Dataset Information

Metformin vs sulfonylurea use and risk of dementia in US veterans aged ≥65 years with diabetes.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine whether metformin is associated with a lower incidence of dementia than sulfonylureas.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of US veterans ≥65 years of age with type 2 diabetes who were new users of metformin or a sulfonylurea and had no dementia. Follow-up began after 2 years of therapy. To account for confounding by indication, we developed a propensity score (PS) and used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) methods. Cox proportional hazards models estimated the hazard ratio (HR) of incident dementia.

Results

We identified 17,200 new users of metformin and 11,440 new users of sulfonylureas. Mean age was 73.5 years and mean HbA1c was 6.8%. Over an average follow-up of 5 years, 4,906 cases of dementia were diagnosed. Due to effect modification by age, all analyses were conducted using a piecewise model for age. Crude hazard ratio [HR] for any dementia in metformin vs sulfonylurea users was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.73) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.72-0.83) for those <75 years of age and ≥75 years of age, respectively. After PS IPTW adjustment, results remained significant in veterans <75 years of age (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.79-0.99), but not for those ≥75 years of age (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.87-1.05). A lower risk of dementia was also seen in the subset of younger veterans who had HbA1C values ≥7% (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.63-0.91), had good renal function (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.76-0.97), and were white (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77-0.99).

Conclusions

After accounting for confounding by indication, metformin was associated with a lower risk of subsequent dementia than sulfonylurea use in veterans <75 years of age. Further work is needed to identify which patients may benefit from metformin for the prevention of dementia.

SUBMITTER: Orkaby AR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5664297 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceBefore 2016, safety concerns limited metformin use in patients with kidney disease; however, the effectiveness of metformin on clinical outcomes in patients with reduced kidney function remains unknown.ObjectiveTo compare major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among patients with diabetes and reduced kidney function who continued treatment with metformin or a sulfonylurea.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study of US veterans receiving care within the national Veterans Health Administration, with data supplemented by linkage to Medicare, Medicaid, and National Death Index data from 2001 through 2016. There were 174 882 persistent new users of metformin and sulfonylureas who reached a reduced kidney function threshold (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 or creatinine ≥1.4 mg/dL for women or ≥1.5 mg/dL for men). Patients were followed up from reduced kidney function threshold until MACE, treatment change, loss to follow-up, death, or study end (December 2016).ExposuresNew users of metformin or sulfonylurea monotherapy who continued treatment with their glucose-lowering medication after reaching reduced kidney function.Main outcomes and measuresMACE included hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or cardiovascular death. The analyses used propensity score weighting to compare the cause-specific hazard of MACE between treatments and estimate cumulative risk accounting for the competing risks of changing therapy or noncardiovascular death.ResultsThere were 67 749 metformin and 28 976 sulfonylurea persistent monotherapy users; the weighted cohort included 24 679 metformin and 24 799 sulfonylurea users (median age, 70 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 62.8-77.8]; 48 497 men [98%]; and 40 476 white individuals [82%], with median estimated glomerular filtration rate of 55.8 mL/min/1.73 m2 [IQR, 51.6-58.2] and hemoglobin A1c level of 6.6% [IQR, 6.1%-7.2%] at cohort entry). During follow-up (median, 1.0 year for metformin vs 1.2 years for sulfonylurea), there were 1048 MACE outcomes (23.0 per 1000 person-years) among metformin users and 1394 events (29.2 per 1000 person-years) among sulfonylurea users. The cause-specific adjusted hazard ratio of MACE for metformin was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75-0.86) compared with sulfonylureas, yielding an adjusted rate difference of 5.8 (95% CI, 4.1-7.3) fewer events per 1000 person-years of metformin use compared with sulfonylurea use.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with diabetes and reduced kidney function persisting with monotherapy, treatment with metformin, compared with a sulfonylurea, was associated with a lower risk of MACE.

