Ross, Joseph S

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.

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.

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.

Objectives To evaluate the feasibility for use of electronic health record (EHR) data in conducting adverse event surveillance among women who received mid-urethral slings (MUS) to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in five health systems. Design Retrospective observational study using EHR data from 2010 through 2021. Women with a history of MUS were identified using common data models; a common analytic code was executed at each site. A manual chart review was conducted in a per-site random patient subset to establish a reference standard. Automated text processing (Text Processed Integrated (TPI)) was developed and evaluated at each site to determine the surgical approach and synthetic mesh implantation. Patients were characterized and surgical outcomes were ascertained over 730 subsequent days. Setting Five large tertiary care academic medical centers. Participants Across five health systems, 9,906 eligible patients (mean age 57–60 per site) were identified. Main outcome measures Determination of surgical approach, synthetic mesh implantation, and assessment of the duration of surveillance for mortality and reoperation rates following MUS implantation. Results In the TPI cohort analysis, 3,331 patients were identified. Surgical approach per site was retropubic (42% to 77%), transobturator (6% to 44%), single incision (0% to 24%), and adjustable sling (0% to <4%). Concordance rates for TPI using chart review were 71%–90% at each site for the surgical approach and 28%–85% for synthetic mesh implantation. Patient follow-up observation rates for mortality and reoperation ranged from 22% to 36% at 90 days, 15% to 30% at 365 days, and 8% to 19% at 730 days. Conclusion Using EHR data alone, identification of medical devices and surgical approaches was feasible among women with MUS surgery for SUI, but long-term follow-up ascertainment rates were low. Medical device surveillance using EHR data should be evaluated in the context of the clinical use case, as applicability may vary.

Introduction In 2005, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services introduced the Coverage with Evidence Development program for items and services with limited evidence of benefit and harm for Medicare beneficiaries, aiming to generate evidence to determine whether they meet the statutory “reasonable and necessary” criteria for coverage. Coverage with Evidence Development requires participation in clinical studies approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (i.e. Coverage with Evidence Development-approved studies) as a condition of coverage. We examined the quality of evidence generated by Coverage with Evidence Development-approved studies compared with those that informed Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ initial Coverage with Evidence Development decisions (i.e. National Coverage Determination studies). Methods Using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ webpage, we identified all items and services covered under Coverage with Evidence Development and their Coverage with Evidence Development-approved studies. Through searching PubMed and Google Scholar, we identified original research articles that reported results for primary endpoints of Coverage with Evidence Development-approved studies. We then reviewed the initial Coverage with Evidence Development decision memos and identified National Coverage Determination studies that were original research.We characterized and compared Coverage with Evidence Development-approved studies and National Coverage Determination studies. Results From 2005 to 2023, 26 items and services were covered under the Coverage with Evidence Development program, associated with 196 National Coverage Determination studies (170 (86.7%) clinical trials and 26 (13.3%) registries) and 116 unique Coverage with Evidence Development-approved studies (86 (74.1%) clinical trials, 23 (19.8%) registries, 4 (3.4%) claims-based studies, and 3 (2.6%) expanded access studies). Among clinical trial studies, National Coverage Determination studies and Coverage with Evidence Development-approved studies did not differ with respect to multi-arm design (59.4% vs 68.6%; p = 0.15). However, among multi-arm clinical trial studies, National Coverage Determination studies were less likely than Coverage with Evidence Development-approved studies to be randomized (52.5% vs 93.2%; p < 0.001). Overall, National Coverage Determination studies less frequently had ≥ 1 primary endpoint focused on a clinical outcome measure (65.8% vs 87.9%; p = 0.006) and less frequently exclusively enrolled Medicare beneficiaries (3.1% vs 25.9%; p < 0.001). In addition, National Coverage Determination studies had smaller population sizes than Coverage with Evidence Development-approved studies (median 100 (interquartile range, 45–414) vs 302 (interquartile range, 93–1000) patients; p = 0.002). Among Coverage with Evidence Development-approved studies, 59 (50.9%) had not yet publicly reported results for the primary endpoint. Discussion Studies required under Medicare’s Coverage with Evidence Development program more often used randomized study designs, had larger patient populations, enrolled US patients, and focused on clinical outcomes as primary endpoints than studies used to inform initial National Coverage Determinations. However, not all Coverage with Evidence Development-approved studies have thus far reported results, which could create uncertainty for patients, physicians, and payers regarding the clinical benefits of covered items and services. Conclusion The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Coverage with Evidence Development program has successfully prompted generation of more robustly designed clinical studies to better inform clinical, regulatory, and coverage decisions compared to studies informing initial coverage decisions. Yet, opportunities exist to further strengthen the design and dissemination of studies required under this program.

