Dean T. Eurich

Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes and Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure: A Nested Case–Control Study From the U.K. General Practice Research Database

OBJECTIVE Diabetes and heart failure commonly coexist, and prior studies have suggested better outcomes with metformin than other antidiabetic agents. We designed this study to determine whether this association reflects a beneficial effect of metformin or a harmful effect of other agents. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We performed a case-control study nested within the U.K. General Practice Research Database cohort in which diagnoses were assigned by each patients primary care physician. Case subjects were patients 35 years or older, newly diagnosed with both heart failure and diabetes after January 1988, and who died prior to October 2007. Control subjects were matched to case subjects based on age, sex, clinic site, calendar year, and duration of follow-up. Analyses were adjusted for comorbidities, A1C, renal function, and BMI. RESULTS The duration of concurrent diabetes and heart failure was 2.8 years (SD 2.6) in our 1,633 case subjects and 1,633 control subjects (mean age 78 years, 53% male). Compared with patients who were not exposed to antidiabetic drugs, the current use of metformin monotherapy (adjusted odds ratio 0.65 [0.48–0.87]) or metformin with or without other agents (0.72 [0.59–0.90]) was associated with lower mortality; however, use of other antidiabetic drugs or insulin was not associated with all-cause mortality. Conversely, the use of ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (0.55 [0.45–0.68]) and β-blockers (0.76 [0.61–0.95]) were associated with reduced mortality. CONCLUSIONS Our results confirm the benefits of trial-proven anti-failure therapies in patients with diabetes and support the use of metformin-based strategies to lower glucose.

A meta-analysis of the association between adherence to drug therapy and mortality

Abstract Objective To evaluate the relation between adherence to drug therapy, including placebo, and mortality. Design Meta-analysis of observational studies. Data sources Electronic databases, contact with investigators, and textbooks and reviews on adherence. Review methods Predefined criteria were used to select studies reporting mortality among participants with good and poor adherence to drug therapy. Data were extracted for disease, drug therapy groups, methods for measurement of adherence rate, definition for good adherence, and mortality. Results Data were available from 21 studies (46 847 participants), including eight studies with placebo arms (19 633 participants). Compared with poor adherence, good adherence was associated with lower mortality (odds ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.63). Good adherence to placebo was associated with lower mortality (0.56, 0.43 to 0.74), as was good adherence to beneficial drug therapy (0.55, 0.49 to 0.62). Good adherence to harmful drug therapy was associated with increased mortality (2.90, 1.04 to 8.11). Conclusion Good adherence to drug therapy is associated with positive health outcomes. Moreover, the observed association between good adherence to placebo and mortality supports the existence of the “healthy adherer” effect, whereby adherence to drug therapy may be a surrogate marker for overall healthy behaviour.

Benefits and harms of antidiabetic agents in patients with diabetes and heart failure: systematic review

Objective To review the literature on the association between antidiabetic agents and morbidity and mortality in people with heart failure and diabetes. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled studies (randomised trials or cohort studies) evaluating antidiabetic agents and outcomes (death and admission to hospital) in patients with heart failure and diabetes. Data sources Electronic databases, manual reference search, and contact with investigators. Review methods Two reviewers independently extracted data. Risk estimates for specific treatments were abstracted and pooled estimates derived by meta-analysis where appropriate. Results Eight studies were included. Three of four studies found that insulin use was associated with increased risk for all cause mortality (odds ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.51; 3.42, 1.40 to 8.37 in studies that did not adjust for diet and antidiabetic drugs; hazard ratio 1.66, 1.20 to 2.31; 0.96, 0.88 to 1.05 in the studies that did). Metformin was associated with significantly reduced all cause mortality in two studies (hazard ratio 0.86, 0.78 to 0.97) compared with other antidiabetic drugs and insulin; 0.70, 0.54 to 0.91 compared with sulfonylureas); a similar trend was seen in a third. Metformin was not associated with increased hospital admission for any cause or for heart failure specifically. In four studies, use of thiazolidinediones was associated with reduced all cause mortality (pooled odds ratio 0.83, 0.71 to 0.97, I2=52%, P=0.02). Thiazolidinediones were associated with increased risk of hospital admission for heart failure (pooled odds ratio 1.13 (1.04 to 1.22), I2=0%, P=0.004). The two studies of sulfonylureas had conflicting results, probably because of differences in comparator treatments. Important limitations were noted in all studies. Conclusion Metformin was the only antidiabetic agent not associated with harm in patients with heart failure and diabetes. It was associated with reduced all cause mortality in two of the three studies.

