The G20 has served its purpose and should be replaced with a Global Economic Council on a firmer constitutional foundation

Robert Wade and Jakob Vestergaard argue that by permanently excluding 172 countries, the G20 deprives the large majority of nations of voice on matters that may crucially affect them. They believe it should be replaced by a Global Economic Council (GEC) based on a delegated voting system, and here they provide details of what this might look like

Why is the IMF at an impasse, and what can be done about it?

The International Monetary Fund is at an impasse, acutely short of secure lending resources. The main reason is that the US Congress is blocking ratification of an agreement reached in 2010 by all member states that would almost double its permanent loanable funds (its quota). World leaders should be worried that the Fund is currently relying on the good will of countries to supply it with short-term loans which it can on-lend to countries in crisis. This is not a solid foundation for the nearest thing the world system has to an international lender-of-last- resort. Since the IMF's multilateral functions cannot be readily replicated, it is important to find a way out. All solutions lead back to the US veto, the US being the only state (Treasury or Congress) able to veto supermajority decisions. The prospect of more financial crises ahead while the Fund is chronically short of secure lending resources should focus all minds on how to end the US veto. Otherwise the Fund will follow the WTO towards irrelevance, to the benefit of the few countries at the strong end of bilateral and regional arrangements

The G20 and Beyond: Towards Effective Global Economic Governance

2 FOREWORD This study is co-funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, as it is one of three components of commissioned work on 'Global reforms in light of the economic crisis'. On behalf of DIIS, I thank the Ministry for funding the study as well as for useful interaction in the course of the project. This research is based on a combination of desk research and an extensive literature review. Moreover, the analysis and approach taken is considerable inspired by interactions during participation in tw

The Efficacy of Alendronate Versus Denosumab on Major Osteoporotic Fracture Risk in Elderly Patients With Diabetes Mellitus:A Danish Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE: Patients with diabetes mellitus have an increased risk of fractures; however, the underlying mechanism is largely unknown. We aimed to investigate whether the risk of major osteoporotic fractures in diabetes patients differs between subjects initiated with alendronate and denosumab, respectively. METHODS AND RESEARCH DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective nationwide cohort study through access to all discharge diagnoses (ICD-10 system) from the National Danish Patient Registry along with all redeemed drug prescriptions (ATC classification system) from the Health Service Prescription Registry. We identified all subjects with a diabetes diagnosis between 2000 and 2018 and collected data on the first new prescription of anti-osteoporotic treatment between 2011 and 2018. Exposure was defined as either alendronate or denosumab treatment initiated after diabetes diagnosis. Outcome information was collected by identification of all major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) diagnoses, i.e., hip, spine, forearm, and humerus, from exposure until 2018 or censoring by emigration or death. The risk of fracture was calculated as hazard ratios (HR) using multiply adjusted Cox proportional models with death as a competing risk. RESULTS: We included 8,745 subjects initiated with either alendronate (n = 8,255) or denosumab (n = 490). The cohort consisted of subjects with a mean age of 73.62 (SD ± 9.27) years, primarily females (69%) and suffering mainly from type 2 diabetes (98.22%) with a median diabetes duration at baseline of 5.45 years (IQR 2.41–9.19). Those in the denosumab group were older (mean 75.60 [SD ± 9.72] versus 73.51 [SD ± 9.23] years), had a higher proportion of women (81% versus 68%, RR 1.18 [95% CI 1.13–1.24], and were more comorbid (mean CCI 2.68 [95% CI 2.47–2.88] versus 1.98 [95% CI 1.93–2.02]) compared to alendronate initiators. In addition, denosumab users had a higher prevalence of previous fractures (64% versus 46%, RR 1.38 [95% CI 1.28–1.48]). The adjusted HR for any MOF after treatment initiation with denosumab was 0.89 (95% CI 0.78–1.02) compared to initiation with alendronate. CONCLUSION: The risk of incident MOF among subjects with diabetes was similar between those initially treated with alendronate and denosumab. These findings indicate that the two treatment strategies are equally effective in preventing osteoporotic fractures in subjects with diabetes

Alendronate Use and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes:A Nationwide Danish Nested Case-Control Study

OBJECTIVE: A link has been proposed between glucose homeostasis and bone metabolism. Bisphosphonates are first-line treatment of osteoporosis, and we aimed to investigate whether the risk of developing type 2 diabetes was associated with prior use of alendronate. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a population-based nested case-control study through access to all discharge diagnoses (ICD-10 system) from the National Danish Patient Registry along with all redeemed drug prescriptions (ATC classification system) from the Health Service Prescription Registry. All cases with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes between 2008 and 2018 were matched on sex and age with 3 randomly selected controls by incidence-density sampling. Exposure was defined as ever use of alendronate and further grouped as effective and compliant use. ORs were calculated by conditional logistic regression analysis with adjustment for several confounders and test for trend for dose-response relationship. RESULTS: We included 163,588 patients with type 2 diabetes and 490,764 matched control subjects with a mean age of 67 years and 55% male subjects. The odds of developing type 2 diabetes were lower among ever users of alendronate (multiple adjusted OR: 0.64 [95% CI 0.62-0.66]). A test for trend suggested a dose-response relationship between longer effective use of alendronate and lower risk of type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSION: These results suggest a possible protective effect of alendronate in a dose-dependent manner against development of type 2 diabetes

SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is not associated with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures when compared to GLP-1 receptor agonists:A nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is associated with an increased fracture risk. It is debated whether sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors influence fracture risk in T2D. We aimed to investigate the risk of major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) with SGLT2 inhibitors compared to glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists when used as add-on therapies to metformin. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study using Danish national health registries. Diagnoses were obtained from discharge diagnosis codes (ICD-10 and ICD-8-system) from the Danish National Patient Registry, and all redeemed drug prescriptions were obtained from the Danish National Prescription Registry (ATC classification system). Subjects treated with metformin in combination with either SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists were identified and enrolled from 2012 to 2018. Subjects were then propensity-score matched 1:1 based on age, sex, and index date. Major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) were defined as hip, vertebral, humerus, or forearm fractures. A Cox proportional hazards model was utilized to estimate hazard rate ratios (HR) for MOF, and survival curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. RESULTS: In total, 27,543 individuals treated with either combination were identified and included. After matching, 18,390 individuals were included in the main analysis (9,190 in each group). Median follow-up times were 355 [interquartile range (IQR) 126-780] and 372 [IQR 136-766] days in the SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist group, respectively. We found a crude HR of 0.77 [95% CI 0.56-1.04] for MOF with SGLT2 inhibitors compared to GLP-1 receptor agonists. In the fully adjusted model, we obtained an unaltered HR of 0.77 [95% CI 0.56-1.05]. Results were similar across subgroup- and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that SGLT2 inhibitors have no effect on fracture risk when compared to GLP-1 receptor agonists. This is in line with results from previous studies