Jui Wang

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor use is associated with a lower risk of incident acute kidney injury in patients with diabetes

OBJECTIVES Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DPP4i) use potentially slows the progression of diabetic kidney disease, but its effects on the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) are unclear. We aimed to assess the association between DPP4i use and incident AKI episodes from a nationally representative cohort in Taiwan. MATERIALS AND METHODS All patients newly diagnosed with diabetes mellitus (DM) between 2008, when DPP4i use was first approved in Taiwan, and mid-2013 were enrolled. Propensity score-matched diabetic DPP4i users, who received DPP4i for at least 90 days, and nonusers were selected. The primary and secondary outcomes were incident AKI and dialysis-requiring AKI during follow-up. Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed to examine the effect of DPP4i on the risk of AKI. RESULTS We enrolled 923,936 diabetic patients; of these, 83,638 DPP4i users (75.7% sitagliptin, 14.6% vildagliptin, and 9.7% saxagliptin) were propensity score-matched to 83,638 non-users. After an average 3.6-year follow-up, 1.56% and 0.35% of DPP4i users and 2.53% and 0.56% of non-users developed incident AKI and dialysis-requiring AKI, respectively. DPP4i use was significantly associated with lower risk of incident AKI (hazard ratio [HR] 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.61) and risk of dialysis-requiring AKI (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.49-0.66). The risk reduction was consistent regardless of DPP4i type, the presence of chronic kidney disease, the previous acute kidney injury, and age. CONCLUSIONS DPP4i use is associated with reduced risk of mild and severe forms of AKI among patients with incident DM. DPP4i may be an important class of anti-glycaemic agent with reno-protective effects.Objectives Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DPP4i) use potentially slows the progression of diabetic kidney disease, but its effects on the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) are unclear. We aimed to assess the association between DPP4i use and incident AKI episodes from a nationally representative cohort in Taiwan. Materials and Methods All patients newly diagnosed with diabetes mellitus (DM) between 2008, when DPP4i use was first approved in Taiwan, and mid-2013 were enrolled. Propensity score-matched diabetic DPP4i users, who received DPP4i for at least 90 days, and nonusers were selected. The primary and secondary outcomes were incident AKI and dialysis-requiring AKI during follow-up. Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed to examine the effect of DPP4i on the risk of AKI. Results We enrolled 923,936 diabetic patients; of these, 83,638 DPP4i users (75.7% sitagliptin, 14.6% vildagliptin, and 9.7% saxagliptin) were propensity score-matched to 83,638 non-users. After an average 3.6-year follow-up, 1.56% and 0.35% of DPP4i users and 2.53% and 0.56% of non-users developed incident AKI and dialysis-requiring AKI, respectively. DPP4i use was significantly associated with lower risk of incident AKI (hazard ratio [HR] 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53–0.61) and risk of dialysis-requiring AKI (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.49–0.66). The risk reduction was consistent regardless of DPP4i type, the presence of chronic kidney disease, the previous acute kidney injury, and age. Conclusions DPP4i use is associated with reduced risk of mild and severe forms of AKI among patients with incident DM. DPP4i may be an important class of anti-glycaemic agent with reno-protective effects.

Effectiveness of a combination of ezetimibe and statins in patients with acute coronary syndrome and multiple comorbidities: A 6-year population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND The clinical benefits of a combination of statins and ezetimibe in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were observed in a clinical trial. However, little is known regarding the effectiveness of using statins with or without ezetimibe in patients with ACS and multiple comorbidities in real-world clinical practice. METHODS This is a nationwide population-based cohort study using Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. A total of 212,110 patients with ACS who had been discharged after their first ACS events between 2006 and 2010 were enrolled. A propensity score matching approach was used to create matched cohorts for adjusting potential confounders. Cox proportional hazards regressions were performed to estimate the risk of re-hospitalization for ACS and revascularization. RESULTS Patients in the statins-plus-ezetimibe group had a significantly lower risk of re-hospitalization for ACS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]=0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60-0.69) and revascularization (HR=0.69, 95% CI: 0.63-0.76) than those in the statins-alone group. In the statins-plus-ezetimibe group, female patients had a lower risk of re-hospitalization for ACS than male patients did, and patients without diabetes mellitus had a lower risk of re-hospitalization for ACS than did patients with diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSIONS Patients with ACS and multiple comorbidities receiving a combination therapy of statins and ezetimibe had a lower risk of re-hospitalization for ACS and revascularization than those receiving statins alone. Significant interaction effects were observed between combination with ezetimibe, sex, and diabetes mellitus.

Acarbose use and liver injury in diabetic patients with severe renal insufficiency and hepatic diseases: A propensity score-matched cohort study

Background: Acarbose has been deemed contraindicated in diabetic patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) or end-stage renal disease (ESRD), but such use is not uncommon. We tested whether this concept hold true in this population with different background hepatic diseases. Methods: All incident diabetic patients (n = 2,036,531) with stage 5 CKD/ESRD were enrolled from Taiwan between 2017 and 2013 and divided into those without chronic liver disease (CLD), with CLD but without cirrhosis, and those with cirrhosis. Among each group, acarbose users, defined as cumulative use >30 days within the preceding year, were propensity-score matched 1:2 to non-users. Our main outcome was the development of liver injury events during follow-up. Results: Acarbose users did not exhibit an increased incidence of liver injury during follow-up compared to non-users (hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval, 1.04 [0.88–1.25], 0.97 [0.61–1.56], and 0.71 [0.33–1.54] among those without CLD, with CLD but without cirrhosis, and those with cirrhosis, respectively), after adjusting for demographic profiles, comorbidities, potentially hepatotoxic medication use, and diabetic severity. Conclusions: The incidence of liver injury did not increase significantly among diabetic acarbose users with severe renal insufficiency than non-users, regardless of the presence or absence of chronic liver disease. Our findings support the renaissance of acarbose as a useful adjunct in diabetic patients with stage 5 and 5D chronic kidney disease.

Increased Risk of New-Onset Hypertension After Shock Wave Lithotripsy in UrolithiasisNovelty and Significance: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Although shock wave lithotripsy is minimally invasive, earlier studies argued that it may increase patients’ subsequent risk of hypertension and diabetes mellitus. This study evaluated the association between shock wave lithotripsy and new-onset hypertension or diabetes mellitus. The Taiwanese National Health Insurance Research Database was used to identify 20 219 patients aged 18 to 65 years who underwent the first stone surgical treatment (shock wave lithotripsy or ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy) between January 1999 and December 2011. A Cox proportional model was applied to evaluate associations. Time-varying Cox models were applied to evaluate the association between the number of shock wave lithotripsy sessions and the incidence of hypertension or diabetes mellitus. After a median follow-up of 74.9 and 82.6 months, 2028 and 688 patients developed hypertension in the shock wave lithotripsy and ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy groups, respectively. Patients who underwent shock wave lithotripsy had a higher probability of developing hypertension than patients who underwent ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy, with a hazard ratio of 1.20 (95% confidence interval, 1.10–1.31) after adjusting for covariates. The risk increased as the number of shock wave lithotripsy sessions increased. However, the diabetes mellitus risk was similar in the shock wave lithotripsy and ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy groups. Furthermore, the hazard ratio did not increase as the number of shock wave lithotripsy sessions increased. Shock wave lithotripsy consistently increased the incidence of hypertension on long-term follow-up. Therefore, alternatives to urolithiasis treatment (eg, endoscopic surgery or medical expulsion therapy) could avoid the hypertension risk. Furthermore, avoiding multiple sessions of shock wave lithotripsy could also evade the hypertension risk.