Sruthi Adimadhyam1, Glen T Schumock1, Gregory S Calip1,2,3, Daphne E Smith Marsh4, Brian T Layden5,6, Todd A Lee1. 1. Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 2. Center for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomic Research, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Epidemiology Program, Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Chicago, IL, USA. 4. Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 6. Jesse Brown Veterans Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: To determine the risk of mycotic infections associated with the use of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in a real-world setting. METHODS: We conducted a prescription sequence symmetry analysis using data from Truven Health MarketScan (2009-2015). We selected continuously enrolled patients newly initiating both an SGLT2i and an antifungal between 1 April 2013 and 31 December 2015 within time periods of 30, 60, 90, 180 or 365 days of each other. Adjusted sequence ratios (ASR) were calculated for each time period as the ratio of patients initiating SGLT2i first over those initiating an antifungal first adjusted for time trends in prescribing. Analyses were stratified by sex and type of SGLT2i. RESULTS: There were 23 276 patients who newly initiated both SGLT2i and an antifungal in our study period. These patients were further classified into those initiating the two drugs within 365 (n = 17 504), 180 (n = 11 873), 90 (n = 7697), 60 (n = 5856) or 30 (n = 3650) days of each other. Increased risks of mycotic infections were present across all time periods, with the strongest effect observed in the 90-day interval [ASR 1.53 (confidence interval, CI 1.43-1.60)]. Findings differed by sex [90-day ASR females: 1.65 (CI 1.56-1.74); males 1.25 (CI 1.14-1.36)] and by SGLT2i [90-day ASR canagliflozin 1.57 (CI 1.49-1.66); non-canagliflozin 1.42 (CI 1.31-1.55)]. CONCLUSION: Initiation of SGLT2i was associated with an increased risk for mycotic infections. Findings from this commercially insured population in the real world are consistent with evidence available from clinical trials.
AIMS: To determine the risk of mycotic infections associated with the use of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in a real-world setting. METHODS: We conducted a prescription sequence symmetry analysis using data from Truven Health MarketScan (2009-2015). We selected continuously enrolled patients newly initiating both an SGLT2i and an antifungal between 1 April 2013 and 31 December 2015 within time periods of 30, 60, 90, 180 or 365 days of each other. Adjusted sequence ratios (ASR) were calculated for each time period as the ratio of patients initiating SGLT2i first over those initiating an antifungal first adjusted for time trends in prescribing. Analyses were stratified by sex and type of SGLT2i. RESULTS: There were 23 276 patients who newly initiated both SGLT2i and an antifungal in our study period. These patients were further classified into those initiating the two drugs within 365 (n = 17 504), 180 (n = 11 873), 90 (n = 7697), 60 (n = 5856) or 30 (n = 3650) days of each other. Increased risks of mycotic infections were present across all time periods, with the strongest effect observed in the 90-day interval [ASR 1.53 (confidence interval, CI 1.43-1.60)]. Findings differed by sex [90-day ASR females: 1.65 (CI 1.56-1.74); males 1.25 (CI 1.14-1.36)] and by SGLT2i [90-day ASR canagliflozin 1.57 (CI 1.49-1.66); non-canagliflozin 1.42 (CI 1.31-1.55)]. CONCLUSION: Initiation of SGLT2i was associated with an increased risk for mycotic infections. Findings from this commercially insured population in the real world are consistent with evidence available from clinical trials.
Authors: Sruthi Adimadhyam; Glen T Schumock; Gregory S Calip; Daphne E Smith Marsh; Brian T Layden; Todd A Lee Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Bernard Zinman; Christoph Wanner; John M Lachin; David Fitchett; Erich Bluhmki; Stefan Hantel; Michaela Mattheus; Theresa Devins; Odd Erik Johansen; Hans J Woerle; Uli C Broedl; Silvio E Inzucchi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bruce Neal; Vlado Perkovic; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Dick de Zeeuw; Greg Fulcher; Ngozi Erondu; Wayne Shaw; Gordon Law; Mehul Desai; David R Matthews Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Heidi Storgaard; Lise L Gluud; Cathy Bennett; Magnus F Grøndahl; Mikkel B Christensen; Filip K Knop; Tina Vilsbøll Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-11-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sruthi Adimadhyam; Glen T Schumock; Gregory S Calip; Daphne E Smith Marsh; Brian T Layden; Todd A Lee Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Anastasios Tentolouris; Panayotis Vlachakis; Evangelia Tzeravini; Ioanna Eleftheriadou; Nikolaos Tentolouris Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-08-17 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Thomas M Caparrotta; Andrew M Greenhalgh; Karen Osinski; Robert M Gifford; Svenja Moser; Sarah H Wild; Rebecca M Reynolds; David J Webb; Helen M Colhoun Journal: Diabetes Ther Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 2.945
Authors: Ann S Doherty; Faiza Shahid; Frank Moriarty; Fiona Boland; Barbara Clyne; Tobias Dreischulte; Tom Fahey; Seán P Kennelly; Emma Wallace Journal: Pharmacol Res Perspect Date: 2022-10