Search

Introduction Sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) are licensed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and more recently for heart failure with or without diabetes. They have been shown to be safe (from the cardiovascular (CV) perspective) and effective (in terms of glycaemia, and in some cases, in reducing CV events) in extensive randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, there remain concerns regarding the generalisability of these findings (to those ineligible for RCT participation) and about non-CV safety. For effectiveness, population-based pharmacoepidemiology studies can confirm and extend the findings of RCTs to broader populations and explore safety, for which RCTs are not usually powered, in more detail. Methods A pre-planned and registered ((International PROSPEctive Register Of Systematic Reviews) PROSPERO registration CRD42019160792) systematic review of population-based studies investigating SGLT2i effectiveness and safety, following Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines was conducted. Results A total of 37 studies were identified (total n = 1,300,184 adults; total follow-up 910,577 person-years; exposures: SGLT2i class, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin) exploring CV disease (CVD) outcomes, acute kidney injury (AKI), lower limb amputation (LLA), diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), bone fracture, urinary tract infection (UTI), genital mycotic infection (GMI), hypoglycaemia, pancreatitis and venous thromboembolism. For CV and mortality outcomes, studies confirmed the associated safety of these drugs and correlated closely with the findings from RCTs, which may extend to primary CVD prevention (major adverse cardiovascular events point estimate range (PER) hazard ratio (HR) 0.78–0.94; hospitalised heart failure PER HR 0.48–0.79). For safety outcomes, SGLT2i exposure was not associated with an increased risk of AKI (PER HR 0.40–0.96), fractures (PER HR 0.87–1.11), hypoglycaemia (PER HR 0.76–2.49) or UTI (PER HR 0.72–0.98). There was a signal for increased association for GMIs (PER HR 2.08–3.15), and possibly for LLA (PER HR 0.74–2.79) and DKA (PER HR 0.96–2.14), but with considerable uncertainty. Conclusion In T2D, SGLT2is appear safe from the CV perspective and may have associated benefit in primary as well as secondary CVD prevention. For safety, they may be associated with an increased risk of GMI, LLA and DKA, although longer follow-up studies are needed. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13300-021-01004-2.

Aims/hypothesis The aim of this work was to map the number of prescribed drugs over age, sex and area-based socioeconomic deprivation, and to examine the association between the number of drugs and particular high-risk drug classes with adverse health outcomes among a national cohort of individuals with type 1 diabetes. Methods Utilising linked healthcare records from the population-based diabetes register of Scotland, we identified 28,245 individuals with a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes on 1 January 2017. For this population, we obtained information on health status, predominantly reflecting diabetes-related complications, and information on the total number of drugs and particular high-risk drug classes prescribed. We then studied the association of these baseline-level features with hospital admissions for falls, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and hypoglycaemia or death within the subsequent year using multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. Results Not considering insulin and treatment for hypoglycaemia, the mean number of prescribed drugs was 4.00 (SD 4.35). The proportion of individuals being prescribed five or more drugs at baseline consistently increased with age (proportion [95% CI]: 0–19 years 2.04% [1.60, 2.49]; 40–49 years 28.50% [27.08, 29.93]; 80+ years 76.04% [67.73, 84.84]). Controlling for age, sex, area-based socioeconomic deprivation and health status, each additional drug at baseline was associated with an increase in the hazard for hospitalisation for falls, hypoglycaemia and death but not for DKA admissions (HR [95% CI]: falls 1.03 [1.01, 1.06]; DKA 1.01 [1.00, 1.03]; hypoglycaemia 1.05 [1.02, 1.07]; death 1.04 [1.02, 1.06]). We found a number of drug classes to be associated with an increased hazard of one or more of these adverse health outcomes, including antithrombotic/anticoagulant agents, corticosteroids, opioids, antiepileptics, antipsychotics, hypnotics and sedatives, and antidepressants. Conclusions Polypharmacy is common among the Scottish population with type 1 diabetes and is strongly patterned by sociodemographic factors. The number of prescribed drugs and the prescription of particular high-risk drug classes are strong markers of an increased risk of adverse health outcomes, including acute complications of diabetes. Graphical abstract

