Emulating randomized controlled trials of long-acting insulins and cardiovascular events using real-world data for patients with type 2 diabetes
Wang, W.; Reynier, P.; Webster-Clark, M.; Yu, O. H.; Brunetti, V.; Filion, K. B.
Show abstract
AimsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) have high internal validity but often have limited generalizability. To our knowledge, there are no studies examining potential differences between RCTs and real-world data in patient characteristics and risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with long-acting insulin analogues. MethodsWe emulated the DEVOTE trial of insulin degludec vs glargine among patients with T2DM using data from the United Kingdoms Clinical Practice Research Datalink. DEVOTE eligible and ineligible subpopulations were created. Cox proportional hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) for MACE comparing new users of insulin degludec to new users of insulin glargine overall and in the eligible/ineligible subpopulations. ResultsThere were 10,430 patients in the overall population, 5,280 in the DEVOTE eligible population, and 5,150 in the DEVOTE ineligible population. The overall (HR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.83, 1.86) and DEVOTE eligible populations (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.63, 1.58) were compatible with findings from the DEVOTE trial (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.78, 1.06) for the risk of MACE. Due to a low number of events the DEVOTE ineligible population had deviations in point estimates and wider CIs (HR: 2.19, 95% CI: 0.30, 3.83). ConclusionThe risk of MACE among patients with T2DM newly prescribed insulin degludec compared to insulin glargine was consistent between the overall population and the DEVOTE eligible subpopulation, while the DEVOTE ineligible population had discrepant point estimates. Twitter SummaryOur study emulated the DEVOTE trial using RWD. Half of the RWD population would be eligible for the trial. RWD and RCTs had compatible effect estimate for risk of major cardiovascular outcomes.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Use of semaglutide and risk of non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy: A Danish-Norwegian cohort study 96%
- Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects Across Nine Glucose-Lowering Drug Classes in Type 2 Diabetes: Extension of the LEGEND-T2DM Network Study 95%
- Treatment outcomes with oral anti-hyperglycaemic therapies in people with diabetes secondary to a pancreatic condition (type 3c diabetes): A population-based cohort study 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Differential impact of Covid-19 on incidence of diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases in acute, post-acute and long Covid-19: population-based cohort study in the United Kingdom 94%
- Trends in weight gain recorded in English primary care before and during the Coronavirus-19 pandemic: an observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform 91%
- Robust causal inference for long-term policy decisions: cost effectiveness of interventions for obesity using Mendelian randomization 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- DPP4 inhibitors and respiratory infection, a systematic review and meta-analysis of the CardioVascular Outcomes Trials conducted before the pandemic and implications for the management of diabetes during COVID-19 94%
- Poor in-utero growth, reduced beta cell secretion and high plasma glucose in childhood are harbingers of glucose intolerance in young Indians 91%
- Relation of incident Type 1 diabetes to recent COVID-19 infection: cohort study using e-health record linkage in Scotland 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Vitamin B12 and Risk of Diabetes: New insight from Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analyses of the China Stroke Primary Prevention Trial (CSPPT) 92%
- Nothing About Us Without Us: A Scoping Review and Priority-Setting Partnership in Type 1 Diabetes and Exercise 92%
- The clinical outcomes and effectiveness of mHealth interventions for diabetes and hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.