Dataset Information

Using Real-World Data to Predict Findings of an Ongoing Phase IV Cardiovascular Outcome Trial: Cardiovascular Safety of Linagliptin Versus Glimepiride.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Using real-world data (RWD) from three U.S. claims data sets, we aim to predict the findings of the CARdiovascular Outcome Trial of LINAgliptin Versus Glimepiride in Type 2 Diabetes (CAROLINA) comparing linagliptin versus glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at increased cardiovascular risk by using a novel framework that requires passing prespecified validity checks before analyzing the primary outcome.

Research design and methods

Within Medicare and two commercial claims data sets (May 2011-September 2015), we identified a 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) cohort of T2D patients 40-85 years old at increased cardiovascular risk who initiated linagliptin or glimepiride by adapting eligibility criteria from CAROLINA. PSM was used to balance >120 confounders. Validity checks included the evaluation of expected power, covariate balance, and two control outcomes for which we expected a positive association and a null finding. We registered the protocol (NCT03648424, ClinicalTrials.gov) before evaluating the composite cardiovascular outcome based on CAROLINA's primary end point. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs were estimated in each data source and pooled with a fixed-effects meta-analysis.

Results

We identified 24,131 PSM pairs of linagliptin and glimepiride initiators with sufficient power for noninferiority (>98%). Exposure groups achieved excellent covariate balance, including key laboratory results, and expected associations between glimepiride and hypoglycemia (HR 2.38 [95% CI 1.79-3.13]) and between linagliptin and end-stage renal disease (HR 1.08 [0.66-1.79]) were replicated. Linagliptin was associated with a 9% decreased risk in the composite cardiovascular outcome with a CI including the null (HR 0.91 [0.79-1.05]), in line with noninferiority.

Conclusions

In a nonrandomized RWD study, we found that linagliptin has noninferior risk of a composite cardiovascular outcome compared with glimepiride.

SUBMITTER: Patorno E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6868466 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceType 2 diabetes is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. In placebo-controlled cardiovascular safety trials, the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin demonstrated noninferiority, but it has not been tested against an active comparator.ObjectiveThis trial assessed cardiovascular outcomes of linagliptin vs glimepiride (sulfonylurea) in patients with relatively early type 2 diabetes and risk factors for or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized, double-blind, active-controlled, noninferiority trial, with participant screening from November 2010 to December 2012, conducted at 607 hospital and primary care sites in 43 countries involving 6042 participants. Adults with type 2 diabetes, glycated hemoglobin of 6.5% to 8.5%, and elevated cardiovascular risk were eligible for inclusion. Elevated cardiovascular risk was defined as documented atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, multiple cardiovascular risk factors, aged at least 70 years, and evidence of microvascular complications. Follow-up ended in August 2018.InterventionsPatients were randomized to receive 5 mg of linagliptin once daily (n = 3023) or 1 to 4 mg of glimepiride once daily (n = 3010) in addition to usual care. Investigators were encouraged to intensify glycemic treatment, primarily by adding or adjusting metformin, α-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, or insulin, according to clinical need.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was time to first occurrence of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke with the aim to establish noninferiority of linagliptin vs glimepiride, defined by the upper limit of the 2-sided 95.47% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) of linagliptin relative to glimepiride of less than 1.3.ResultsOf 6042 participants randomized, 6033 (mean age, 64.0 years; 2414 [39.9%] women; mean glycated hemoglobin, 7.2%; median duration of diabetes, 6.3 years; 42% with macrovascular disease; 59% had undergone metformin monotherapy) were treated and analyzed. The median duration of follow-up was 6.3 years. The primary outcome occurred in 356 of 3023 participants (11.8%) in the linagliptin group and 362 of 3010 (12.0%) in the glimepiride group (HR, 0.98 [95.47% CI, 0.84-1.14]; P < .001 for noninferiority), meeting the noninferiority criterion but not superiority (P = .76). Adverse events occurred in 2822 participants (93.4%) in the linagliptin group and 2856 (94.9%) in the glimepiride group, with 15 participants (0.5%) in the linagliptin group vs 16 (0.5%) in the glimepiride group with adjudicated-confirmed acute pancreatitis. At least 1 episode of hypoglycemic adverse events occurred in 320 (10.6%) participants in the linagliptin group and 1132 (37.7%) in the glimepiride group (HR, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.21-0.26]).Conclusions and relevanceAmong adults with relatively early type 2 diabetes and elevated cardiovascular risk, the use of linagliptin compared with glimepiride over a median 6.3 years resulted in a noninferior risk of a composite cardiovascular outcome.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01243424.

