Abstract

BackgroundAchieving control of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure (BP), and body weight (BW) remains a challenge for most patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In clinical trials, canagliflozin (CANA), an inhibitor of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2, has shown significant improvement compared to some dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in the achievement of such quality measures. This study used recent electronic medical records (EMR) data to assess quality measure achievement of HbA1C, BP, and BW loss in patients treated with CANA versus DPP-4 inhibitors.MethodsAdult patients with ≥1 T2DM diagnosis and ≥12 months of clinical activity (baseline) before first CANA or DPP-4 prescription (index) were identified in the QuintilesIMS Health Real-World Data EMRs–US database (03/29/2012–10/30/2015). Patients were observed from the index to last encounter. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for observed baseline confounders between groups. Kaplan-Meier (KM) rates and Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare achievement of HbA1c < 7% (among patients <65 years old), HbA1c < 8%, systolic BP < 140 mmHg, diastolic BP < 90 mmHg, and BW loss ≥ 5% among patients not meeting these respective targets at baseline.ResultsA total of 10,702 CANA and 17,679 DPP-4 patients were selected. IPTW resulted in balanced baseline demographic, comorbidity, and disease characteristics (CANA: N = 13,793, mean age: 59.0 years; DPP-4: N = 14,588, mean age: 58.9 years). Up until 24 months post-index, CANA patients were more likely to reach an HbA1c < 7% (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.10, P = 0.007, KM rates: 42.8% vs. 40.3%), an HbA1c < 8% (HR = 1.16, P < 0.001, KM rates: 63.7% vs. 60.0%), and a BW loss ≥ 5% (HR = 1.46, P < 0.001, KM rates: 55.2% vs. 46.2%), compared to DPP-4 patients. Up until 12 months post-index, CANA patients were more likely to reach a systolic BP < 140 mmHg (HR = 1.07, P = 0.04, KM rates: 87.8% vs. 83.9%). but not a diastolic BP < 90 mmHg (HR = 0.95, P = 0.361), compared to DPP-4 patients.ConclusionsThis retrospective study of EMR data covering up to 30 months after CANA approval (March 2013) suggests that patients initiated on CANA were more likely to reach HbA1c, systolic BP, and weight loss objectives specified by general diabetes care guidelines than patients initiated on DPP-4 inhibitors.

Highlights

  • Achieving control of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure (BP), and body weight (BW) remains a challenge for most patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)

  • The aim of the present study was to expand on the clinical benefits mentioned in the clinical trials above and assess achievement of Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), BP, and BW loss goals between a large sample of inadequately controlled patients initiated on CANA versus a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) agent in a real-world setting where patients can be observed for more than two years following the initiation

  • Prior to weighting and relative to patients initiated on DPP-4, patients initiated on CANA were younger, and more likely white (76.9% vs. 74.0%, standardized difference 6.6%)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Achieving control of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure (BP), and body weight (BW) remains a challenge for most patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Overweight and obesity are highly prevalent among patients with T2DM; [8] managing obesity has been shown to have beneficial impacts on T2DM management [6]. Both the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and the American College of Endocrinology (ACE) recommend to target a BW loss goal of ≥5% in this population [9]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.