Statins and outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with community acquired pneumonia : population based prospective cohort study

Objectives To determine whether statins reduce mortality or need for admission to intensive care in patients admitted to hospital with community acquired pneumonia; and to assess whether previously reported improvements in sepsis related outcomes were a result of the healthy user effect. Design Population based prospective cohort study. Setting Six hospitals in Capital Health, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Participants Adults admitted to hospital with pneumonia and categorised according to use of statins for at least one week before admission and during hospital stay. Main outcome measures Composite of in-hospital mortality or admission to an intensive care unit. Results Of 3415 patients with pneumonia admitted to hospital, 624 (18%) died or were admitted to an intensive care unit. Statin users were less likely to die or be admitted to an intensive care unit than non-users (50/325 (15%) v 574/3090 (19%), odds ratio 0.80, P=0.15). After more complete adjustment for confounding, however, the odds ratios changed from potential benefit (0.78, adjusted for age and sex) to potential harm (1.10, fully adjusted including propensity scores, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to1.60). Conclusions Statins are not associated with reduced mortality or need for admission to an intensive care unit in patients with pneumonia; reports of benefit in the setting of sepsis may be a result of confounding.

Dose–response relation between sulfonylurea drugs and mortality in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a population-based cohort study

Background: Over the past 30 years, the relation between use of sulfonylureas to treat type 2 diabetes and the risk of cardiovascular events has been vigorously debated. The purpose of this study was to determine if the risk of death changes with level of exposure to sulfonylurea drugs. Methods: This was a retrospective, inception cohort study using administrative data from Saskatchewan Health (1991– 1999). The 5795 subjects, identified by their first-ever dispensation for an oral antidiabetic agent, were grouped according to their use of such agents during follow-up. Potential subjects using insulin or combination therapy were excluded. Exposure level was defined by daily dose and degree of adherence. Separate multivariate Cox proportional-hazard models were constructed for each monotherapy group and used to calculate the risk of death associated with higher versus lower exposure category. Disease severity indicators were identified among the administrative data and entered as covariates in each model. The main outcomes were all-cause mortality and death from an acute ischemic event. Results: The mean age of the cohort members was 66.3 (standard deviation [SD] 13.4) years; 43.4% were female; and their mean duration of follow-up was 4.6 (SD 2.1) years. First-generation sulfonylureas were used exclusively by 120 subjects; glyburide, by 4138; and metformin, by 1537. A greater risk of death was associated with higher daily doses of the first-generation sulfonylureas (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0–4.7) and glyburide (HR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2–1.4), but not metformin (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.7–1.1). Similar associations were observed for death caused by an acute ischemic event. Interpretation: Higher exposure to sulfonylureas was associated with increased mortality among patients newly treated for type 2 diabetes. The same relation was not observed with metformin. This implies that the manner in which blood glucose concentration is lowered may be as important as achieving recommended glucose targets.

Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Metformin in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus and Heart Failure Systematic Review of Observational Studies Involving 34 000 Patients

Background—There is an ongoing controversy regarding the safety and effectiveness of metformin in the setting of heart failure (HF). Therefore, we undertook a systematic review of the trial and nontrial evidence for metformin in patients with diabetes mellitus and HF. Methods and Results—We conducted a comprehensive search for controlled studies, evaluating the association between metformin and morbidity and mortality in people with diabetes mellitus and HF. Two reviewers independently identified citations, extracted data, and evaluated quality. Risk estimates were abstracted and pooled where appropriate. As measures of overall safety, we examined all-cause mortality and all-cause hospitalizations. Nine cohort studies were included; no randomized controlled trials were identified. Most (5 of 9) studies were published in 2010 and were of good quality. Metformin was associated with reduced mortality compared with controls (mostly sulfonylurea therapy): 23% versus 37% (pooled adjusted risk estimates: 0.80; 0.74–0.87; I2=15%; P<0.001). No increased risk was observed for metformin in those with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (mortality pooled adjusted risk estimate: 0.91; 0.72–1.14; I2=0%; P=0.34), nor in those with HF and chronic kidney disease (pooled adjusted risk estimate: 0.81; 0.64–1.02; P=0.08). Metformin was associated with a small reduction in all-cause hospitalizations (pooled adjusted risk estimate: 0.93; 0.89–0.98; I2=0%; P=0.01). Metformin was not associated with increased risk of lactic acidosis. Conclusions—The totality of evidence indicates that metformin is at least as safe as other glucose-lowering treatments in patients with diabetes mellitus and HF and even in those with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction or concomitant chronic kidney disease. Until trial data become available, metformin should be considered the treatment of choice for patients with diabetes mellitus and HF.Background— There is an ongoing controversy regarding the safety and effectiveness of metformin in the setting of heart failure (HF). Therefore, we undertook a systematic review of the trial and nontrial evidence for metformin in patients with diabetes mellitus and HF. Methods and Results— We conducted a comprehensive search for controlled studies, evaluating the association between metformin and morbidity and mortality in people with diabetes mellitus and HF. Two reviewers independently identified citations, extracted data, and evaluated quality. Risk estimates were abstracted and pooled where appropriate. As measures of overall safety, we examined all-cause mortality and all-cause hospitalizations. Nine cohort studies were included; no randomized controlled trials were identified. Most (5 of 9) studies were published in 2010 and were of good quality. Metformin was associated with reduced mortality compared with controls (mostly sulfonylurea therapy): 23% versus 37% (pooled adjusted risk estimates: 0.80; 0.74–0.87; I 2=15%; P <0.001). No increased risk was observed for metformin in those with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (mortality pooled adjusted risk estimate: 0.91; 0.72–1.14; I 2=0%; P =0.34), nor in those with HF and chronic kidney disease (pooled adjusted risk estimate: 0.81; 0.64–1.02; P =0.08). Metformin was associated with a small reduction in all-cause hospitalizations (pooled adjusted risk estimate: 0.93; 0.89–0.98; I 2=0%; P =0.01). Metformin was not associated with increased risk of lactic acidosis. Conclusions— The totality of evidence indicates that metformin is at least as safe as other glucose-lowering treatments in patients with diabetes mellitus and HF and even in those with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction or concomitant chronic kidney disease. Until trial data become available, metformin should be considered the treatment of choice for patients with diabetes mellitus and HF.