Key Points Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists were superior to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor and sulfonylurea for preventing kidney complications in patients with type 2 diabetes at moderate cardiovascular disease risk. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor therapy compared favorably with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists for kidney disease outcomes. Background CKD is a serious diabetes-related complication. While guidelines recommend use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) therapies to mitigate cardiorenal risk in high-risk patients, the benefit of early initiation of these agents relative to other commonly prescribed glucose-lowering agents in patients at lower baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk remains less clear. Methods This retrospective observational study emulated an idealized target trial using claims data from OptumLabs data warehouse to test the comparative association of treatment with a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i), SGLT2i, GLP-1RA, or sulfonylurea (SU) on a primary kidney composite outcome of incident CKD stages 3–5, kidney failure, or need for KRT in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate CVD risk. A secondary composite outcome included all components of the primary composite outcome plus death. Results A total of 364,714 adults aged 21 years or older initiating treatment with a DPP-4i ( N =78,843), GLP-1RA ( N =42,049), SGLT2i ( N =45,466), or SU ( N =198,356) were identified. Relative to DPP-4i, SGLT2i (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67 to 0.74; P < 0.001) and GLP-1RA (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.92; P < 0.001) treatment was superior for the primary composite outcome. Similarly, SGLT2i (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.73) and GLP-1RA (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.91) treatment was associated with risk reductions for the primary outcome relative to SU treatment. When comparing SGLT2i with GLP-1RA therapy, SGLT2is were superior for the primary composite outcome (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.86; P < 0.001). Similar findings were observed for the secondary composite outcome across all comparisons. Conclusions SGLT2is and GLP-1RAs were superior to DPP-4is and SUs for preventing kidney complications in a type 2 diabetes population with moderate baseline CVD risk. Clinical Trial registry name and registration number: NCT05214573.

Abstract The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) relies on public comments submitted in response to proposed national coverage determinations to assist the agency in determining the coverage of items and services for Medicare beneficiaries. In a cross-sectional study, we characterized the cited evidence and what funding supported the cited evidence submitted in public comments to CMS for all therapeutic medical device national coverage determinations finalized between June 2019 and June 2022. Of 681 public comments, 159 (23%) cited at least 1 identifiable published scientific journal article. Within these 159 public comments, 198 unique articles were cited, 170 (86%) of which included funding statements or author disclosures. Among these, 96 (56%) disclosed funding from manufacturers that would benefit from Medicare coverage and/or were written by author(s) who received funding from these manufacturers. In summary, most public commenters for national coverage determinations did not cite published scientific journal articles to support their positions. Among those who did, more than half of articles were directly funded by manufacturers that would benefit from coverage. Greater funding of independent, non–industry-supported research may help provide unbiased evaluations of benefits and harms to support Medicare coverage decisions.

BACKGROUND: Following regulatory approval, medical devices may be used “off-label.” Patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure is indicated to reduce recurrent stroke but has been proposed for other indications, including migraine, transient ischemic attack, and diving decompression illness. We sought to evaluate PFO closure rates and indications relative to the timing of regulatory approval and publication of key randomized trials. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using the OptumLabs Data Warehouse of US commercial insurance enrollees from 2006 to 2019. We quantified PFO closure among individuals with ≥2 years of preprocedure coverage to establish indications, classified hierarchically as stroke/systemic embolism, migraine, transient ischemia attack, or other. RESULTS: We identified 5315 patients undergoing PFO closure (51.8% female, 29.2%≥60 years old), which increased from 4.75 per 100 000 person-years in 2006 to 6.60 per 100 000 person-years in 2019. Patients aged ≥60 years accounted for 29.2% of closures. Procedure volumes corresponded weakly with supportive clinical publications and device approval. Among patients with PFO closure, 58.6% underwent closure for stroke/systemic embolism, 10.2% for transient ischemia attack, 8.8% for migraine, and 22.4% for other indications; 17.6% of patients had atrial fibrillation at baseline; and 11.9% developed atrial fibrillation postprocedure. Those aged ≥60 years and male were less likely to undergo closure for migraine than stroke/systemic embolism. CONCLUSIONS: From 2006 to 2019, PFO closure use was consistently low and corresponded weakly with clinical trial publications and regulatory status. Nearly half of patients underwent PFO closure for indications unapproved by the Food and Drug Administration. Regulators and payers should coordinate mechanisms to promote utilization for approved indications to ensure patient safety and should facilitate clinical trials for other possible indications.

