Lower Risk of Heart Failure and Death in Patients Initiated on Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors Versus Other Glucose-Lowering Drugs: The CVD-REAL Study (Comparative Effectiveness of Cardiovascular Outcomes in New Users of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors)

BACKGROUND: Reduction in cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) was recently reported with the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. We compared HHF and death in patients newly initiated on any SGLT-2i versus other glucose-lowering drugs in 6 countries to determine if these benefits are seen in real-world practice and across SGLT-2i class. METHODS: Data were collected via medical claims, primary care/hospital records, and national registries from the United States, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Propensity score for SGLT-2i initiation was used to match treatment groups. Hazard ratios for HHF, death, and their combination were estimated by country and pooled to determine weighted effect size. Death data were not available for Germany. RESULTS: After propensity matching, there were 309 056 patients newly initiated on either SGLT-2i or other glucose-lowering drugs (154 528 patients in each treatment group). Canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin accounted for 53%, 42%, and 5% of the total exposure time in the SGLT-2i class, respectively. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the 2 groups. There were 961 HHF cases during 190 164 person-years follow-up (incidence rate, 0.51/100 person-years). Of 215 622 patients in the United States, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, death occurred in 1334 (incidence rate, 0.87/100 person-years), and HHF or death in 1983 (incidence rate, 1.38/100 person-years). Use of SGLT-2i, versus other glucose-lowering drugs, was associated with lower rates of HHF (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.73; P<0.001); death (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.57; P<0.001); and HHF or death (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.60; P<0.001) with no significant heterogeneity by country. CONCLUSIONS: In this large multinational study, treatment with SGLT-2i versus other glucose-lowering drugs was associated with a lower risk of HHF and death, suggesting that the benefits seen with empagliflozin in a randomized trial may be a class effect applicable to a broad population of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in real-world practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02993614

Patterns of glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiating second-line therapy after metformin monotherapy: Retrospective data for 10 256 individuals from the United Kingdom and Germany.

AIM: To investigate determinants of change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) at 6 months after initiating uninterrupted second-line glucose-lowering therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cohort study utilized retrospective data from 10 256 patients with T2DM who initiated second-line glucose-lowering therapy (switch from or add-on to metformin) between 2011 and 2014 in Germany and the UK. Effects of pre-specified patient characteristics on 6-month HbA1c changes were assessed using analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Patients had a mean (standard error [SE]) baseline HbA1c of 8.68% (0.02); 28.5% of patients discontinued metformin and switched to an alternative therapy and the remainder initiated add-on therapy. Mean (SE) unadjusted 6-month HbA1c change was -1.27% (0.02). When adjusted for baseline HbA1c, 6-month changes depended markedly on the magnitude of the baseline HbA1c (HbA1c <9%, -0.45% per unit increase in HbA1c; HbA1c ≥9%, -0.87% per unit increase in HbA1c). Adjusted mean 6-month HbA1c reductions showed slight treatment differences (range, 0.92-1.09%; P < .001). Greater reductions in HbA1c were associated with second-line treatment initiation within 6 months of T2DM diagnosis (1.36% vs 1.03% [P < .001]) and advanced age (≥70 years, 1.13%; <70 years, 1.02% [P < .001]). CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with T2DM have very high HbA1c levels when initiating second-line therapy, indicating the need for earlier treatment intensification. Patient-specific factors merit consideration when making treatment decisions

Towards an improved global understanding of treatment and outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes: Rationale and methods of the DISCOVER observational study program.

AIM: Contemporary global real-world data on the management of type 2 diabetes are scarce. The global DISCOVER study program aims to describe the disease management patterns and a broad range of associated outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating a second-line glucose-lowering therapy in routine clinical practice. METHODS: The DISCOVER program comprises two longitudinal observational studies involving more than 15,000 patients in 38 countries across six continents. Study sites have been selected to be representative of type 2 diabetes management in each country. Data will be collected at baseline (initiation of second-line therapy), at 6months, and yearly during a 3-year follow-up period. RESULTS: The DISCOVER program will record patient, healthcare provider, and healthcare system characteristics, treatment patterns, and factors influencing changes in therapy. In addition, disease control (e.g. achievement of glycated hemoglobin target), management of associated risk factors (e.g. hypercholesterolemia and hypertension), and healthcare resource utilization will be recorded. Microvascular and macrovascular complications, incidence of hypoglycemic events, and patient-reported outcomes will also be captured. CONCLUSIONS: The DISCOVER program will provide insights into the current management of patients with type 2 diabetes worldwide, which will contribute to informing future clinical guidelines and improving patient care

Quality of Care of the Initial Patient Cohort of the Diabetes Collaborative Registry®.

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines and performance measures exist for patients with diabetes mellitus, achievement of these metrics is not well known. The Diabetes Collaborative Registry® (DCR) was formed to understand the quality of diabetes mellitus care across the primary and specialty care continuum in the United States. METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed the frequency of achievement of 7 diabetes mellitus-related quality metrics and variability across the Diabetes Collaborative Registry® sites. Among 574 972 patients with diabetes mellitus from 259 US practices, median (interquartile range) achievement of the quality metrics across the practices was the following: (1) glycemic control: 19% (5-47); (2) blood pressure control: 80% (67-88); (3) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers in patients with coronary artery disease: 62% (51-69); (4) nephropathy screening: 62% (53-71); (5) eye examination: 0.7% (0.0-79); (6) foot examination: 0.0% (0.0-2.3); and (7) tobacco screening/cessation counseling: 86% (80-94). In hierarchical, modified Poisson regression models, there was substantial variability in meeting these metrics across sites, particularly with documentation of glycemic control and eye and foot examinations. There was also notable variation across specialties, with endocrinology practices performing better on glycemic control and diabetes mellitus foot examinations and cardiology practices succeeding more in blood pressure control and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers. CONCLUSIONS: The Diabetes Collaborative Registry® was established to document and improve the quality of outpatient diabetes mellitus care. While target achievement of some metrics of cardiovascular risk modification was high, achievement of others was suboptimal and highly variable. This may be attributable to fragmentation of care, lack of ownership among various specialists concerning certain domains of care, incomplete documentation, true gaps in care, or a combination of these factors