Project description:ObjectiveThe prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing globally and there is critical need develop interventions to improve health outcomes among older people. The Group Appointments in Primary Care (GAP) study was a randomised controlled trial designed to test the efficacy of a group and team-based medical visit programme to lower haemoglobin A1c among patients with T2DM. We aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators to implement the GAP intervention within a primary care setting, with an emphasis on patient experience.Research design and methodsThis was a qualitative exploratory study. Data were gathered from semistructured interviews conducted with the first cohort of GAP study participants (n=15) at baseline and intervention completion. GAP participants were aged >65, diagnosed with T2DM and from one primary care clinic. The interview questions identified the patient perspectives and factors relating to their attendance at seven group medical visits that were part of the intervention programme. Data were analysed using framework analysis.ResultsWe identified four themes that captured participants' experiences: (1) Education: learning with professionals, learning with one another; (2) Social Support: common interests, common problems; (3) Setting: ease of location, ease of conversation and (4) Impact: expectations met, empowerment gained. The GAP intervention increased participants' self-reported diabetes literacy and self-management skills.ConclusionsWe learnt that: accessible community centres, not primary care offices, were the ideal location for GAP; the consistent leadership of the primary care physician was valued by participants; and, the content related to exercise and healthy diet were viewed as impactful. Also, learning was achieved through content delivered by clinical experts, and by T2DM experts with lived experience-the GAP peers. Our findings highlight the important role of group learning.Trial registration numberNCT02002143.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravenous golimumab + methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) aged <?65?years and those ??65?years who were enrolled in the GO-FURTHER study. METHODS:In the phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled GO-FURTHER trial, patients with active RA were randomized to intravenous (IV) golimumab 2?mg/kg + MTX or placebo + MTX at weeks 0 and 4, then every 8?weeks thereafter (with crossover to golimumab at week 16 [early escape] or week 24 [per-protocol]). The final golimumab infusion was at week 100. Assessments included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response criteria. Efficacy and adverse events (AEs) were monitored through 2 years. Efficacy and AEs were summarized for patients aged <?65?years or ??65?years; AEs were also summarized for patients < or ??70?years and patients < or ??75?years. RESULTS:In GO-FURTHER, 592 patients were randomized to receive placebo (n?=?197) or golimumab (n?=?395), 515 were aged <?65?years and 77 were ??65?years. At week 24, ACR20 response rates were greater for golimumab + MTX patients compared with placebo + MTX for patients <?65?years (61.6% vs 31.3%, p?<?0.001) and those ??65?years (69.5% vs 33.3%; p?<?0.01). Infections were the most common AE through week 112 (51.6% in patients <?65?years; 55.3% in patients ??65?years); upper respiratory infections were the most common infection in patients <?65?years (13.2%) and those ??65?years (11.8%). Serious AEs occurred in 17.7% in patients <?65?years and 25.0% of patients ??65?years and included malignancies, pneumonia, fractures, acute pancreatitis, cellulitis, and bacterial arthritis. CONCLUSIONS:In GO-FURTHER, ACR response rates were similar between patients <?65?years and patients ??65?years within each treatment group. AEs in elderly patients were similar to the known safety profile of IV golimumab. Immunosenescence is known to increase the risk of infections in the elderly. Elderly patients had a numerically higher incidence of serious infections. Six malignancies occurred in golimumab-treated patients, all in patients <?65?years. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00973479 . Registered September 9, 2009.

Project description:Introduction:People with dementia experience poor outcomes after hospital admission, with mortality being particularly high. There is no cure for dementia; antidementia medications have been shown to improve cognition and function, but their effect on mortality in real-world settings is little known. This study examines associations between treatment with antidementia medication and mortality in older people with dementia after an emergency admission. Methods:The design is a retrospective cohort study of people aged ?65 years, with a diagnosis of dementia and an emergency hospital admission between 01/01/2010 and 31/12/2016. Two classes of antidementia medication were considered: the acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine. Mortality was examined using a Cox proportional hazards model with time-varying covariates for the prescribing of antidementia medication before or on admission and during one-year follow-up, adjusted for demographics, comorbidity, and community prescribing including anticholinergic burden. Propensity score analysis was examined for treatment selection bias. Results:There were 9142 patients with known dementia included in this study, of which 45.0% (n = 4110) received an antidementia medication before or on admission; 31.3% (n = 2864) were prescribed one of the acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, 8.7% (n = 798) memantine, and 4.9% (n = 448) both. 32.9% (n = 1352) of these patients died in the year after admission, compared to 42.7% (n = 2148) of those with no antidementia medication on admission. The Cox model showed a significant reduction in mortality in patients treated with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.78, 95% CI 0.72-0.85) or memantine (HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.66-0.86) or both (HR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.68-0.94). Sensitivity analysis by propensity score matching confirmed the associations between antidementia prescribing and reduced mortality. Discussion:Treatment with antidementia medication is associated with a reduction in risk of death in the year after an emergency hospital admission. Further research is required to determine if there is a causal relationship between treatment and mortality, and whether "symptomatic" therapy for dementia does have a disease-modifying effect.