Project description:BackgroundRecent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) changed the therapeutic strategy of guidelines for type 2 diabetes. We compared the characteristics of patients from real-world hospital settings with those of participants in recent pragmatic randomized trials.MethodsThis electronic medical record (EMR)-based retrospective observational study investigated the data of patients with diabetes from inpatient and outpatient settings in West China Hospital of Sichuan University from January 1, 2011, to June 30, 2019. We identified patients meeting the inclusion criteria of a pragmatic randomized trial (EMPA-REG OUTCOME) based on EMRs and compared their baseline characteristics with those of the trial participants. The cutoff for the clinical significance of each characteristic was set as its minimal clinically important difference based on expert consultation.ResultsWe included 48,257 inpatients and 36,857 outpatients with diabetes and found that 8389 (17.4%) inpatients and 2646 (7.2%) outpatients met the inclusion criteria for the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial. Compared with the trial population, the real-world inpatients meeting the eligibility criteria of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME had similar age, blood pressure, and lipid profiles but comprised of fewer males, metformin users, anti-hypertensive drug users, and aspirin users, and had a lower body mass index. The group of outpatients meeting the eligibility criteria had fewer males, similar age, fewer metformin users, fewer insulin users, fewer anti-hypertensive drug users, and fewer aspirin users compared with the trial population.ConclusionsThe trial population in EMPA-REG OUTCOME represents only a small portion of patients with diabetes from the inpatient and outpatient departments of a Chinese tertiary medical center. Evidence localization in different clinical settings and validation are essential to enabling extrapolation of the results from CVOTs in patients with diabetes to Chinese clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundIn Italy, monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway are subsidized for the preventive treatment of high frequency and chronic migraine (CM) in patients with a MIgraine Disability ASsessment (MIDAS) score ≥ 11. Eligibility to treatment continuation requires a ≥ 50% MIDAS score reduction at three months (T3). In this study, we evaluate whether a ≥ 50% MIDAS score reduction at T3 is a reliable predictor of response to one-year erenumab treatment.MethodsIn this prospective, open-label, real-world study, 77 CM patients were treated with erenumab 70-140 mg s.c. every 28 days for one year (T13). We collected the following variables: monthly migraine days (MMDs), monthly headache days (MHDs), days of acute medication intake, MIDAS, HIT-6, anxiety, depression, quality of life and allodynia. Response to erenumab was evaluated as: i) average reduction in MMDs during the 1-year treatment period; and ii) percentage of patients with ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs during the last 4 weeks after the 13th injection (RespondersT13).ResultsErenumab induced a sustained reduction in MMDs, MHDs and intake of acute medications across the 12-month treatment period, with 64.9% of patients qualifying as RespondersT13. At T3, 55.8% of patients reported a ≥ 50% reduction in MIDAS score (MIDASRes) and 55.4% of patients reported a ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs (MMDRes). MIDASRes and MMDRes patients showed a more pronounced reduction in MMDs during the 1-year treatment as compared to NON-MIDASRes (MIDASRes: T0: 23.5 ± 4.9 vs. T13: 7.7 ± 6.2; NON- MIDASRes: T0: 21.6 ± 5.4 vs. T13: 11.3 ± 8.8, p = 0.045) and NON-MMDRes (MMDRes: T0: 23.0 ± 4.5 vs. T13: 6.6 ± 4.8; NON-MMDRes: T0: 22.3 ± 6.0 vs. T13: 12.7 ± 9.2, p < 0.001) groups. The percentage of RespondersT13 did not differ between MIDASRes (74.4%) and NON-MIDASRes (52.9%) patients (p = 0.058), while the percentage of RespondersT13 was higher in the MMDRes group (83.3%) when compared to NON-MMDRes (42.9%) (p = 0.001). MMDRes predicted the long-term outcome according to a multivariate analysis (Exp(B) = 7.128; p = 0.001), while MIDASRes did not. Treatment discontinuation based on MIDASRes would have early excluded 36.0% of RespondersT13. Discontinuation based on "either MIDASRes or MMDRes" would have excluded a lower percentage (16%) of RespondersT13.ConclusionMIDASRes only partly reflects the 12-month outcome of erenumab treatment in CM, as it excludes more than one third of responders. A criterion based on the alternative consideration of ≥ 50% reduction in MIDAS score or MMDs in the first three months of treatment represents a more precise and inclusive option.Trial registrationThe trial was retrospectively registered at www.Clinicaltrialsgov (NCT05442008). CGRP: Calcitonin Gene Related Peptide.MidasMIgraine Disability Assessment. MMDs: monthly migraine days. MIDASRes: Patients with a MIDAS score reduction of at least 50% at T3. MMDRes: Patients with a MMDs reduction of at least 50% at T3. ResponderT13: Patients with a MMDs reduction from baseline of at least 50% in the last 4 weeks of observation period (after 13 erenumab administrations). T0: First erenumab administration. T3, T6, T9, T12: Follow-up visits at three, six, nine, and twelve months after first erenumab administration. T13: Last visit of the protocol.