Ross, Joseph S.

OBJECTIVE To examine kidney disease outcomes associated with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In this target trial emulation, claims data from enrollees in commercial, Medicare Advantage, and traditional Medicare health plans were used to identify adults ≥21 years old with type 2 diabetes, with moderate cardiovascular risk, and without stage 3 or worse chronic kidney disease (CKD) initiating alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, or sitagliptin between 2014 and 2021. The primary outcome was a composite of incident CKD stages 3–5, kidney failure, or kidney replacement therapy. Random treatment assignment was emulated using propensity scores, estimated using the super learner ensemble method and incorporated as inverse probability of treatment weights into proportional hazards models. RESULTS The weighted study cohort included 3,026 individuals starting alogliptin, 38,213 starting linagliptin, 14,934 starting saxagliptin, and 115,091 starting sitagliptin. One year after treatment initiation, the primary outcome occurred in 1.4%, 2.7%, 2.2%, and 2.4% of patients initiating alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, and sitagliptin, respectively, increasing to 3.2%, 6.2%, 5.0%, and 5.4%, respectively, at 3 years. Alogliptin was associated with lower risk of stage 3 or worse CKD than linagliptin (hazard ratio [HR] 0.50; 95% CI 0.37–0.69), saxagliptin (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.45–0.86), and sitagliptin (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.42–0.79), while saxagliptin was associated with lower risk than linagliptin (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.73–0.87). Conversely, linagliptin was associated with higher risk than sitagliptin (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.10–1.21). CONCLUSIONS Alogliptin was associated with lower risk of moderate-to-severe kidney disease than other DPP-4i, while linagliptin was associated with higher risk. Limitations include lack of laboratory data and potential unmeasured confounding.

Importance Opioid prescribing has decreased in the US for more than a decade. However, less is known about how prescribing trends differ by prescriber specialty and separately for short-term and long-term opioid prescribing for which the indications, clinical decision-making, and potential for harm vary substantially. Objective To characterize opioid analgesic prescribing trends in the US between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2024, by prescriber specialty, analyzing short-term and long-term opioid use episodes separately. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study used administrative claims data for commercially insured and Medicare Advantage patients (aged ≥65 years and <65 years with long-term disability) with at least 90 days of enrollment in medical and prescription coverage. Statistical analysis was performed from May 2025 to September 2025. Main Outcomes and Measures Prescribing volume, daily dose, and prescription duration. Results The study identified 110 288 218 opioid fills by 14 959 612 patients during the 15-year study period. Among opioid fills, 59.4% were attributed to female patients; the median (IQR) age at opioid fill was 61 (50-71) years. From 2010 to 2024, decreases in opioid prescribing were greater for long-term than short-term opioid use episodes (eg, commercial cohort: 81.3% reduction [from 33.2 fills per 100-person years in 2010 to 6.2 in 2024] and 74.6% reduction [from 36.2 fills per 100-person years in 2010 to 9.2 in 2024]), respectively. The proportion of all opioid fills written by primary care clinicians decreased (eg, Medicare Advantage with disability cohort: from 52.2% to 47.2%), whereas those written by pain medicine specialists increased (eg, Medicare Advantage with disability cohort: from 17.1% to 25.7%). Distinct trends for short-term and long-term opioid use episodes were observed in prescription characteristics, such as daily dose and duration. Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional study of opioid prescribing trends in the US between 2010 and 2024, decreases in prescribing were greatest in long-term opioid use episodes, and prescribing was increasingly concentrated among pain medicine specialists. These findings suggest the need to balance reductions in opioid prescribing with provision of nonopioid pain treatments and raise concerns about access to care for patients taking opioids for chronic pain management.

