Elisabetta Patorno1, Chandrasekar Gopalakrishnan1, Kimberly G Brodovicz2, Andrea Meyers2, Dorothee B Bartels3,4, Jun Liu1, Martin Kulldorff1, Sebastian Schneeweiss1. 1. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Global Epidemiology, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc (U.S), Ingelheim, Germany. 3. Hannover Medical School, Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover, Germany. 4. BI X, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Ingelheim, Germany.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: William B White; Christopher P Cannon; Simon R Heller; Steven E Nissen; Richard M Bergenstal; George L Bakris; Alfonso T Perez; Penny R Fleck; Cyrus R Mehta; Stuart Kupfer; Craig Wilson; William C Cushman; Faiez Zannad Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-09-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeffrey S Brown; Martin Kulldorff; K Arnold Chan; Robert L Davis; David Graham; Parker T Pettus; Susan E Andrade; Marsha A Raebel; Lisa Herrinton; Douglas Roblin; Denise Boudreau; David Smith; Jerry H Gurwitz; Margaret J Gunter; Richard Platt Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Elisabetta Patorno; Amanda R Patrick; Elizabeth M Garry; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Victoria G Gillet; Dorothee B Bartels; Elvira Masso-Gonzalez; John D Seeger Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2014-09-12 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Sengwee Toh; Marsha E Reichman; David J Graham; Christian Hampp; Rongmei Zhang; Melissa G Butler; Aarthi Iyer; Malcolm Rucker; Madelyn Pimentel; Jack Hamilton; Samuel Lendle; Bruce H Fireman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Yuka Kiyota; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Robert J Glynn; Carolyn C Cannuscio; Jerry Avorn; Daniel H Solomon Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Weiling Katherine Yih; Martin Kulldorff; Sukhminder K Sandhu; Lauren Zichittella; Judith C Maro; David V Cole; Robert Jin; Alison Tse Kawai; Meghan A Baker; Chunfu Liu; Cheryl N McMahill-Walraven; Mano S Selvan; Richard Platt; Michael D Nguyen; Grace M Lee Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2015-11-17 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Elisabetta Patorno; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Chandrasekar Gopalakrishnan; David Martin; Jessica M Franklin Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2019-06-25 Impact factor: 19.112