This study demonstrates rapid adoption of novel anticoagulants into clinical practice, particularly among patients with lower CHADS2 and HAS-BLED scores, and high health care cost consequences. These findings provide important directions for future comparative and cost-effectiveness research.

No abstract

There is a paucity of data evaluating recent changes in clinical and prescriber characteristics of patients initiating sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS U.S.-based administrative claims data (July 2013 to June 2018) were used to identify initiators of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA. RESULTSOver 5 years, empagliflozin initiation (as a proportion of SGLT2i) increased by 57.1% (P < 0.001 for trend), while canagliflozin initiation declined by 75.1% (P < 0.001). Empagliflozin was the only agent within SGLT2i with an increase in the proportion of patients with myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure (collectively called CVD-HF) (P < 0.001). Liraglutide initiation (as a proportion of total GLP-1RA) declined by 32.1% (P < 0.001), and dulaglutide initiation increased by 34.1% (P < 0.001); the proportion of patients with CVD-HF increased the most in liraglutide initiators (5.1% increase; P < 0.001). Most prescribers were internists or endocrinologists; cardiologist prescribing remained low (<1%). CONCLUSIONSFor SGLT2i, shifts in preference for empagliflozin followed changes in drug labels and guidelines, while for GLP-1RA, other factors such as price or ease of administration may have led to a preference for dulaglutide over liraglutide.

IMPORTANCE Although many classes of oral glucose-lowering medications have been approved for use, little comparative effectiveness evidence exists to guide initial selection of therapy for diabetes mellitus. OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of initial oral glucose-lowering agent class on subsequent need for treatment intensification and 4 short-term adverse clinical events. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This study was a retrospective cohort study of patients who were fully insured members of Aetna (a large national health insurer) who had been prescribed an oral glucose-lowering medication from July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2013. Individuals newly prescribed an oral glucose-lowering agent who filled a second prescription for a medication in the same class and with a dosage at or above the World Health Organization's defined daily dose within 90 days of the end-of-day's supply of the first prescription were studied. Individuals with interim prescriptions for other oral glucose-lowering medications were excluded. EXPOSURES Initiation of treatment with metformin, a sulfonylurea, a thiazolidinedione, or a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Time to addition of a second oral agent or insulin, each component separately, hypoglycemia, other diabetes-related emergency department visits, and cardiovascular events. RESULTS A total of 15 516 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 8964 (57.8%) started therapy with metformin. In unadjusted analyses, use of medications other than metformin was significantly associated with an increased risk of adding a second oral agent only, insulin only, and a second agent or insulin (P < .001 for all). In propensity score and multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, initiation of therapy with sulfonylureas (hazard ratio [HR], 1.68; 95% CI, 1.57-1.79), thiazolidinediones (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.43-1.80), and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.47-1.79) was associated with an increased hazard of intensification. Alternatives to metformin were not associated with a reduced risk of hypoglycemia, emergency department visits, or cardiovascular events. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Despite guidelines, only 57.8% of individuals began diabetes treatment with metformin. Beginning treatment with metformin was associated with reduced subsequent treatment intensification, without differences in rates of hypoglycemia or other adverse clinical events. These findings have significant implications for quality of life and medication costs.