Importance High-quality evidence guiding opioid prescribing decisions for acute pain across common diagnoses is lacking. Objective To describe pain trajectories and patterns of opioid and nonopioid treatment use among individuals who were offered opioids for the treatment of acute pain. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a prospective cohort study of patients recruited from 5 US health systems between September 2020 and March 2023 in emergency departments (EDs), primary care clinics, dental practices, or after cesarean delivery or knee replacement. Eligible patients were opioid-naive adults aged 18 years or older at all study sites, as well as adolescents aged 15 to17 years undergoing impacted molar extraction at 1 site, who were offered an opioid prescription for acute pain. Analysis was conducted April 2023 through February 2026. Exposure Offer of a prescription for an opioid analgesic. Main Outcomes and Measures Time to pain resolution (3 consecutive reports of no pain), patterns of opioid and nonopioid treatment use, and opioid-related adverse effects, ascertained from digital questionnaires. Results Among 1708 enrolled patients (median age, 38 years [IQR, 28-52 years]; 615 [36.0%] reporting race or ethnicity underrepresented in studies of acute pain management) followed up for 180 days, 915 (53.6%) were recruited in EDs, 307 (18.0%) in primary or urgent care, 263 (15.4%) in dental settings, and 223 (13.1%) in inpatient settings. Pain sources included dental (302 patients [17.7%]), trauma or injury (302 [17.7%]), obstetric (176 [10.3%]), musculoskeletal (131 [7.7%]), and low back (100 [5.9%]). Among 1502 patients reporting pain level at least once, median time to pain resolution irrespective of the treatment approach was 20 days (IQR, 8-88 days), with longer durations for surgical pain (74 days [IQR, 30 days to not reached]) and low back pain (69 days [IQR, 18 days to not reached]). The median time to opioid discontinuation among 1189 patients (69.6%) who reported any opioid use was 7 days (IQR, 2-31 days); an estimated 10.0% (95% CI, 7.7%-12.7%) of patients used opioids for at least 90 days, with higher rates in people reporting frequent pain before enrollment. Of 1482 patients (86.8%) completing at least 1 survey during the first 2 weeks of follow-up, 1153 (77.8%) reported using any opioids and 1287 (86.8%) reported using acetaminophen or ibuprofen. Among 619 (52.1%) patients with any opioid use who reported the dose of opioids taken in the first 15 days, daily doses were low (median, 10 [IQR, 5-15] morphine milligram equivalents). Most respondents reported leftover opioids (657 of 982 responding [66.9%]). Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study of opioid-naive patients with acute pain, opioid use was generally low dose and of short duration, although some patients reported prolonged opioid use; most reported achieving pain resolution within 3 weeks, with longer times for surgical and low back pain. The findings suggest current guidelines for multimodal treatment and for short-duration opioid prescriptions if needed will serve many but not all patients, and treatment should be tailored to address individual patients’ needs.

Introduction To assess the within-class variation in kidney outcomes following initiation of sulfonylurea therapy. Research design and methods We used claims data of enrollees in commercial, Medicare Advantage, and traditional Medicare health plans between 2014 and 2021 to emulate a target trial including adults ≥21 years with type 2 diabetes at moderate cardiovascular risk to compare initiation of glimepiride, glipizide, or glyburide on the incidence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 3 or worse, including initiation of kidney replacement therapy (primary outcome); secondary outcomes examined incident CKD stages 3-4, kidney failure (including kidney replacement therapy), all-cause mortality, and hypoglycemia requiring emergency department or hospital care. Random treatment assignment was emulated using propensity scores, estimated using the super learner ensemble method, and incorporated as inverse probability of treatment weights into proportional hazards models. Results The weighted study cohort included 295 092 individuals starting glimepiride (n=134 926), glipizide (n=145 984), and glyburide (n=14 182). One year after treatment initiation, stage 3 or worse CKD developed in 2.1% of patients in the glimepiride group, 2.2% in the glipizide group, and 1.8% in the glyburide group. Glyburide was associated with a lower risk of kidney complications compared with both glimepiride (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.92) and glipizide (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.89), despite a higher risk of severe hypoglycemia (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.71 vs glipizide and HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.42 vs glimepiride). In contrast, the risk of kidney complications was modestly increased with glipizide compared with glimepiride use (HR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.07). Conclusions Glyburide was associated with a modestly lower risk of kidney complications, despite a higher risk of hypoglycemia, while glipizide was associated with a higher risk of kidney complications. These hypothesis-generating findings suggest important within-class differences that warrant consideration in clinical decision-making and future research. Despite rigorous prespecified causal inference analytic methods, the risk of unmeasured confounding and bias by indication with the use of observational data remains. Trial registration number NCT05214573 .

Background SGLT2 (sodium‐glucose cotransporter 2) inhibitors reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in type 2 diabetes. However, no direct comparison of individual SGLT2 inhibitor drugs has been conducted, particularly among adults with moderate cardiovascular risk who comprise most people with type 2 diabetes. Methods We used data for commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare fee‐for‐service beneficiaries to emulate a target trial of adults (≥21 years) with type 2 diabetes and moderate cardiovascular risk who started canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or empagliflozin between 2015 and 2020. We estimated propensity scores using the super learner ensemble method and incorporated them as inverse probability of treatment weights into Cox models, estimating risk of MACE, expanded MACE, and hyperglycemic and hypoglycemic crises through December 31, 2022. Results The weighted cohort, balanced on all baseline covariates, included 137 232 patients (mean age 65.7 years [SD, 8.1], 75.3% non‐Hispanic White, 57.0% male, 81.9% on metformin, 11.4% on glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists) starting canagliflozin (N=42 877), dapagliflozin (N=17 871), or empagliflozin (N=7648). The risk of MACE was lower among patients starting empagliflozin versus canagliflozin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.87–0.97]), driven by reduced risk of all‐cause mortality (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.80–0.94]). There was no difference in MACE between empagliflozin versus dapagliflozin or dapagliflozin versus canagliflozin therapy. There was no difference in remaining outcomes between the three drugs. Conclusions The 3 most used SGLT2 inhibitor medications demonstrate similar effectiveness on cardiovascular outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes at moderate cardiovascular risk, with differences between these drugs small in magnitude. Clinicians and health systems should prioritize enhancing access to these cardioprotective therapies.

