Antidiabetic Drug Associations With Heart Failure Outcomes: Real-World Evidence Study Using Electronic Health Records.

IF 2.6 Q2 Medicine
JMIR Diabetes Pub Date : 2026-04-15 DOI:10.2196/85083
Elzbieta Jodlowska-Siewert, Yunhui Chen, Sinian Zhang, Jia Li, Robert Dellavalle, Rui Zhang, Jue Hou
{"title":"Antidiabetic Drug Associations With Heart Failure Outcomes: Real-World Evidence Study Using Electronic Health Records.","authors":"Elzbieta Jodlowska-Siewert, Yunhui Chen, Sinian Zhang, Jia Li, Robert Dellavalle, Rui Zhang, Jue Hou","doi":"10.2196/85083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, including heart failure (HF), leading to health care burden including hospitalization and mortality. Among multiple T2D therapies, there are inadequate head-to-head comparisons of their effects on HF in the real-world patient population.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to compare the time-to-HF among patients treated with different T2D drugs following metformin.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective data analysis on electronic health records of 5000 patients with T2D. The inclusion criteria were previous treatment with metformin and initiation of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1 RAs), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), sulfonylureas, or insulin. We grouped patients by the mechanism of their subsequent therapies and focused on 2 pairs of comparisons classified by insulin resistance: sulfonylureas versus insulin (increased resistance) and GLP1 RA versus DPP4i (decreased resistance). The outcomes were 5-year HF status and the HF-free survival time, which was verified manually by examining clinical notes. We applied doubly robust causal estimation and accounted for confounding by adjusting for coded and natural language processing electronic health record features identified through medical knowledge networks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 939 patients, of whom 204 (21.7%) received insulin, 482 (51.3%) received sulfonylureas, 90 (9.6%) received GLP1 RA, and 163 (17.4%) received DPP4i. Patients in the sulfonylureas group had a significantly higher 5-year HF-free survival compared to the insulin group (survival ratio of insulin/sulfonylureas 0.902, 95% CI 0.840-0.976; P=.01). There was no significant difference between the DPP4i versus GLP1 RA group in 5-year HF-free survival (survival ratio of GLP1 RA/DPP4i was 0.953, 95% CI 0.849-1.067; P=.40). For the occurrence of a HF-related hospitalization within 5 years, there were no significant differences between the sulfonylureas and insulin groups (risk difference 0.057, 95% CI -0.011 to 0.132; P=.11), and between the GLP1 RA and DPP4i groups (risk difference 0.010, 95% CI -0.096 to 0.129).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We evaluated real-world evidence on 2 head-to-head comparisons of second-line T2D therapies on 5-year HF outcomes. Patients on sulfonylureas were associated with lower 5-year HF risks than those treated with insulin when measured by risk ratio, but no significant difference was detected when measured by the risk difference. Limitations of this study included potentially inadequate adjustment of confounding in the observational study and a limited sample size with validated HF outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":52371,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Diabetes","volume":"11 ","pages":"e85083"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13082573/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Diabetes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/85083","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, including heart failure (HF), leading to health care burden including hospitalization and mortality. Among multiple T2D therapies, there are inadequate head-to-head comparisons of their effects on HF in the real-world patient population.

Objective: This study aims to compare the time-to-HF among patients treated with different T2D drugs following metformin.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective data analysis on electronic health records of 5000 patients with T2D. The inclusion criteria were previous treatment with metformin and initiation of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1 RAs), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), sulfonylureas, or insulin. We grouped patients by the mechanism of their subsequent therapies and focused on 2 pairs of comparisons classified by insulin resistance: sulfonylureas versus insulin (increased resistance) and GLP1 RA versus DPP4i (decreased resistance). The outcomes were 5-year HF status and the HF-free survival time, which was verified manually by examining clinical notes. We applied doubly robust causal estimation and accounted for confounding by adjusting for coded and natural language processing electronic health record features identified through medical knowledge networks.

Results: The study included 939 patients, of whom 204 (21.7%) received insulin, 482 (51.3%) received sulfonylureas, 90 (9.6%) received GLP1 RA, and 163 (17.4%) received DPP4i. Patients in the sulfonylureas group had a significantly higher 5-year HF-free survival compared to the insulin group (survival ratio of insulin/sulfonylureas 0.902, 95% CI 0.840-0.976; P=.01). There was no significant difference between the DPP4i versus GLP1 RA group in 5-year HF-free survival (survival ratio of GLP1 RA/DPP4i was 0.953, 95% CI 0.849-1.067; P=.40). For the occurrence of a HF-related hospitalization within 5 years, there were no significant differences between the sulfonylureas and insulin groups (risk difference 0.057, 95% CI -0.011 to 0.132; P=.11), and between the GLP1 RA and DPP4i groups (risk difference 0.010, 95% CI -0.096 to 0.129).

Conclusions: We evaluated real-world evidence on 2 head-to-head comparisons of second-line T2D therapies on 5-year HF outcomes. Patients on sulfonylureas were associated with lower 5-year HF risks than those treated with insulin when measured by risk ratio, but no significant difference was detected when measured by the risk difference. Limitations of this study included potentially inadequate adjustment of confounding in the observational study and a limited sample size with validated HF outcomes.

抗糖尿病药物与心力衰竭结局的关联:使用电子健康记录的真实世界证据研究
背景:2型糖尿病(T2D)患者有较高的心血管疾病风险,包括心力衰竭(HF),导致住院和死亡等医疗负担。在多种T2D疗法中,对其在现实世界患者人群中对心衰的影响的正面比较不足。目的:本研究旨在比较二甲双胍后不同T2D药物治疗的患者到hf的时间。方法:对5000例T2D患者的电子病历资料进行回顾性分析。纳入标准是先前使用二甲双胍治疗并开始使用胰高血糖素样肽-1受体激动剂(GLP1 RAs)、二肽基肽酶-4抑制剂(DPP4i)、磺脲类药物或胰岛素。我们根据后续治疗的机制对患者进行分组,并重点进行胰岛素抵抗分类的2对比较:磺脲类药物与胰岛素(增加抵抗)和GLP1 RA与DPP4i(降低抵抗)。结果是5年HF状态和无HF生存时间,这是通过检查临床记录手工验证的。我们应用了双稳健因果估计,并通过调整通过医学知识网络识别的编码和自然语言处理电子健康记录特征来解释混淆。结果:纳入939例患者,其中胰岛素治疗204例(21.7%),磺脲类药物治疗482例(51.3%),GLP1 RA治疗90例(9.6%),DPP4i治疗163例(17.4%)。磺脲类药物组患者5年无hf生存率显著高于胰岛素组(胰岛素/磺脲类药物生存率0.902,95% CI 0.840-0.976; P= 0.01)。DPP4i组与GLP1 RA组5年无hf生存率差异无统计学意义(GLP1 RA/DPP4i的生存率为0.953,95% CI 0.849 ~ 1.067; P= 0.40)。对于5年内hf相关住院的发生率,磺脲类药物组和胰岛素组之间无显著差异(风险差异0.057,95% CI -0.011 ~ 0.132; P= 0.11), GLP1 RA组和DPP4i组之间无显著差异(风险差异0.010,95% CI -0.096 ~ 0.129)。结论:我们评估了二线T2D治疗对5年心衰结局的两项正面比较的真实证据。采用磺脲类药物治疗的患者与胰岛素治疗的患者相比,其5年HF风险较低,但采用风险比测量无显著差异。本研究的局限性包括观察性研究中对混杂因素的调整可能不足,以及验证心衰结果的样本量有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JMIR Diabetes
JMIR Diabetes Computer Science-Computer Science Applications
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书