Mathioudakis, Nestoras

Sharing research code in an open access version-controlled repository offers significant benefits for both science as a whole and for individual researchers. In this article, we focus on this practice, which is fully aligned with the NIH’s Gold Standard Science (GSS) program as well as FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) and TRUST (transparency, responsibility, user focus, sustainability, technology) principles. Gold Standard Science supports open science by emphasizing transparency, reproducibility, and the use of best practices that enable others to verify and extend research. Pairing a research article’s cited data snapshot with a versioned, environment-specific code release, deposited in a companion code repository, ensures that, upon submission to a medical journal, readers and reviewers can directly verify results. An executable and updatable companion code repository complements, rather than replaces, established research data repositories. When code underlying medical research results is made openly available, then other scientists can inspect, run, and validate analyses. These activities enhance reproducibility, which is a core aim of GSS. Shared code also facilitates collaborative innovation by allowing researchers to extend the utility of the code to new datasets and applications. For researchers, code sharing can increase visibility, credibility, and citation impact. Demonstrating transparency through shared executable and updatable code builds trust with journal readers, peer reviewers, funders, and peers. Shared code in an open access repository signals adherence to high standards of scientific integrity and attracts opportunities for collaboration. A researcher who shares code receives recognition as a leader in reproducible, trustworthy research consistent with NIH’s GSS principles.

Introduction Semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), has potential associations with higher rates of diabetic retinopathy (DR) complications including proliferative DR (PDR) and diabetic macular edema (DME). The purpose of this study was to determine whether an association exists between semaglutide and PDR and treatment-requiring DR/DME. Research design and methods This was a retrospective cohort study of 14 databases (six administrative claims and eight electronic health records) in the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics Evidence Network. Adults with T2D on semaglutide, other GLP-1RA (dulaglutide, exenatide), or non-GLP-1RA medications (empagliflozin, sitagliptin, glipizide) from 1 December 2017 to 31 December 2023 were included. The association between semaglutide and PDR or treatment-requiring DR/DME was assessed using an active-comparator cohort design comparing new users of semaglutide as second-line T2D treatment to those on other GLP-1RAs and non-GLP-1RAs. Propensity score-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs). Network-wide HR estimates were generated using a random-effects meta-analysis. Results The study included 810 390 new semaglutide users for T2D. PDR risk for semaglutide was similar to dulaglutide (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.54, p=0.51), empagliflozin (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.30, p=0.41) and sitagliptin (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.55, p=0.57) but was lower than glipizide (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.88, p=0.01). The risk for treatment-requiring DR/DME for semaglutide was similar to empagliflozin (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.02, p=0.06) but lower than dulaglutide (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.91, p=0.02), sitagliptin (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.81, p=0.008) and glipizide (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.91, p=0.02). Conclusions and relevance We did not identify increased risk for either PDR or treatment-requiring DR/DME comparing semaglutide with other GLP-1RAs or non-GLP-1RAs. Patients with T2D should still undergo close eye care follow-up, particularly when initiating new antihyperglycemic medications.

Importance Semaglutide, a glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), has recently been implicated in cases of nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), raising safety concerns in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Objective To investigate the potential association between semaglutide and NAION in the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) network. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a retrospective study across 14 databases (6 administrative claims and 8 electronic health records). Included were adults with T2D taking semaglutide, other GLP-1RA (dulaglutide, exenatide), or non–GLP-1RA medications (empagliflozin, sitagliptin, glipizide) from December 1, 2017, to December 31, 2023. The incidence proportion and rate of NAION were calculated. Association between semaglutide and NAION was assessed using 2 approaches: an active-comparator cohort design comparing new users of semaglutide with those taking other GLP-1RAs and non–GLP-1RA drugs, and a self-controlled case-series (SCCS) analysis to compare individuals’ risks during exposure and nonexposure periods for each drug. The cohort design used propensity score–adjusted Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs). The SCCS used conditional Poisson regression models to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Network-wide HR and IRR estimates were generated using a random-effects meta-analysis model. Exposures GLP-1RA and non–GLP-1RAs. Main Outcomes and Measures NAION under 2 alternative definitions based on diagnosis codes: one more inclusive and sensitive, the other more restrictive and specific. Results The study included 37.1 million individuals with T2D, including 810 390 new semaglutide users. Of the 43 620 new users of semaglutide in the Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database, 24 473 (56%) were aged 50 to 69 years, and 26 699 (61%) were female. The incidence rate of NAION was 14.5 per 100 000 person-years among semaglutide users. The HR for NAION among new users of semaglutide was not different compared with that of the non–GLP-1RAs using the sensitive NAION definition—empagliflozin (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.78-2.68; P = .12), sitagliptin (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.56-3.01; P = .27), and glipizide (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.66-2.28; P = .25). The risk was higher only compared with patients taking empagliflozin (HR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.16-4.46; P = .02) using the specific definition. SCCS analysis of semaglutide exposure showed an increased risk of NAION (meta-analysis IRR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.54; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance Results of this study suggest a modest increase in the risk of NAION among individuals with T2D associated with semaglutide use, smaller than that previously reported, and warranting further investigation into the clinical implications of this association.

