Search

Introduction Several new oral drug classes for type 2 diabetes (T2DM) have been introduced in the last 20 years accompanied by developments in clinical evidence and guidelines. The uptake of new therapies and contemporary use of blood glucose-lowering drugs has not been closely examined in Canada. The objective of this project was to describe these treatment patterns and relate them to changes in provincial practice guidelines.Research design and methods We conducted a longitudinal drug utilization study among persons with T2DM aged ≥18 years from 2001 to 2020 in British Columbia (BC), Canada. We used dispensing data from community pharmacies with linkable physician billing and hospital admission records. Laboratory results were available from 2011 onwards. We identified incident users of blood glucose-lowering drugs, then determined sequence patterns of medications dispensed, with stratification by age group, and subgroup analysis for patients with a history of cardiovascular disease.Results Among a cohort of 362 391 patients (mean age 57.7 years old, 53.5% male) treated for non-insulin-dependent diabetes, the proportion who received metformin monotherapy as first-line treatment reached a maximum of 90% in 2009, decreasing to 73% in 2020. The proportion of patients starting two-drug combinations nearly doubled from 3.3% to 6.4%. Sulfonylureas were the preferred class of second-line agents over the course of the study period. In 2020, sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists accounted for 21% and 10% of second-line prescribing, respectively. For patients with baseline glycated hemoglobin (A1C) results prior to initiating diabetic treatment, 41% had a value ≤7.0% and 27% had a value over 8.5%.Conclusions Oral diabetic medication patterns have changed significantly over the last 20 years in BC, primarily in terms of medications used as second-line therapy. Over 40% of patients with available laboratory results initiated T2DM treatment with an A1C value ≤7.0%, with the average A1C value trending lower over the last decade.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168005.].

We did a systematic review of studies comparing discontinuation of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF) antagonists in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, pooled hazard ratios and assessed clinical and methodological heterogeneity.We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE until June 2015 for pairwise hazard ratios for discontinuing infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab from cohorts of RA patients. Hazard ratios were pooled using inverse variance weighting and random effects estimates of the combined hazard ratio were obtained. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity was assessed using the between-subgroup I-square statistics and meta-regression.Twenty-four unique studies were eligible and large heterogeneity (I-square statistics > 50%) was observed in all comparisons. Type of data, location, and order of treatment (first or second line) modified the magnitude and direction of discontinuation comparing infliximab with either adalimumab or etanercept; however, some heterogeneity remained. No effect modifier was identified when adalimumab and etanercept were compared.Heterogeneity in studies comparing discontinuation of TNF antagonists in RA is partially explained by type of data, location, and order of treatment. Pooling hazard ratios for discontinuing TNF antagonists is inappropriate because largely unexplained heterogeneity was demonstrated when random effect estimates were calculated.

Recent evidence suggests that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) might be linked with adverse cardiac events, but a causal relationship is unproven.We applied the self-matched case series method to two studies using population-based health care data from Ontario, Canada between 1996 and 2008. The first included subjects aged 66 years or older hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction within 12 weeks following initiation of PPI, while the second included subjects hospitalized for heart failure. In both studies we designated the primary risk interval as the initial 4 weeks of therapy and the control interval as the final 4 weeks. To test the specificity of our findings we examined use of histamine H2 receptor antagonists and benzodiazepines, drugs with no plausible causal link to adverse cardiac events.During the 13-year study period, we identified 5550 hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction and 6003 admissions for heart failure within 12 weeks of commencing PPI therapy. In the main analyses, we found that initiation of a PPI was associated with a higher risk of acute myocardial infarction (odds ratio 1.8; 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 1.9) and heart failure (odds ratio 1.8; 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 1.9). However, secondary analyses revealed similar risk estimates histamine H2 receptor antagonists and benzodiazepines, drugs with no known or suspected association with adverse cardiac events.PPIs are associated with a short-term risk of adverse cardiac events, but similar associations are seen with other drugs exhibiting no known cardiac toxicity. Collectively these observations suggest that the association between PPIs and adverse cardiac events does not represent reflect cause-and-effect.

OBJECTIVE:Rosiglitazone was found associated with approximately a 43% increase in risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in a two meta-analyses of clinical trials. Our objective is to estimate the magnitude of the association in real-world patients previously treated with metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS:We conducted a nested case control study in British Columbia using health care databases on 4.3 million people. Our cohort consisted of 158,578 patients with Type 2 diabetes who used metformin as first-line drug treatment. We matched 2,244 cases of myocardial infarction (AMI) with up to 4 controls. Conditional logistic regression models were used to estimate matched odds ratios for AMI associated with treatment with rosiglitazone, pioglitazone and sulfonylureas. RESULTS:In our cohort of prior metformin users, adding rosiglitazone for up to 6 months was not associated with an increased risk of AMI compared to adding a sulfonylurea (odds ratio [OR] 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-2.10), or compared to adding pioglitazone (OR for rosi versus pio 1.41; 95% CI, 0.74-2.66). There were also no significant differences between rosiglitazone, pioglitazone and sulfonylureas for longer durations of treatment. Though not significantly different from sulfonylureas, there was a transient increase in AMI risk associated with the first 6 months of treatment with a glitazone compared to not using the treatment (OR 1.53; 95% CI, 1.13-2.07) CONCLUSIONS:In our British Columbia cohort of patients who received metformin as first-line pharmacotherapy for Type 2 diabetes mellitus, further treatment with rosiglitazone did not increase the risk of AMI compared to patients who were treated with pioglitazone or a sulfonylurea. Though not statistically significantly different compared from each other, an increased risk of AMI observed after starting rosiglitazone or sulfonylureas is a matter of concern that requires more research.