Back

Metformin: We need to either put it in our drinking water or rethink how we study it

Powell, M.; Clark, C.; Alyakin, A.; Vogelstein, J.; Hart, B. B.

2021-09-21 pharmacology and therapeutics
10.1101/2021.09.15.21263634
Show abstract

STRUCTURED ABSTRACTO_ST_ABSObjectivesC_ST_ABSTo expose the potential impact of residual confounding in common observational study designs investigating metformin using a type 2 diabetes cohort; to propose a more robust study design for future observational studies of metformin. DesignRetrospective cohort studies using a prevalent user design conducted in two distinct cohorts: individuals with type 2 diabetes and individuals with prediabetes. SettingInsurance claims database for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries in the United States, 2018-2019. An identical analysis of commercial insurance beneficiaries appears in the supplement. Participants404,765 individuals with type 2 diabetes, 81,791 individuals with prediabetes. Main outcome measuresTotal inpatient admission days in 2019, total medical spend (excluding prescription drugs) in 2019. Each of these measures is treated as a binary outcome: greater than zero inpatient days and top 10% medical spend. ResultsWe implement a common observational study design and observe a strong metformin effect estimate associated with reduced inpatient admissions and reduced medical expenditures; we also implement a more robust study design that suggests any estimated effect is attributable to residual confounding related to individuals overall health. ConclusionsCommon observational study designs examining metformin in a type 2 diabetes population are likely impacted by significant residual confounding. By additionally considering numerous negative control outcomes and a complementary prediabetes cohort, the study design proposed here demonstrates efficacy at exposing residual confounding related to overall health, nullifying the claim derived from a standard study design. Trial registrationPreregistration available at https://osf.io/qf49p.

Matching journals

1
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Wiley · based on 19 published papers
Top 0.2%
103× avg
2
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
Wiley · based on 14 published papers
#1
136× avg
3
Trials
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 24 published papers
Top 0.1%
65× avg
4
Clinical and Translational Science
Wiley · based on 14 published papers
#1
111× avg
5
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Wiley · based on 21 published papers
Top 0.3%
59× avg
6
PLOS ONE
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 1737 published papers
Top 63%
6.3%
7
PLOS Medicine
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 95 published papers
Top 1%
11× avg
8
BMJ Open
BMJ · based on 553 published papers
Top 21%
5.2%
9
BMJ
BMJ · based on 49 published papers
Top 2%
11× avg
10
Scientific Reports
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 701 published papers
Top 56%
2.8%
11
Frontiers in Pharmacology
Frontiers Media SA · based on 27 published papers
Top 2%
13× avg
12
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
Wiley · based on 12 published papers
Top 0.5%
36× avg
13
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 12 published papers
Top 0.6%
23× avg
14
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Oxford University Press (OUP) · based on 219 published papers
Top 14%
1.6× avg
15
BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health
BMJ · based on 10 published papers
Top 1%
23× avg
16
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Elsevier BV · based on 37 published papers
Top 5%
3.1× avg
17
Nature Communications
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 483 published papers
Top 41%
0.8%
18
Nature
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 58 published papers
Top 11%
2.2× avg