 55 years and mean follow-up was 0.8 years. Linagliptin conferred a similar risk of the composite CV outcome compared to other DPP-4 inhibitors (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79-1.05) and pioglitazone (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84-1.15), and showed a reduced risk of CV outcomes compared to second-generation sulphonylureas (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64--0.92). Key findings were signalled at the first interim analysis in June 2013 and solidified during ongoing monitoring until 2015.
CONCLUSION: Analyses from a large monitoring programme in routine care of patients with T2D, showed that linagliptin had similar CV safety compared to other DPP-4 inhibitors and pioglitazone, and a reduced CV risk compared to sulphonylureas.
METHODS: In two commercial US claims databases, we identified three pairwise 1:1 propensity-score (PS)-matched cohorts of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) aged ≥18 years initiating linagliptin or a comparator (other dipeptidyl peptidase-4 [DPP-4] inhibitors [n = 31 492 pairs], pioglitazone [n = 23 316 pairs], or second-generation sulphonylureas [n = 19 731 pairs]) between May 2011 and December 2015. The primary endpoint was the risk of a composite cardiovascular (CV) outcome (hospitalization for myocardial infarction, stroke, unstable angina, or coronary revascularization). We estimated pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), controlling for >100 baseline characteristics.
RESULTS: Patient characteristics were well balanced after PS-matching. The mean age was 55 years and mean follow-up was 0.8 years. Linagliptin conferred a similar risk of the composite CV outcome compared to other DPP-4 inhibitors (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79-1.05) and pioglitazone (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84-1.15), and showed a reduced risk of CV outcomes compared to second-generation sulphonylureas (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64--0.92). Key findings were signalled at the first interim analysis in June 2013 and solidified during ongoing monitoring until 2015.
CONCLUSION: Analyses from a large monitoring programme in routine care of patients with T2D, showed that linagliptin had similar CV safety compared to other DPP-4 inhibitors and pioglitazone, and a reduced CV risk compared to sulphonylureas.