Search

Background: Dabigatran (150 mg twice daily) has been associated with lower rates of stroke than warfarin in trials of atrial fibrillation, but large-scale evaluations in clinical practice are limited.Objective: To compare incidence of stroke, bleeding, and myocardial infarction in patients receiving dabigatran versus warfarin in practice.Design: Retrospective cohort.Setting: National U.S. Food and Drug Administration Sentinel network.Patients: Adults with atrial fibrillation initiating dabigatran or warfarin therapy between November 2010 and May 2014.Measurements: Ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, extracranial bleeding, and myocardial infarction identified from hospital claims among propensity score-matched patients starting treatment with dabigatran or warfarin.Results: Among 25 289 patients starting dabigatran therapy and 25 289 propensity score-matched patients starting warfarin therapy, those receiving dabigatran did not have significantly different rates of ischemic stroke (0.80 vs. 0.94 events per 100 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.65 to 1.28]) or extracranial hemorrhage (2.12 vs. 2.63 events per 100 person-years; HR, 0.89 [CI, 0.72 to 1.09]) but were less likely to have intracranial bleeding (0.39 vs. 0.77 events per 100 person-years; HR, 0.51 [CI, 0.33 to 0.79]) and more likely to have myocardial infarction (0.77 vs. 0.43 events per 100 person-years; HR, 1.88 [CI, 1.22 to 2.90]). However, the strength and significance of the association between dabigatran use and myocardial infarction varied in sensitivity analyses and by exposure definition (HR range, 1.13 [CI, 0.78 to 1.64] to 1.43 [CI, 0.99 to 2.08]). Older patients and those with kidney disease had higher gastrointestinal bleeding rates with dabigatran.Limitation: Inability to examine outcomes by dabigatran dose (unacceptable covariate balance between matched patients) or quality of warfarin anticoagulation (few patients receiving warfarin had available international normalized ratio values).Conclusion: In matched adults with atrial fibrillation treated in practice, the incidences of stroke and bleeding with dabigatran versus warfarin were consistent with those seen in trials. The possible relationship between dabigatran and myocardial infarction warrants further investigation.Primary Funding Source: U.S. Food and Drug Administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent postmarketing trials produced conflicting results about the risk for hospitalized heart failure (hHF) associated with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, creating uncertainty about the safety of these antihyperglycemic agents.Objective: To examine the associations of hHF with saxagliptin and sitagliptin.Design: Population-based, retrospective, new-user cohort study.Setting: 18 health insurance and health system data partners in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Mini-Sentinel program.Patients: Patients aged 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes who initiated therapy with saxagliptin, sitagliptin, pioglitazone, second-generation sulfonylureas, or long-acting insulin products from 2006 to 2013.Measurements: Hospitalized HF, identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes 402.x1, 404.x1, 404.x3, and 428.xx recorded as the principal discharge diagnosis.Results: 78 553 saxagliptin users and 298 124 sitagliptin users contributed an average of 7 to 9 months of follow-up data to 1 or more pairwise comparisons. The risk for hHF was not higher with DPP-4 inhibitors than with the other study drugs. The hazard ratios from the disease risk score (DRS)-stratified analyses were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.99) for saxagliptin versus sitagliptin, 0.63 (CI, 0.47 to 0.85) for saxagliptin versus pioglitazone, 0.69 (CI, 0.54 to 0.87) for saxagliptin versus sulfonylureas, and 0.61 (CI, 0.50 to 0.73) for saxagliptin versus insulin. The DRS-stratified hazard ratios were 0.74 (CI, 0.64 to 0.85) for sitagliptin versus pioglitazone, 0.86 (CI, 0.77 to 0.95) for sitagliptin versus sulfonylureas, and 0.71 (CI, 0.64 to 0.78) for sitagliptin versus insulin. Results from the 1:1 propensity score-matched analyses were similar. Results were also similar in subgroups of patients with and without prior cardiovascular disease and in a subgroup defined by the 2 highest DRS deciles.Limitation: Residual confounding and short follow-up.Conclusion: In this large cohort study, a higher risk for hHF was not observed in users of saxagliptin or sitagliptin compared with other selected antihyperglycemic agents.Primary Funding Source: U.S. Food and Drug Administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Instrumental variable analysis is an increasingly popular method in comparative effectiveness research (CER). In theory, the instrument controls for unobserved and observed patient characteristics that affect the outcome. However, the results of instrumental variable analyses in observational settings may be biased if the instrument and outcome are related through an unadjusted third variable: an "instrument-outcome confounder." The authors identified published CER studies that used instrumental variable analysis and searched the literature for potential confounders of the most common instrument-outcome pairs. Of the 187 studies identified, 114 used 1 or more of the 4 most common instrument categories: distance to facility, regional variation, facility variation, and physician variation. Of these, 65 used mortality as an outcome. Potential unadjusted instrument-outcome confounders were observed in all studies, including patient race, socioeconomic status, clinical risk factors, health status, and urban or rural residency; facility and procedure volume; and co-occurring treatments. Only 4 (6% ) instrumental variable CER studies considered potential instrument-outcome confounders outside the study data. Many effect estimates may be biased by the failure to adjust for instrument-outcome confounding. The authors caution against overreliance on instrumental variable studies for CER. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Estrogen plus progestin therapy increases the risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) in postmenopausal women. However, this increased risk might be limited to the first years of use and to women who start therapy late in menopause. Objective: To estimate the effect of continuous estrogen plus progestin therapy on CHD risk over time and stratified by years since menopause. Design: Women's Health Initiative randomized, doubleblinded, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00000611) Setting: 40 U.S. clinical centers. Patients: 16 608 postmenopausal women with an intact uterus at baseline from 1993 to 1998. Intervention: Conjugated equine estrogens, 0.625 mg/d, plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, 2.5 mg/d, or placebo. Measurements: Adherence-adjusted hazard ratios and CHD-free survival curves estimated through inverse probability weighting. Results: Compared with no use of hormone therapy, the hazard ratio for continuous use of estrogen plus progestin therapy was 2.36 (95% CI, 1.55 to 3.62) for the first 2 years and 1.69 (CI, 0.98 to 2.89) for the first 8 years. For women within 10 years after menopause, the hazard ratios were 1.29 (CI, 0.52 to 3.18) for the first 2 years and 0.64 (CI, 0.21 to 1.99) for the first 8 years, and the CHD-free survival curves for continuous use and no use of estrogen plus progestin crossed at about 6 years (CI, 2 years to 10 years). Limitation: The analysis may not have fully adjusted for joint determinants of adherence and CHD risk. Sample sizes for some subgroup analyses were small. Conclusion: No suggestion of a decreased risk for CHD was found within the first 2 years of estrogen plus progestin use, including in women who initiated therapy within 10 years after menopause. A possible cardioprotective effect in these women who initiated therapy closer to menopause became apparent only after 6 years of use. Primary Funding Source: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]