Background: A composite metric for the quality of glycemia from continuous glucose monitor (CGM) tracings could be useful for assisting with basic clinical interpretation of CGM data. Methods: We assembled a data set of 14-day CGM tracings from 225 insulin-treated adults with diabetes. Using a balanced incomplete block design, 330 clinicians who were highly experienced with CGM analysis and interpretation ranked the CGM tracings from best to worst quality of glycemia. We used principal component analysis and multiple regressions to develop a model to predict the clinician ranking based on seven standard metrics in an Ambulatory Glucose Profile: very low–glucose and low-glucose hypoglycemia; very high–glucose and high-glucose hyperglycemia; time in range; mean glucose; and coefficient of variation. Results: The analysis showed that clinician rankings depend on two components, one related to hypoglycemia that gives more weight to very low-glucose than to low-glucose and the other related to hyperglycemia that likewise gives greater weight to very high-glucose than to high-glucose. These two components should be calculated and displayed separately, but they can also be combined into a single Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) that corresponds closely to the clinician rankings of the overall quality of glycemia (r = 0.95). The GRI can be displayed graphically on a GRI Grid with the hypoglycemia component on the horizontal axis and the hyperglycemia component on the vertical axis. Diagonal lines divide the graph into five zones (quintiles) corresponding to the best (0th to 20th percentile) to worst (81st to 100th percentile) overall quality of glycemia. The GRI Grid enables users to track sequential changes within an individual over time and compare groups of individuals. Conclusion: The GRI is a single-number summary of the quality of glycemia. Its hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia components provide actionable scores and a graphical display (the GRI Grid) that can be used by clinicians and researchers to determine the glycemic effects of prescribed and investigational treatments.

This article is the work product of the Continuous Glucose Monitor and Automated Insulin Dosing Systems in the Hospital Consensus Guideline Panel, which was organized by Diabetes Technology Society and met virtually on April 23, 2020. The guideline panel consisted of 24 international experts in the use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and automated insulin dosing (AID) systems representing adult endocrinology, pediatric endocrinology, obstetrics and gynecology, advanced practice nursing, diabetes care and education, clinical chemistry, bioengineering, and product liability law. The panelists reviewed the medical literature pertaining to five topics: (1) continuation of home CGMs after hospitalization, (2) initiation of CGMs in the hospital, (3) continuation of AID systems in the hospital, (4) logistics and hands-on care of hospitalized patients using CGMs and AID systems, and (5) data management of CGMs and AID systems in the hospital. The panelists then developed three types of recommendations for each topic, including clinical practice (to use the technology optimally), research (to improve the safety and effectiveness of the technology), and hospital policies (to build an environment for facilitating use of these devices) for each of the five topics. The panelists voted on 78 proposed recommendations. Based on the panel vote, 77 recommendations were classified as either strong or mild. One recommendation failed to reach consensus. Additional research is needed on CGMs and AID systems in the hospital setting regarding device accuracy, practices for deployment, data management, and achievable outcomes. This guideline is intended to support these technologies for the management of hospitalized patients with diabetes.