Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
'),o.close()}("https://assets.zendesk.com/embeddable_framework/main.js","jmir.zendesk.com");/*]]>*/

Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Currently submitted to: JMIR Diabetes

Date Submitted: Mar 7, 2024
Open Peer Review Period: Mar 14, 2024 - May 9, 2024
(currently open for review)

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Comparing insulin vs GLP-1, DPP-4, SGLT-2 on 5-year incident heart failure for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a real-world evidence study using insurance claims

  • Xuan Wang; 
  • Anna M. Plantinga; 
  • Xin Xiong; 
  • Sara J. Cromer; 
  • Clara-Lea Bonzel; 
  • Vidul Panickan; 
  • Rui Duan; 
  • Jue Hou; 
  • Tianxi Cai

ABSTRACT

Background:

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is a common health issue, with heart failure (HF) being the common and lethal long-term complication. Although insulin is widely used for the treatment of T2D, evidence regarding the efficacy of insulin compared to non-insulin therapies on incident heart failure risk is missing among randomized clinical trials. Real-world evidence on insulin’s effect on long-term heart failure may supplement existing guidelines on the management of T2D.

Objective:

This study compared the insulin therapy versus other medications on heart failure (HF) among T2D patients using real-world data (RWD) extracted from insurance claims.

Methods:

We employed doubly robust Augmented Inverse Probability Weighted estimation that extensively adjusted for high-dimensional confounding factors in both the propensity score and outcome regression models, using a data-driven approach for feature selection implemented through a LASSO sparsity penalty in each model.

Results:

After adjusting for broad list of confounders, insulin was found to be associated with 11.8% [95% CI: 11.0%-12.7%] higher 5-year HF rate compared to patients receiving GLP-1, 12.0% [95% CI: 11.5%-12.4%] higher 5-year HF rate compared to DPP-4, and 15.1% [95% CI: 14.3%-16.0%] higher 5-year HF rate compared to SGLT-2. Subgroup analysis shows the insulin effect with a higher HF rate is significant in subgroup with high baseline HF risk but not significant in subgroup with low baseline HF risk.

Conclusions:

This study generated real-world evidence on the association with higher 5-year heart failure rate of insulin therapy compared to GLP-1, DPP-4, and SGLT-2 based on claims data. These findings also demonstrated the value of real-world data for comparative effectiveness studies to complement established guidelines. On the other hand, the study shares the common limitation of observational studies. Even though high-dimensional confounders are adjusted, remaining confounding may exist and induce bias in analysis.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Wang X, Plantinga AM, Xiong X, Cromer SJ, Bonzel CL, Panickan V, Duan R, Hou J, Cai T

Comparing insulin vs GLP-1, DPP-4, SGLT-2 on 5-year incident heart failure for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a real-world evidence study using insurance claims

JMIR Preprints. 07/03/2024:58137

DOI: 10.2196/preprints.58137

URL: https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/58137

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.

Advertisement