Long-Term Morbidity and Mortality After Hospitalization With Community-Acquired Pneumonia A Population-Based Cohort Study

Little is known about the long-term sequelae of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Therefore, we describe the long-term morbidity and mortality of patients after pneumonia requiring hospitalization. We specifically hypothesized that the Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI), designed to predict 30-day pneumonia-related mortality, would also be associated with longer-term all-cause mortality. Between 2000 and 2002, 3415 adults with CAP admitted to 6 hospitals in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, were prospectively enrolled in a population-based cohort. At the time of hospital admission, demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected and the PSI was calculated for each patient. Postdischarge outcomes through to 2006 were ascertained using multiple linked administrative databases. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, hospital admissions, and re-hospitalization for pneumonia over a maximum of 5.4years of follow-up. Follow-up data were available for 3284 (96%) patients; 66%were ≥65 years of age, 53% were male, and according to the PSI fully 63% were predicted to have greater than 18% 30-day pneumonia-related mortality (that is, PSI class IV-V). Median follow-up was 3.8 years. The 30-day, 1-year, and end of study mortality rates were 12%, 28%, and 53%, respectively. Overall, 82(19%) patients aged <45 years died compared with 1456 (67%) patients aged ≥65 years (hazard ratio [HR], 5.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.06-6.34). Male patients were more likely to die than female patients during follow-up (971 [56%] vs. 767 [49%], respectively; HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.13-1.37). Initial PSI classification predicted not only 30-day mortality, but also long-term postdischarge mortality, with 92 (15%) of PSI class I-II patients dying compared with 616 (82%) PSI class V patients (HR, 11.80; 95% CI, 4.70-14.70). Of 2950 patients who survived the initial CAP hospitalization, 72% were hospitalized again (median, 2 admissions over follow-up) and 16% were re-hospitalized with pneumonia. In conclusion, long-term morbidity and mortality are high following hospitalization for pneumonia and are strongly correlated with initial PSI class. This suggests that patients with pneumonia, especially those with PSI class IV and V at admission, might need better attention paid to preventive strategies and much closer follow-up due to their elevated risk of subsequent adverse events and increased health resource utilization. Abbreviations: AHW = Alberta Health and Wellness, CAP = community-acquired pneumonia, CI = confidence interval, HR = hazard ratio, ICD = International Classification of Disease, ICD-9-CM = International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, ICD-10-CA = International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision, Canadian Version, PHN = personal health number, PORT = Patient Outcomes Research Team, PSI = Pneumonia Severity Index

Assessing responsiveness of generic and specific health related quality of life measures in heart failure