Introduction To examine within-class sulfonylurea safety, we compared risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and severe hypoglycemia among adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and moderate cardiovascular risk following sulfonylurea initiation. Research design and methods We conducted a target trial emulation including adults ≥21 years old with T2D and moderate cardiovascular risk who initiated glimepiride, glipizide or glyburide between 2014 and 2021, using claims data from Optum Labs Data Warehouse and the Medicare fee-for-service 100% sample. Study outcomes were MACE (primary), expanded MACE and its components and emergency department or hospital encounters for hypoglycemia, ascertained during follow-up through 2022. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied using propensity scores estimated using the super learner ensemble, and outcomes were examined using IPTW Cox proportional hazards models. Results The weighted study cohort comprised 314 699 patients (mean age 66.9 years, 52.0% men, 76.6% non-Hispanic white). At 1 year, MACE was experienced by 2.5%, 2.7% and 2.8% of patients starting glimepiride, glipizide and glyburide, respectively. Compared with glimepiride, glyburide and glipizide were associated with higher risk of MACE (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.16 for glyburide; HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07 for glipizide). At 1 year, severe hypoglycemia was experienced by 0.3%, 0.3% and 0.4% of patients starting glimepiride, glipizide and glyburide, respectively. Glyburide was associated with a greater risk of severe hypoglycemia compared with glipizide (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.65), while glipizide was associated with a lower risk compared with glimepiride (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.87). Conclusions Among adults with T2D and moderate cardiovascular risk, glimepiride was associated with lowest risk of MACE and glipizide with lowest risk of severe hypoglycemia. These results can help inform treatment selection if sulfonylureas are used for glucose-lowering.

Importance The 2007 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendments Act (FDAAA) expanded its safety-related regulatory authorities, including enhanced postmarketing safety surveillance and new clinical study requirements. However, whether FDAAA has been associated with differences in the frequency and timing of postmarket safety-related actions remains poorly understood. Objectives To assess whether FDAAA was associated with differences in time to first FDA postmarket drug safety−related action, and to assess whether therapeutic and regulatory characteristics were associated with differences in time to these actions post-FDAAA implementation. Design and Setting This was a cross-sectional study of all novel therapeutics approved by FDA between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2019, and followed up through December 31, 2024. Approvals were categorized as pre- or post-FDAAA (before or after March 25, 2008). Post-FDAAA therapeutic and regulatory characteristics included drug class, therapeutic area, orphan status, special regulatory pathway, and presence of a boxed warning or FDAAA-mandated postmarket study requirement at approval. Main Outcomes and Measures Time to first FDA postmarket drug safety−related action, a composite of withdrawals due to safety concerns, incremental boxed warnings, and safety-related communications. Results Of the 560 novel therapeutics approved, FDA took postmarket safety-related actions for 130 (23.2%) during a median (IQR) follow-up of 12.1 (7.8-18.2) years. These comprised actions within 5 years of approval for 34 of 164 therapeutics (20.7%) approved pre-FDAAA, and 57 of 396 (14.4%) approved post-FDAAA (rate ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.47-1.02; P = .06). Compared to pre-FDAAA approvals, after accounting for therapeutic and regulatory characteristics, there was no statistically significant difference in time to first postmarket safety-related action for post-FDAAA approvals (time ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.15-1.07; P = .07). However, among therapeutics with postmarket safety-related actions within 5 years of approval, median time to first action was shorter post-FDAAA (median [IQR], 3.1 (2.0-4.2) years for pre-FDAAA vs 1.8 [1.3-2.5] years post-FDAAA; P = .004). Among 260 novel therapeutics approved post-FDAAA, after the October 2013 enactment of breakthrough therapy designation, the following therapeutic and regulatory characteristics were associated with time to first postmarket safety-related action: small molecule type (time ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.07-0.81; P = .02), orphan designation (time ratio, 8.29; 95% CI, 2.43-28.27; P < .001), fast track (time ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.64; P = .005), breakthrough therapy designation (time ratio, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.03-0.32; P < .001), prolonged regulatory review time (>400 days; time ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-0.73; P = .02), and FDAAA-mandated postmarket study requirements at approval (time ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.80; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance This cross-sectional analysis found that the enhanced safety-related regulatory authorities of FDAAA were not associated with differences in time to first postmarket safety-related action. However, among therapeutics with postmarket safety-related actions within 5 years of approval, median time to first action was shorter post-FDAAA implementation.

