Arsenic in drinking water and cerebrovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and kidney disease in Michigan: a standardized mortality ratio analysis

BACKGROUND: Exposure to arsenic concentrations in drinking water in excess of 300 μg/L is associated with diseases of the circulatory and respiratory system, several types of cancer, and diabetes; however, little is known about the health consequences of exposure to low-to-moderate levels of arsenic (10–100 μg/L). METHODS: A standardized mortality ratio (SMR) analysis was conducted in a contiguous six county study area of southeastern Michigan to investigate the relationship between moderate arsenic levels and twenty-three selected disease outcomes. Disease outcomes included several types of cancer, diseases of the circulatory and respiratory system, diabetes mellitus, and kidney and liver diseases. Arsenic data were compiled from 9251 well water samples tested by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality from 1983 through 2002. Michigan Resident Death Files data were amassed for 1979 through 1997 and sex-specific SMR analyses were conducted with indirect adjustment for age and race; 99% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. RESULTS: The six county study area had a population-weighted mean arsenic concentration of 11.00 μg/L and a population-weighted median of 7.58 μg/L. SMR analyses were conducted for the entire six county study area, for only Genesee County (the most populous and urban county), and for the five counties besides Genesee. Concordance of results across analyses is used to interpret the findings. Elevated mortality rates were observed for both males (M) and females (F) for all diseases of the circulatory system (M SMR, 1.11; CI, 1.09–1.13; F SMR, 1.15; CI, 1.13,-1.17), cerebrovascular diseases (M SMR, 1.19; CI, 1.14–1.25; F SMR, 1.19; CI, 1.15–1.23), diabetes mellitus (M SMR, 1.28; CI, 1.18–1.37; F SMR, 1.27; CI, 1.19–1.35), and kidney diseases (M SMR, 1.28; CI, 1.15–1.42; F SMR, 1.38; CI, 1.25–1.52). CONCLUSION: This is some of the first evidence to suggest that exposure to low-to-moderate levels of arsenic in drinking water may be associated with several of the leading causes of mortality, although further epidemiologic studies are required to confirm the results suggested by this ecologic SMR analysis

Canagliflozin, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin monotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes: systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: Most people with type 2 diabetes are overweight, so initial treatment is aimed at reducing weight and increasing physical activity. Even modest weight loss can improve control of blood glucose. If drug treatment is necessary, the drug of first choice is metformin. However, some people cannot tolerate metformin, which causes diarrhoea in about 10%, and it cannot be used in people with renal impairment. This review appraises three of the newest class of drugs for monotherapy when metformin cannot be used, the sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Objective: To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin (Farxiga, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Luton, UK), canagliflozin (Invokana, Janssen, High Wycombe, UK) and empagliflozin (Jardiance, Merck & Co., Darmstadt, Germany), in monotherapy in people who cannot take metformin. Sources: MEDLINE (1946 to February 2015) and EMBASE (1974 to February 2015) for randomised controlled trials lasting 24 weeks or more. For adverse events, a wider range of studies was used. Three manufacturers provided submissions. Methods: Systematic review and economic evaluation. A network meta-analysis was carried out involving the three SGLT2 inhibitors and key comparators. Critical appraisal of submissions from three manufacturers. Results: We included three trials of dapagliflozin and two each for canagliflozin and empagliflozin. The trials were of good quality. The canagliflozin and dapagliflozin trials compared them with placebo, but the two empagliflozin trials included active comparators. All three drugs were shown to be effective in improving glycaemic control, promoting weight loss and lowering blood pressure (BP). Limitations: There were no head-to-head trials of the different flozins, and no long-term data on cardiovascular outcomes in this group of patients. Most trials were against placebo. The trials were done in patient groups that were not always comparable, for example in baseline glycated haemoglobin or body mass index. Data on elderly patients were lacking. Conclusions: Dapagliflozin, canagliflozin and empagliflozin are effective in improving glycaemic control, with added benefits of some reductions in BP and weight. Adverse effects are urinary and genital tract infections in a small proportion of users. In monotherapy, the three drugs do not appear cost-effective compared with gliclazide or pioglitazone, but may be competitive against sitagliptin (Januvia, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bracknell, UK). Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme