BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Potential treatment effect modifiers (TEMs) are specific diseases or conditions with a well-described mechanism for treatment effect modification. The prevalence of TEMs in older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is unknown. Objectives were to 1) determine the prevalence of pre-specified potential TEMs; 2) demonstrate the potential impact of TEMs in the older adult population using a simulated trial; 3) identify TEM combinations associated with number of hospitalizations to test construct validity. METHODS: Data are from the nationally-representative United States National Health and Examination Survey, 1999-2004: 8646 Civilian, non-institutionalized adults aged 45-64 or 65+ years, including 1443 with DM. TEMs were anemia, congestive heart failure, liver inflammation, polypharmacy, renal insufficiency, cognitive impairment, dizziness, frequent mental distress, mobility difficulty, and visual impairment. A trial was simulated to examine prevalence of potential TEM impact. The cross-sectional association between TEM patterns and number of hospitalizations was estimated to assess construct validity. RESULTS: The prevalence of TEMs was substantial such that 19.0% (95% CI 14.8-23.2) of middle-aged adults and 38.0% (95% CI 33.4-42.5) of older adults had any two. A simulated trial with modest levels of interaction suggested the prevalence of TEMs could nullify treatment benefit in 3.9-27.2% of older adults with DM. Compared to having DM alone, hospitalization rate was increased by several combinations of TEMs with substantial prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: We provide national benchmarks that can be used to evaluate TEM prevalence reported by clinical trials of DM, and correspondingly their external validity to older adults.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Potential treatment effect modifiers (TEMs) are specific diseases or conditions with a well-described mechanism for treatment effect modification. The prevalence of TEMs in older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is unknown. Objectives were to 1) determine the prevalence of pre-specified potential TEMs; 2) demonstrate the potential impact of TEMs in the older adult population using a simulated trial; 3) identify TEM combinations associated with number of hospitalizations to test construct validity. METHODS: Data are from the nationally-representative United States National Health and Examination Survey, 1999-2004: 8646 Civilian, non-institutionalized adults aged 45-64 or 65+ years, including 1443 with DM. TEMs were anemia, congestive heart failure, liver inflammation, polypharmacy, renal insufficiency, cognitive impairment, dizziness, frequent mental distress, mobility difficulty, and visual impairment. A trial was simulated to examine prevalence of potential TEM impact. The cross-sectional association between TEM patterns and number of hospitalizations was estimated to assess construct validity. RESULTS: The prevalence of TEMs was substantial such that 19.0% (95% CI 14.8-23.2) of middle-aged adults and 38.0% (95% CI 33.4-42.5) of older adults had any two. A simulated trial with modest levels of interaction suggested the prevalence of TEMs could nullify treatment benefit in 3.9-27.2% of older adults with DM. Compared to having DM alone, hospitalization rate was increased by several combinations of TEMs with substantial prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: We provide national benchmarks that can be used to evaluate TEM prevalence reported by clinical trials of DM, and correspondingly their external validity to older adults.
Authors: Cynthia M Boyd; Christine S Ritchie; Edmond F Tipton; Stephanie A Studenski; Darryl Wieland Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Cynthia M Boyd; Bruce Leff; Jennifer L Wolff; Qilu Yu; Jing Zhou; Cynthia Rand; Carlos O Weiss Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Xin Sun; Matthias Briel; Jason W Busse; Elie A Akl; John J You; Filip Mejza; Malgorzata Bala; Natalia Diaz-Granados; Dirk Bassler; Dominik Mertz; Sadeesh K Srinathan; Per Olav Vandvik; German Malaga; Mohamed Alshurafa; Philipp Dahm; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Diane M Heels-Ansdell; Neera Bhatnagar; Bradley C Johnston; Li Wang; Stephen D Walter; Douglas G Altman; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: Trials Date: 2009-11-09 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Margaret R Savoca; David A Ludwig; Stedman T Jones; K Jason Clodfelter; Joseph B Sloop; Linda Y Bollhalter; Alain G Bertoni Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-02-23 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Guy E H M Rutten; Cees J Tack; Thomas R Pieber; Abdurrahman Comlekci; David Dynnes Ørsted; Florian M M Baeres; Steven P Marso; John B Buse Journal: Diabetol Metab Syndr Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 3.320
Authors: Clementine Nordon; Constance Battin; Helene Verdoux; Josef Maria Haro; Mark Belger; Lucien Abenhaim; Tjeerd Pieter van Staa Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 4.790