Aims/hypothesis We aimed to examine whether crude mortality and mortality relative to the general population below 50 years of age have improved in recent years in those with type 1 diabetes. Methods Individuals with type 1 diabetes aged below 50 and at least 1 year old at any time between 2004 and 2017 in Scotland were identified using the national register. Death data were obtained by linkage to Scottish national death registrations. Indirect age standardisation was used to calculate sex-specific standardised mortality ratios (SMRs). Poisson regression was used to test for calendar-time effects as incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Results There were 1138 deaths in 251,143 person-years among 27,935 people with type 1 diabetes. There was a significant decline in mortality rate over time (IRR for calendar year 0.983 [95% CI 0.967, 0.998], p = 0.03), but the SMR remained approximately stable at 3.1 and 3.6 in men and 4.09 and 4.16 in women for 2004 and 2017, respectively. Diabetic ketoacidosis or coma (DKAoC) accounted for 22% of deaths and the rate did not decline significantly (IRR 0.975 [95% CI 0.94, 1.011], p = 0.168); 79.3% of DKAoC deaths occurred out of hospital. Circulatory diseases accounted for 27% of deaths and did decline significantly (IRR 0.946 [95% CI 0.914, 0.979], p = 0.002). Conclusions/interpretation Absolute mortality has fallen, but the relative impact of type 1 diabetes on mortality below 50 years has not improved. There is scope to improve prevention of premature circulatory diseases and DKAoC and to develop more effective strategies for enabling people with type 1 diabetes to avoid clinically significant hyper- or hypoglycaemia.

Introduction Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs) are licensed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). They have been shown to be safe (from the cardiovascular (CV) perspective) and effective (in terms of glycaemia, and in some cases, reducing CV events) in extensive randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, there remain concerns regarding the generalisability of these findings (to those ineligible for RCT participation) and about non-CV safety. For effectiveness, population-based pharmacoepidemiology studies can confirm and extend the findings of RCTs findings to broader populations and explore safety, for which RCTs are not usually powered, in more detail. Method We did a pre-planned and registered (PROSPERO registration CRD42020165720) systematic review of population-based studies investigating GLP1RA effectiveness and safety, following Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Results A total of 22 studies were identified (including 200,148 participants and 396,457 person-years of follow-up) exploring exposure to GLP1RA class, exenatide and liraglutide (the only individual drugs with treatment effect estimates identified) on mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), acute pancreatitis (AP), pancreatic cancer (PC), thyroid cancer (TC), acute renal failure (ARF), diabetic retinopathy (DR), breast cancer (BC) and hypoglycaemia. For CV and mortality outcomes, studies confirmed the associated safety of these drugs. For liraglutide, point estimate (PE) range (PER) major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (0.53–0.95) and PER heart failure (0.34–1.22) were similar in direction to the beneficial effect observed in RCTs for MACE but varied widely for heart failure. For safety outcomes, exposure was not associated with AP (PER 0.50–1.17), PC (PER 0.40–1.54), BC (PER 0.90–1.51) or hypoglycaemia (PER 0.59–1.06). Only one study was identified exploring each of TC (no evidence of association, hazard ratio (HR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98–2.19), renal outcomes (no evidence of association, HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.42–1.41) and DR (no evidence of association, HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51–0.90). Conclusion In T2D, GLP1RAs appear safe from the CV perspective and (for liraglutide) may have associated benefit in primary as well as secondary CVD prevention. For non-CV safety, GLP1RA exposure was not associated with an increased risk of AP, PC, BC or hypoglycaemia; the other outcomes had too few studies to draw firm conclusions and should be explored further. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13300-021-01021-1.

