Institute of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology & Diabetes, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Dec 1;5(12):e2246928. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.46928.
Increasing numbers of post hoc analyses have applied restricted mean survival time (RMST) analysis on the aggregated-level data from clinical trials to report treatment effects, but studies that use individual-level claims data are needed to determine the feasibility of RMST analysis for quantifying treatment effects among patients with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical settings.
To apply RMST analysis for assessing sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i)-associated cardiovascular (CV) events and estimating heterogenous treatment effects (HTEs) on CV and kidney outcomes in routine clinical settings.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness study of Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database examined 21 144 propensity score (PS)-matched pairs of patients with type 2 diabetes with SGLT2i and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) treatment for assessing CV outcomes, and 19 951 PS-matched pairs of patients with type 2 diabetes with SGLT2i and DPP4i treatment for assessing kidney outcomes. Patients were followed until December 31, 2018. Statistical analysis was performed from August 2021 to April 2022.
Newly stable SGLT2i or DPP4i use in 2017.
Study outcomes were CV events including hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), 3-point major adverse CV events (3P-MACE: nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], nonfatal stroke, and CV death), 4-point MACE (4P-MACE: HHF and 3P-MACE), and all-cause death, and chronic kidney disease (CKD). RMST and Cox modeling analyses were applied to estimate treatment effects on study outcomes.
After PS matching, the baseline patient characteristics were comparable between 21 144 patients with stable SGLT2i use (eg, mean [SD] age: 58.3 [10.7] years; 11 990 [56.7%] male) and 21 144 patients with stable DPP4i use (eg, mean [SD] age: 58.1 [11.6] years; 12 163 [57.5%] male) for assessing CV outcomes, and those were also comparable between 19 951 patients with stable SGLT2i use (eg, mean [SD] age: 58.1 [10.7] years; 11 231 [56.2%] male) and 19 951 patients with stable DPP4i use (eg, mean [SD] age: 57.9 [11.5] years; 11 340 [56.8%] male) for assessing kidney outcome. The 2-year difference in RMST between patients with SGLT2i use and patients with DPP4i use was 4.99 (95% CI, 3.56-6.42) days for HHF, 4.12 (95% CI, 2.72-5.52) days for 3P-MACE, 7.72 (95% CI, 5.83-9.61) days for 4P-MACE, 1.26 (95% CI, 0.47-2.04) days for MI, 2.70 (95% CI, 1.57-3.82) days for stroke, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.28-1.11) days for CV death, 6.05 (95% CI, 4.89-7.20) days for all-cause death, and 14.75 (95% CI, 12.99-16.52) days for CKD. Directions of hazard ratios from Cox modeling analyses were consistent with RMST estimates. No association was found between study treatment and the negative control outcome (dental visits for tooth care). Consistent results across sensitivity analyses using high-dimensional PS-matched and PS-weighting approaches supported the validity of primary analysis results. Largest difference in RMST of SGLT2i vs DPP4i use for HHF and CKD was found among patients with established heart failure (30.80 [95% CI, 5.08-56.51] days) and retinopathy (40.43 [95% CI, 31.74-49.13] days), respectively.
In this comparative effectiveness study, RMST analysis was feasible for translating treatment effects into more clinical intuitive estimates and valuable for quantifying HTEs among diverse patients in routine clinical settings.
越来越多的事后分析将受限平均生存时间 (RMST) 分析应用于临床试验的汇总水平数据,以报告治疗效果,但需要使用个体水平的索赔数据来确定 RMST 分析在常规临床环境中量化 2 型糖尿病患者治疗效果的可行性。
应用 RMST 分析评估钠-葡萄糖共转运蛋白-2 抑制剂 (SGLT2i) 相关心血管 (CV) 事件,并估计 CV 和肾脏结局的异质治疗效果 (HTE) 在常规临床环境中。
设计、地点和参与者:这项来自台湾全民健康保险研究数据库的比较有效性研究,对 21444 对接受 SGLT2i 和二肽基肽酶-4 抑制剂 (DPP4i) 治疗的 2 型糖尿病患者的倾向评分 (PS) 匹配对进行了评估,对 19951 对接受 SGLT2i 和 DPP4i 治疗的 2 型糖尿病患者的 PS 匹配对进行了评估,以评估 CV 结局,对 19951 对接受 SGLT2i 和 DPP4i 治疗的 2 型糖尿病患者的 PS 匹配对进行了评估,以评估肾脏结局。患者随访至 2018 年 12 月 31 日。统计分析于 2021 年 8 月至 2022 年 4 月进行。
2017 年新稳定使用 SGLT2i 或 DPP4i。
研究结局包括心力衰竭 (HHF) 住院、3 点主要不良 CV 事件 (3P-MACE:非致死性心肌梗死 [MI]、非致死性中风和 CV 死亡)、4 点 MACE (4P-MACE:HHF 和 3P-MACE)和全因死亡,以及慢性肾脏病 (CKD)。应用 RMST 和 Cox 模型分析估计治疗效果。
在 PS 匹配后,21444 例稳定使用 SGLT2i 的患者 (例如,平均 [SD] 年龄:58.3 [10.7] 岁;11990 [56.7%] 男性) 和 21444 例稳定使用 DPP4i 的患者 (例如,平均 [SD] 年龄:58.1 [11.6] 岁;12163 [57.5%] 男性)的基线患者特征具有可比性,用于评估 CV 结局,19951 例稳定使用 SGLT2i 的患者 (例如,平均 [SD] 年龄:58.1 [10.7] 岁;11231 [56.2%] 男性)和 19951 例稳定使用 DPP4i 的患者 (例如,平均 [SD] 年龄:57.9 [11.5] 岁;11340 [56.8%] 男性)的基线患者特征也具有可比性,用于评估肾脏结局。SGLT2i 组与 DPP4i 组患者的 2 年 RMST 差异为 HHF 4.99(95%CI,3.56-6.42)天,3P-MACE 4.12(95%CI,2.72-5.52)天,4P-MACE 7.72(95%CI,5.83-9.61)天,MI 1.26(95%CI,0.47-2.04)天,中风 2.70(95%CI,1.57-3.82)天,CV 死亡 0.69(95%CI,0.28-1.11)天,全因死亡 6.05(95%CI,4.89-7.20)天,CKD 14.75(95%CI,12.99-16.52)天。Cox 模型分析的危险比方向与 RMST 估计一致。研究治疗与阴性对照结局(牙科就诊以进行牙齿保健)之间无关联。使用高维 PS 匹配和 PS 加权方法进行的敏感性分析得出了一致的结果,支持了主要分析结果的有效性。HF 患者和视网膜病变患者的 SGLT2i 与 DPP4i 使用的 HHF 和 CKD 的 RMST 差异最大,分别为 30.80(95%CI,5.08-56.51)天和 40.43(95%CI,31.74-49.13)天。
在这项比较有效性研究中,RMST 分析对于将治疗效果转化为更具临床直观的估计值是可行的,并且对于在常规临床环境中量化不同患者的 HTE 是有价值的。