Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects Across Nine Glucose-Lowering Drug Classes in Type 2 Diabetes: Extension of the LEGEND-T2DM Network Study
Chen, H. Y.; Falconer, T.; Ostropolets, A.; Anand, T. V.; Jiang, X.; Davila-Garcia, D. M.; Zhang, L.; Fan, R.; Morgan-Cooper, H.; Suchard, M. A.; Hripcsak, G.
Show abstract
Aims/HypothesisUnderstanding heterogeneous patient responses to various glucose-lowering therapies is crucial for advancing personalized treatment approaches and optimizing outcomes for type 2 diabetes mellitus. While average treatment effects are known for many drug classes, patient responses may differ by underlying clinical and demographic factors. We hypothesize that major glucose-lowering drug classes exhibit heterogeneous treatment effects (HTE) across patient subgroups defined by key clinical and demographic characteristics. MethodsThis is a large-scale observational cohort study replicated in six data-sources across the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics network. New-user, active-comparator cohorts were constructed for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiating one of the nine antihyperglycemic drug classes. Large-scale propensity score adjustment for measured confounding, empirical calibration using negative control outcomes, and random-effects meta-analysis were employed to estimate calibrated hazard ratios (HRs). HTE was assessed by comparing differences in log HRs across 10 demographic and clinical subgroups. ResultsEvidence of HTE was observed across hyperlipidemia, hypertension, obesity, and sex subgroups. Biguanides (vs. DPP-4i) were protective against acute myocardial infarction in patients with hyperlipidemia, and against heart failure hospitalization in patients with obesity. SGLT-2 inhibitors (vs. GLP-1 receptor agonists) reduced stroke risk only in non-obese patients. Sex-specific patterns also emerged: women taking GLP-1 receptor agonists had a higher risk of diarrhea, and women taking SGLT-2 inhibitors had a lower risk of stroke compared with DPP-4 inhibitors; these associations were not seen for male patients. ConclusionsThis hypothesis-generating study identified several potential signals (blood pressure status, lipid status, obesity status, and sex) where there exists treatment effect heterogeneity for several classes of type 2 diabetes mellitus drugs. These preliminary findings highlight the potential for personalized type 2 diabetes mellitus treatment recommendations based on patient characteristics.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- RESEARCH PROTOCOL: Large-scale evidence generation and evaluation across a network of databases for type 2 diabetes mellitus 95%
- Efficacy and safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists versus SGLT-2 inhibitors in overweight/obese patients with or without diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis 94%
- Real-world effects of ACE inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers: protocol for an emulation study of the ONTARGET trial using electronic health records 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Use of evidence-based cardiovascular preventive therapies in type 2 diabetes patients with established or high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in China: A retrospective cohort study 95%
- Weight Loss-Independent Changes in Human Growth Hormone During Water-Only Fasting: A Secondary Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial 93%
- Inspiratory Muscle Strength Training to Improve Cardiometabolic Health in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Protocol for the Diabetes Inspiratory Training (DIT) Clinical Trial 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Phenotype-based targeted treatment of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes 93%
- Cardiovascular risk prediction in type 2 diabetes: a comparison of 22 risk scores in primary care setting 93%
- Depression, diabetes, their comorbidity and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: a prospective cohort study 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.