Background The objective of this study was to investigate the relation of severe COVID-19 to prior drug prescribing. Methods Severe cases were defined by entry to critical care or fatal outcome. For this matched case-control study (REACT-SCOT), all 4251 cases of severe COVID-19 in Scotland since the start of the epidemic were matched for age, sex and primary care practice to 36,738 controls from the population register. Records were linked to hospital discharges since June 2015 and dispensed prescriptions issued in primary care during the last 240 days. Results Severe COVID-19 was strongly associated with the number of non-cardiovascular drug classes dispensed. This association was strongest in those not resident in a care home, in whom the rate ratio (95% CI) associated with dispensing of 12 or more drug classes versus none was 10.8 (8.8, 13.3), and in those without any of the conditions designated as conferring increased risk of COVID-19. Of 17 drug classes postulated at the start of the epidemic to be “medications compromising COVID”, all were associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 and these associations were present in those without any of the designated risk conditions. The fraction of cases in the population attributable to exposure to these drug classes was 38%. The largest effect was for antipsychotic agents: rate ratio 4.18 (3.42, 5.11). Other drug classes with large effects included proton pump inhibitors (rate ratio 2.20 (1.72, 2.83) for = 2 defined daily doses/day), opioids (3.66 (2.68, 5.01) for = 50 mg morphine equivalent/day) and gabapentinoids. These associations persisted after adjusting for covariates and were stronger with recent than with non-recent exposure. Conclusions Severe COVID-19 is associated with polypharmacy and with drugs that cause sedation, respiratory depression, or dyskinesia; have anticholinergic effects; or affect the gastrointestinal system. These associations are not easily explained by co-morbidity. Measures to reduce the burden of mortality and morbidity from COVID-19 should include reinforcing existing guidance on reducing overprescribing of these drug classes and limiting inappropriate polypharmacy. Registration ENCEPP number https://EUPAS35558

SHu reports grants from Health Protection Scotland during the conduct of the study. TMC reports grants from Diabetes UK (18/0005786). CR reports grants from Public Health Scotland and UK Research and Innovation. Background We aimed to ascertain the cumulative risk of fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 in people with diabetes and compare it with that of people without diabetes, and to investigate risk factors for and build a cross-validated predictive model of fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 among people with diabetes. Methods In this cohort study, we captured the data encompassing the first wave of the pandemic in Scotland, from March 1, 2020, when the first case was identified, to July 31, 2020, when infection rates had dropped sufficiently that shielding measures were officially terminated. The participants were the total population of Scotland, including all people with diabetes who were alive 3 weeks before the start of the pandemic in Scotland (estimated Feb 7, 2020). We ascertained how many people developed fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 in this period from the Electronic Communication of Surveillance in Scotland database (on virology), the RAPID database of daily hospitalisations, the Scottish Morbidity Records-01 of hospital discharges, the National Records of Scotland death registrations data, and the Scottish Intensive Care Society and Audit Group database (on critical care). Among people with fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19, diabetes status was ascertained by linkage to the national diabetes register, Scottish Care Information Diabetes. We compared the cumulative incidence of fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 in people with and without diabetes using logistic regression. For people with diabetes, we obtained data on potential risk factors for fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 from the national diabetes register and other linked health administrative databases. We tested the association of these factors with fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 in people with diabetes, and constructed a prediction model using stepwise regression and 20-fold cross-validation. Findings Of the total Scottish population on March 1, 2020 (n=5 463 300), the population with diabetes was 319 349 (5·8%), 1082 (0·3%) of whom developed fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 by July 31, 2020, of whom 972 (89·8%) were aged 60 years or older. In the population without diabetes, 4081 (0·1%) of 5 143 951 people developed fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19. As of July 31, the overall odds ratio (OR) for diabetes, adjusted for age and sex, was 1·395 (95% CI 1·304–1·494; p

