Elisabetta Patorno1, Sebastian Schneeweiss1, Chandrasekar Gopalakrishnan2, David Martin3, Jessica M Franklin1. 1. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 2. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA cgopalakrishnan@bwh.harvard.edu. 3. Office of Medical Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD.
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.
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.
Authors: Jessica M Franklin; Jeremy A Rassen; Diana Ackermann; Dorothee B Bartels; Sebastian Schneeweiss Journal: Stat Med Date: 2013-12-09 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Baptist Gallwitz; Julio Rosenstock; Thomas Rauch; Sudipta Bhattacharya; Sanjay Patel; Maximilian von Eynatten; Klaus A Dugi; Hans-Juergen Woerle Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Alex Z Fu; Stephen S Johnston; Ameen Ghannam; Katherine Tsai; Katherine Cappell; Robert Fowler; Ellen Riehle; Ashley L Cole; Iftekhar Kalsekar; John Sheehan Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Elisabetta Patorno; Allison B Goldfine; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Brendan M Everett; Robert J Glynn; Jun Liu; Seoyoung C Kim Journal: BMJ Date: 2018-02-06
Authors: HoJin Shin; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Robert J Glynn; Elisabetta Patorno Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2022-01-17 Impact factor: 2.890