Abstract Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. We developed a machine learning-based mortality model to identify features and patient subgroups associated with the largest change in mortality risk when evaluating treatment with Impella devices or intra-aortic Balloon Pump (IABP). Our cohort comprised 369 sites and 15,796 patient visits to the cardiac catheterization laboratory from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. The estimated population mean excess mortality effect of treatment with Impella devices vs IABP was 10.4 ± 0.8%. However, we identified clinical subgroups of 282 patients for whom a decreased risk of mortality was associated with use of Impella as compared with IABP. Those patients were on average younger, presented with higher systolic blood pressure, higher rate of salvage percutaneous coronary intervention, higher initial creatinine, and lower hemoglobin. While Impella devices were associated with higher mortality risk overall, certain clinical profiles were associated with lower risk, illustrating heterogeneity of treatment effects.

Abstract In comparative effectiveness research (CER), ensuring internal, construct, and external validity is crucial. Internal validity determines whether observed outcomes are causally linked to an intervention; construct validity assesses whether a study measures what it intends to; and external validity relates to generalizability in routine practice. Double-blind randomized trials optimize internal validity by minimizing bias and confounding, while construct validity is strengthened through pre-specified protocols and standardized data collection. However, controlled conditions limit external validity. Pragmatic RCTs improve generalizability but may compromise internal validity due to open-label designs. Observational CER studies—including observational studies following the target trial emulation framework—offer broader external validity and feasibility in less time and at lower cost. However, due to lack of random assignment, these studies are susceptible to measured and unmeasured confounding. Several techniques help mitigate these concerns, including a detailed pre-specified protocol, tools such as propensity score matching to balance measured confounders, falsification endpoint testing for assessing the presence of unmeasured confounders, and quasi-experimental designs (including instrumental variable analysis), which may be able to address both. Pre-specified sensitivity analyses and triangulation with complementary data sources further enhance robustness. Construct validity in observational CER depends on accurate patient profiling and validated computational phenotypes for identifying patients, exposures, and outcomes. Thoughtful study design and analytic rigor are essential for balancing these validity considerations. This brief review highlights these issues with examples from thrombosis research.

Background Glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (GLP‐1RAs) and sodium–glucose cotransporter‐2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) have favorable cardiovascular outcomes compared with dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitors (DPP4is) and sulfonylureas in adults with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk. How these benefits vary across lower levels of cardiovascular risk is unknown. Methods We used nationwide claims data to emulate a comparative effectiveness trial and examine the heterogeneity of treatment effects of GLP‐1RAs, SGLT2is, DPP4is, and sulfonylureas on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) among adults with type 2 diabetes and moderate cardiovascular risk (annualized MACE risk 1%–5%, estimated using the annualized claims‐based MACE estimator). Results Among 386 276 included adults with type 2 diabetes, 25.2% had baseline ACME–predicted MACE risk >1% to ≤2% (lower‐risk patients) and 13.3% had ACME–predicted risk >4% to ≤5% (higher‐risk patients). By year 3 of treatment, higher‐risk patients derived greater absolute benefit than lower‐risk patients when treated with GLP‐1RAs versus sulfonylureas (absolute reduction in the estimated rate of MACE of 3.1% in higher‐risk patients and 1.6% in lower‐risk patients), SGLT2is versus sulfonylureas (absolute reduction, 3.9% in higher‐risk patients and 1.3% in lower‐risk patients), and GLP‐1RAs versus DPP4is (absolute reduction, 1.6% in higher‐risk patients and 0.5% in lower‐risk patients). The relative benefits for MACE were also greater in higher‐risk than lower‐risk patients with SGLT2is versus DPP4is (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78 [95% CI, 0.70–0.87] in higher‐risk patients; HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.88–1.12] in lower‐risk patients). Conversely, the relative benefits of DPP4is and GLP‐1RAs versus sulfonylureas were greater in lower‐risk patients: HR 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71–0.81) in lower‐risk and HR 0.91 (95% CI, 0.97–0.96) in higher‐risk patients for DPP4is versus sulfonylureas; HR 0.67 (95% CI, 0.58–0.78) in lower‐risk and HR 0.80 (95% CI, 0.70–0.93) in higher‐risk patients for GLP‐1RAs versus sulfonylurea. Benefits of SGLT2is and GLP‐1RAs were comparable across all risk levels. Conclusions Cardiovascular benefits of SGLT2is and GLP‐1RAs exist across all levels of moderate cardiovascular risk, reinforcing the importance of choosing glucose‐lowering therapies that can prevent MACE in all people with type 2 diabetes.