BackgroundResponsiveness, or sensitivity to clinical change, is an important consideration in selection of a health-related quality of life (HRQL) measure for trials or clinical applications. Many approaches can be used to assess responsiveness, which may affect the interpretation of study results. We compared the relative responsiveness of generic and heart failure specific HRQL instruments, as measured both by common psychometric indices and by external clinical criteria.MethodsWe analyzed data collected at baseline and 6-weeks in 298 subjects with heart failure on the following HRQL measures: EQ-5D (US, UK, and VAS Scoring), Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) (Clinical and Overall Summary Score), and RAND12 (Physical and Mental Component Summaries). Three external indicators of clinical change were used to classify subjects as improved, deteriorated, or unchanged: 6-minute walk test, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and physician global rating of change. Four responsiveness statistics (T-test, effect size, Guyatts responsiveness statistic, and standardized response mean) were used to evaluate the responsiveness of the select measures. The median rank of each HRQL measure across responsiveness indices and clinical criteria was then determined.ResultsAverage age of subjects was 60 years, 75 percent were male, and had moderate to severe heart failure symptoms. Overall, the KCCQ Summary Scores had the highest relative ranking, irrespective of the responsiveness index or external criterion used. Importantly, we observed that the relative ranking of responsiveness of the generic measures (i.e. EQ-5D, RAND12) was influenced by both the responsive indices and external criterion used.ConclusionThe disease specific KCCQ was the most responsive HRQL measure assessing change over a 6-week period, although generic measures provide information for which the KCCQ is not suitable. The responsiveness of generic HRQL measures may be affected by the index used, as well as the external criterion to classify patients who have clinically change or remained stable.

Macrolide-Based Regimens and Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Macrolides are used to treat pneumonia despite increasing antimicrobial resistance. However, the immunomodulatory properties of macrolides may have a favorable effect on pneumonia outcomes. Therefore, we systematically reviewed all studies of macrolide use and mortality among patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). METHODS All randomized control trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing macrolides to other treatment regimens in adults hospitalized with CAP were identified through electronic databases and gray literature searches. Primary analysis examined any macrolide use and mortality; secondary analysis compared Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society guideline-concordant macrolide/beta-lactam combinations vs respiratory fluoroquinolones. Random effects models were used to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and evaluate heterogeneity (I(2)). RESULTS We included 23 studies and 137,574 patients. Overall, macrolide use was associated with a statistically significant mortality reduction compared with nonmacrolide use (3.7% [1738 of 47,071] vs 6.5% [5861 of 90,503]; RR, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], .64-.95; P = .01; I(2)= 85%). There was no survival advantage and heterogeneity was reduced when analyses were restricted to RCTs (4.6% [22 of 479] vs 4.1% [25 of 613]; RR, 1.13; 95% CI, .65-1.98; P = .66; I(2)= 0%) or to patients treated with guideline-concordant antibiotics (macrolide/beta-lactam, 5.3% [297 of 5574] vs respiratory fluoroquinolones, 5.8% [408 of 7050]; RR, 1.17; 95% CI, .91-1.50; P = .22; I(2)= 43%). CONCLUSIONS In hospitalized patients with CAP, macrolide-based regimens were associated with a significant 22% reduction in mortality compared with nonmacrolides; however, this benefit did not extend to patients studied in RCTs or patients that received guideline-concordant antibiotics. Our findings suggest guideline concordance is more important than choice of antibiotic when treating CAP.

Sitagliptin use in patients with diabetes and heart failure: a population-based retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES The study objective was to evaluate the effects of sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and heart failure (HF). BACKGROUND There is uncertainty in the literature about whether dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors cause harm in patients with HF and T2D. METHODS We analyzed data from a national commercially insured U.S. claims database. Patients with incident HF were identified from individuals with T2D initially treated with metformin or sulfonylurea and followed over time. Subjects subsequently using sitagliptin were compared with those not using sitagliptin in the 90 days before our primary outcome of all-cause hospital admission or death using a nested case-control analysis after adjustment for demographics and clinical and laboratory data. HF-specific hospital admission or death also was assessed. RESULTS A total of 7,620 patients with diabetes and incident HF met our inclusion criteria. Mean (SD) age was 54 years (9), and 58% (3,180) were male. Overall, 887 patients (12%) were exposed to sitagliptin therapy (521 patient years of exposure) after incident HF. Our primary composite endpoint occurred in 4,137 patients (54%). After adjustment, sitagliptin users were not at an increased risk for the primary endpoint (7.1% vs. 9.2%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69 to 1.03) or each component (hospital admission 7.5% vs. 9.2%, aOR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.14; death 6.9% vs. 9.3%, aOR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.97). However, sitagliptin use was associated with an increased risk of HF hospitalizations (12.5% vs. 9.0%, aOR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.16 to 2.92). CONCLUSIONS Sitagliptin use was not associated with an increased risk of all-cause hospitalizations or death, but was associated with an increased risk of HF-related hospitalizations among patients with T2D with pre-existing HF.