Background The objectives of this study were to identify risk factors for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to lay the basis for risk stratification based on demographic data and health records. Methods and findings The design was a matched case-control study. Severe COVID-19 was defined as either a positive nucleic acid test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the national database followed by entry to a critical care unit or death within 28 days or a death certificate with COVID-19 as underlying cause. Up to 10 controls per case matched for sex, age, and primary care practice were selected from the national population register. For this analysis—based on ascertainment of positive test results up to 6 June 2020, entry to critical care up to 14 June 2020, and deaths registered up to 14 June 2020—there were 36,948 controls and 4,272 cases, of which 1,894 (44%) were care home residents. All diagnostic codes from the past 5 years of hospitalisation records and all drug codes from prescriptions dispensed during the past 240 days were extracted. Rate ratios for severe COVID-19 were estimated by conditional logistic regression. In a logistic regression using the age-sex distribution of the national population, the odds ratios for severe disease were 2.87 for a 10-year increase in age and 1.63 for male sex. In the case-control analysis, the strongest risk factor was residence in a care home, with rate ratio 21.4 (95% CI 19.1–23.9, p = 8 × 10−644). Univariate rate ratios for conditions listed by public health agencies as conferring high risk were 2.75 (95% CI 1.96–3.88, p = 6 × 10−9) for type 1 diabetes, 1.60 (95% CI 1.48–1.74, p = 8 × 10−30) for type 2 diabetes, 1.49 (95% CI 1.37–1.61, p = 3 × 10−21) for ischemic heart disease, 2.23 (95% CI 2.08–2.39, p = 4 × 10−109) for other heart disease, 1.96 (95% CI 1.83–2.10, p = 2 × 10−78) for chronic lower respiratory tract disease, 4.06 (95% CI 3.15–5.23, p = 3 × 10−27) for chronic kidney disease, 5.4 (95% CI 4.9–5.8, p = 1 × 10−354) for neurological disease, 3.61 (95% CI 2.60–5.00, p = 2 × 10−14) for chronic liver disease, and 2.66 (95% CI 1.86–3.79, p = 7 × 10−8) for immune deficiency or suppression. Seventy-eight percent of cases and 52% of controls had at least one listed condition (51% of cases and 11% of controls under age 40). Severe disease was associated with encashment of at least one prescription in the past 9 months and with at least one hospital admission in the past 5 years (rate ratios 3.10 [95% CI 2.59–3.71] and 2.75 [95% CI 2.53–2.99], respectively) even after adjusting for the listed conditions. In those without listed conditions, significant associations with severe disease were seen across many hospital diagnoses and drug categories. Age and sex provided 2.58 bits of information for discrimination. A model based on demographic variables, listed conditions, hospital diagnoses, and prescriptions provided an additional 1.07 bits (C-statistic 0.804). A limitation of this study is that records from primary care were not available. Conclusions We have shown that, along with older age and male sex, severe COVID-19 is strongly associated with past medical history across all age groups. Many comorbidities beyond the risk conditions designated by public health agencies contribute to this. A risk classifier that uses all the information available in health records, rather than only a limited set of conditions, will more accurately discriminate between low-risk and high-risk individuals who may require shielding until the epidemic is over., Paul McKeigue and co-workers study comorbidities and medical treatments as risk factors for severe COVID-19 in Scotland., Author summary Why was this study done? Most people infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) do not become seriously ill: risk of severe or fatal disease is associated with older age, male sex, and conditions designated by public health agencies, including asthma, diabetes, and heart disease. Studies reported so far have focused on these “listed conditions” but have not examined medical records systematically to identify possible risk factors for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The objectives of this study were to identify risk factors for severe COVID-19 and to lay the basis for risk stratification based on electronic health records. What did the researchers do and find? Using Scotland’s capability for linking electronic health records, we report the first systematic study of the relationship of severe or fatal COVID-19 to preexisting health conditions and other risk factors. Residents in care homes were 21 times more likely to develop severe disease than people of the same age and sex not living in care homes. The conditions associated with increased risk include not only those already designated by public health agencies—asthma, diabetes, heart disease, disabling neurological disease, kidney disease—but other diagnoses that are associated with frailty and poor health such as strokes and a history of falls. In those without any listed conditions, use of prescribed drugs acting on the digestive system or nervous system is associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19. What do these findings mean? The risk to younger individuals without any recent history of hospital admission or use of prescription drugs is very low. This study lays a basis for calculating a risk score based on electronic health records for every individual in the population and using it to advise those at high risk of severe disease to shield themselves when there is a COVID-19 epidemic in their locality.