Objective To build on the recently completed GRADE (Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study) randomised trial examining the comparative effectiveness of second line glucose lowering drugs in achieving and maintaining glycaemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. Design Emulation of a target trial. Setting Medical and pharmacy claims data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a de-identified US national dataset of beneficiaries of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage plans, 29 March 2013 to 30 June 2021. Participants Adults (≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes who first started taking glimepiride, sitagliptin, liraglutide, insulin glargine, or canagliflozin between 29 March 2013 and 30 June 2021. Participants were treatment naive or were receiving metformin monotherapy at the time of starting the study drug. Main outcome measures The main outcomes were time to primary and secondary metabolic failure of the assigned treatment, calculated as days to haemoglobin A1c levels of ≥7.0% and >7.5%, respectively. Secondary metabolic, cardiovascular, and microvascular outcomes were analysed as specified in the GRADE statistical analysis plan. Propensity scores were estimated with the gradient boosting method, and inverse propensity score weighting was used to emulate randomisation to the treatment groups, which were then compared with Cox proportional hazards regression. (Results The study cohort included participants starting treatment with glimepiride (n=20 511), liraglutide (n=5569), sitagliptin (n=13 039), insulin glargine (n=7262), and canagliflozin (n=5290). The insulin glargine arm was excluded because of insufficient control of confounding. Median times to primary metabolic failure were 439 (95% confidence interval 400 to 489) days in the canagliflozin arm, 439 (426 to 453) days in the glimepiride arm, 624 (567 to 731) days in the liraglutide arm, and 461 (442 to 482) days in the sitagliptin arm. Median time to secondary metabolic failure was also longest in the liraglutide arm. Adults receiving liraglutide had the lowest one year cumulative incidence rate of primary metabolic failure (0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.40) followed by sitagliptin (0.44, 0.43 to 0.45), glimepiride (0.45, 0.44 to 0.45), and canagliflozin (0.46, 0.44 to 0.48). Similarly, the one year cumulative incidence rate of secondary metabolic failure was 0.27 (0.25 to 0.29) in the canagliflozin arm, 0.28 (0.27 to 0.29) in the glimepiride arm, 0.23 (0.21 to 0.26) in the liraglutide arm, and 0.28 (0.27 to 0.29) in the sitagliptin arm. No differences were observed between the study arms in the rates of microvascular and macrovascular complications. Conclusions In this target trial emulation of an expanded GRADE study framework, liraglutide was more effective in achieving and maintaining glycaemic control as a second line glucose lowering drug than canagliflozin, sitagliptin, or glimepiride.

Observational medical data present unique opportunities for analysis of medical outcomes and treatment decision making. However, because these datasets do not contain the strict pairing of randomized control trials, matching techniques are to draw comparisons among patients. A key limitation to such techniques is verification that the variables used to model treatment decision making are also relevant in identifying the risk of major adverse events. This article explores a deep mixture of experts approach to jointly learn how to match patients and model the risk of major adverse events in patients. Although trained with information regarding treatment and outcomes, after training, the proposed model is decomposable into a network that clusters patients into phenotypes from information available before treatment. This model is validated on a dataset of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. The mixture of experts approach can predict the outcome of mortality with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.85 ± 0.01 while jointly discovering five potential phenotypes of interest. The technique and interpretation allow for identifying clinically relevant phenotypes that may be used both for outcomes modeling as well as potentially evaluating individualized treatment effects.