Aims/hypothesis Our aim was to assess the use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in people with type 1 diabetes in Scotland and its association with glycaemic control, as measured by HbA1c levels, frequency of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and severe hospitalised hypoglycaemia (SHH), overall and stratified by baseline HbA1c. Methods We included 4684 individuals with type 1 diabetes from the national Scottish register, who commenced CSII between 2004 and 2019. We presented crude within-person differences from baseline HbA1c over time since initiation, crude DKA and SHH event-rates pre-/post-CSII exposure. We then used mixed models to assess the significance of CSII exposure, taking into account: (1) the diffuse nature of the intervention (i.e. structured education often precedes initiation); (2) repeated within-person measurements; and (3) background time-trends occurring pre-intervention. Results HbA1c decreased after CSII initiation, with a median within-person change of −5.5 mmol/mol (IQR −12.0, 0.0) (−0.5% [IQR −1.1, 0.0]). Within-person changes were most substantial in those with the highest baseline HbA1c, with median −21.0 mmol/mol (−30.0, −11.0) (−1.9% [−2.7, −1.0]) change in those with a baseline >84 mmol/mol (9.8%) within a year of exposure, that was sustained: −19.0 mmol/mol (−27.6, −6.5) (−1.7% [−2.5, −0.6]) at ≥5 years. Statistical significance and magnitude of change were supported by the mixed models results. The crude DKA event-rate was significantly lower in post-CSII person-time compared with pre-CSII person-time: 49.6 events (95% CI 46.3, 53.1) per 1000 person-years vs 67.9 (64.1, 71.9); rate ratio from Bayesian mixed models adjusting for pre-exposure trend: 0.61 (95% credible interval [CrI] 0.47, 0.77; posterior probability of reduction pp = 1.00). The crude overall SHH event-rate in post-CSII vs pre-CSII person-time was also lower: 17.8 events (95% CI 15.8, 19.9) per 1000 person-years post-exposure vs 25.8 (23.5, 28.3) pre-exposure; rate ratio from Bayesian mixed models adjusting for pre-exposure trend: 0.67 (95% CrI 0.45, 1.01; pp = 0.97). Conclusions/interpretation CSII therapy was associated with marked falls in HbA1c especially in those with high baseline HbA1c. CSII was independently associated with reduced DKA and SHH rates. CSII appears to be an effective option for intensive insulin therapy in people with diabetes for improving suboptimal glycaemic control. Graphical abstract

OBJECTIVE In 2019, the European Society of Cardiology led and released new guidelines for diabetes cardiovascular risk management, reflecting recent evidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) reduction with sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) and some glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) in type 2 diabetes (T2D). A key recommendation is that all those with T2D who are (antihyperglycemic) drug naïve or on metformin monotherapy should be CVD risk stratified and an SGLT-2i or a GLP-1RA initiated in all those at high or very high risk, irrespective of glycated hemoglobin. We assessed the impact of these guidelines in Scotland were they introduced as is. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Using a nationwide diabetes register in Scotland, we did a cross-sectional analysis, using variables in our register for risk stratification at 1 January 2019. We were conservative in our definitions, assuming the absence of a risk factor where data were not available. The risk classifications were applied to people who were drug naïve or on metformin monotherapy and the anticipated prescribing change calculated. RESULTS Of the 265,774 people with T2D in Scotland, 53,194 (20.0% of those with T2D) were drug naïve, and 56,906 (21.4%) were on metformin monotherapy. Of these, 74.5% and 72.4%, respectively, were estimated as at least high risk given the guideline risk definitions. CONCLUSIONS Thus, 80,830 (30.4%) of all those with T2D (n = 265,774) would start one of these drug classes according to table 7 and figure 3 of the guideline. The sizeable impact on drug budgets, enhanced clinical monitoring, and the trade-off with reduced CVD-related health care costs will need careful consideration.

Background: Acetylcysteine (NAC) is effective at preventing liver injury after paracetamol overdose. The Scottish and Newcastle Anti-emetic Pre-treatment for Paracetamol Poisoning (SNAP) Study demonstrated that a 12 h NAC regimen was associated with fewer adverse drug reactions compared with the standard 21 h regimen. Here, we describe the clinical effectiveness of the SNAP NAC regimen. Methods: The SNAP regimen, consisting of intravenous NAC 100 mg/kg over 2 h then 200 mg/kg over 10 h, was introduced to treat all paracetamol overdose patients at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, the Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle and St Thomas' Hospital, London. Patient data were prospectively and systematically collected before and after the change in treatment (total patients N = 3340, 21 h N = 1488, SNAP N = 1852). Health record linkage was used to determine patient outcome after hospital discharge. Findings: There was no difference in liver injury or liver synthetic dysfunction between regimens. Hepatotoxicity (peak ALT > 1000 U/L) occurred in 64 (4.3%) and 67 (3.6%) patients, respectively, in the 21 h and SNAP groups (absolute difference −0.7%, 95% CI −2.1 to 0.6). Multivariable logistic regression did not identify treatment regimen as an outcome-associated factor. No patients were readmitted to hospital with, or died from, liver failure within 30 days of discharge. Anti-histamine treatment (for NAC anaphylactoid drug reactions) was prescribed for 163 (11.0%) patients with the 21 h regimen and 37 (2.0%) patients with the SNAP regimen (absolute difference 9.0% (95% CI 7.3 to 10.7)). Interpretation: In clinical use the SNAP regimen has similar efficacy as standard therapy for preventing liver injury and produces fewer adverse reactions. Keywords: Acute liver failure, Paracetamol, NAC, Clinical practice, Drug-induced liver injury

Aims/hypothesis:\ud \ud Dapagliflozin, a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, is indicated for improving glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Whether its effects on HbA1c and other variables, including safety outcomes, in clinical trials are obtained in real-world practice needs to be established.\ud Methods:\ud \ud We used data from the comprehensive national diabetes register, the Scottish Care Information-Diabetes (SCI-Diabetes) collaboration database, available from 2004 to mid-2016. Data within this database were linked to mortality data from the General Registrar, available from the Information Services Division (ISD) of the National Health Service in Scotland. We calculated crude within-person differences between pre- and post-drug-initiation values of HbA1c, BMI, body weight, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and eGFR. We used mixed-effects regression models to adjust for within-person time trajectories in these measures. For completeness, we evaluated safety outcomes, cardiovascular disease events, lower-limb amputation and diabetic ketoacidosis, focusing on cumulative exposure effects, using Cox proportional hazard models, though power to detect such effects was limited.\ud Results:\ud \ud Among 8566 people exposed to dapagliflozin over a median of 210 days the crude within-person change in HbA1c was −10.41 mmol/mol (−0.95%) after 3 months’ exposure. The crude change after 12 months was −12.99 mmol/mol (−1.19%) but considering the expected rise over time in HbA1c gave a dapagliflozin-exposure-effect estimate of −15.14 mmol/mol (95% CI −15.87, −14.41) (−1.39% [95% CI −1.45, −1.32]) at 12 months that was maintained thereafter. A drop in SBP of −4.32 mmHg (95% CI −4.84, −3.79) on exposure within the first 3 months was also maintained thereafter. Reductions in BMI and body weight stabilised by 6 months at −0.82 kg/m2 (95% CI −0.87, −0.77) and −2.20 kg (95% CI −2.34, −2.06) and were maintained thereafter. eGFR declined initially by −1.81 ml min−1 [1.73 m]−2 (95% CI −2.10, −1.52) at 3 months but varied thereafter. There were no significant effects of cumulative drug exposure on safety outcomes.\ud Conclusions/interpretation:\ud \ud Dapagliflozin exposure was associated with reductions in HbA1c, SBP, body weight and BMI that were at least as large as in clinical trials. Dapagliflozin also prevented the expected rise in HbA1c and SBP over the period of study.

Aconite poisoning is relatively rare but is frequently complicated by ventricular dysrhythmias, which may be fatal. Molecular basis of aconite alkaloid ventricular arrhythmogenicity: Aconite exerts its toxic effects due to the presence of an admixture of alkaloids present in all parts of the plant. The major target of these aconite alkaloids is the fast voltage-gates sodium channel, where they cause persistent activation. This blockade of the channel in the activated state promotes automaticity within the ventricular myocardium and the generation of ventricular arrhythmias. Aconitine-induced arrhythmias: Aconite alkaloids are known to cause many different types of disturbance of heart rhythm. However, this focused review specifically looks at ventricular rhythm disturbances, namely ventricular ectopy, ventricular tachycardia, torsades des pointes and ventricular fibrillation.The objective of this review was to identify the outcome of anti-dysrhythmic strategies from animal studies and case reports in humans in order to guide the management of ventricular dysrhythmias in aconite poisoning in humans.A review of the literature in English was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar from 1966 to July 2016 using the search terms "aconite/aconitine"; "aconite/aconitine + poisoning" and "aconite/aconitine + dysrhythmia". 168 human case-reports and case-series were identified by these searches, of which 103 were rejected if exposure to aconite did not result in ventricular dysrhythmias, if it was uncertain as to whether aconite had been ingested, if other agents were co-ingested, if there was insufficient information to determine the type of treatments administered or if there was insufficient information to determine outcome. Thus, 65 case reports of probable aconite poisoning that resulted in ventricular dysrhythmias were identified. Toxicokinetic data in aconite poisoning: Data were only available in three papers; the presence of ventricular rhythm disturbances directly correlated with the concentration of aconite alkaloids in the plasma.54 of 65 cases developed ventricular tachycardia, six developed torsades des pointes, 15 patients developed ventricular fibrillation, 10 developed ventricular ectopics and one developed a broad complex tachycardia not otherwise specified; each dysrhythmia was regarded as separate and patients may have had more than one dysrhythmia. 10 patients died, giving a mortality of 15%. In total, 147 treatments were administered to 65 patients. 46 of the interventions were assessed by the authors as having been associated with successful restoration of sinus rhythm. Flecainide administration was accompanied by dysrhythmia termination in six of seven cases. Mexiletine was connected with correcting dysrhythmias in 3 of 3 cases. Procainamide administration was associated with return to sinus rhythm in 2 of 2 cases. Prolonged cardio-pulmonary resuscitation was administered to 15 patients where it was associated with a return to sinus rhythm in nine of these. Amiodarone was linked to success in correcting dysrhythmias in 11 of 20 cases. Cardiopulmonary bypass use was associated with a return to sinus rhythm in four out of six cases. Epinephrine was documented as being employed on four occasions, and was associated with a restoration of sinus rhythm on two of these. Magnesium sulphate administration was accompanied by dysrhythmia termination in two of nine cases. Direct cardioversion was associated with a return of sinus rhythm in 5 of 30 cases. However, it is not certain whether the drug treatment influenced the course of the dysrhythmia.Based on the evidence available from human case reports, flecainaide or amiodarone appear to be more associated with a return to sinus rhythm than lidocaine and/or cardioversion, although it is not established whether the administration of treatment caused reversion to normal sinus rhythm. The potential beneficial effects of amiodarone were not observed in animal studies. This may be due to intra-species differences between ion channels or relate to the wider cardiovascular toxicity of aconite that extends beyond arrhythmias. Prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation and cardiopulmonary bypass should be considered as an integral part of good clinical care as "time-buying" strategies to allow the body to excrete the toxic alkaloids. There may also be a role for mexiletine, procainamide and magnesium sulphate.

Weighing up sources of evidence is a key skill for clinical decision-makers. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies each have advantages and disadvantages, and in both cases perceived weaknesses can be improved through modifications of design and analysis. In the field of pharmacoepidemiology, RCTs are the best way to determine whether an intervention modifies an outcome being studied, largely because randomisation reduces bias and confounding. Observational studies are useful to investigate whether benefits/harms of a treatment are seen in day-to-day clinical practice in a wider group of patients. Although observational studies, even in a small cohort, can provide very useful clinical evidence, they may also be misleading (as shown by subsequent RCTs), in part because of allocation bias. There is an unmet need for clinicians to become well-versed in appraising the study design and statistical analysis of observational pharmacoepidemiology (OP) studies, rather like the medical training already offered for RCT evaluation. This is because OP studies are likely to become more common with the computerisation of healthcare records and increasingly contribute to the evidence base available for clinical decision-making. However, when the results of an RCT conflict with the results of an OP study, the findings of the RCT should be preferred, especially if its findings have been repeated elsewhere. Conversely, OP studies that align with the findings of RCTs can provide rich and useful information to complement that generated by RCTs.

Purpose Paracetamol is one of the world’s most commonly used drugs. In overdose, it is well established to be hepatotoxic. The aim of this review was to identify factors that have been, or actually are, associated with the development of liver injury after paracetamol exposure in humans. Method Google Scholar and PubMed were searched on various dates between December 2016 and March 2017. Papers identified had their references analysed for further studies that might be relevant. Results At the time of writing, there was little good quality clinical evidence—from studies of paracetamol overdose or therapeutic use—to suggest that any groups of people are relatively protected from, or are at greater risk of, liver injury. The factors that were historically used to indicate higher risk in the UK have no good quality clinical evidence to support their re-introduction into clinical practice. The safe (and still effective) oral dose of paracetamol in patients weighing less than 50 kg has not been established. Conclusion There is no patient group that is unequivocally at elevated risk of paracetamol-induced liver toxicity. We propose two clinical scenarios that warrant further research. Firstly, there is a need to establish whether the dose of paracetamol should be reduced in patients with low body weight. Secondly, if or when genomic information regarding individual patients becomes readily available to inform prescribing, we propose the contribution of the genome to paracetamol toxicity should be re-investigated with robustly designed studies. Such studies could enhance the safe use of one of the most frequently taken drugs. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00228-017-2356-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.