The risk of cardiac failure following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine whether patients with metal-on-metal (MoM) arthroplasties of the hip have an increased risk of cardiac failure compared with those with alternative types of arthroplasties (non-MoM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A linkage study between the National Joint Registry, Hospital Episodes Statistics and records of the Office for National Statistics on deaths was undertaken. Patients who underwent elective total hip arthroplasty between January 2003 and December 2014 with no past history of cardiac failure were included and stratified as having either a MoM (n = 53 529) or a non-MoM (n = 482 247) arthroplasty. The primary outcome measure was the time to an admission to hospital for cardiac failure or death. Analysis was carried out using data from all patients and from those matched by propensity score. RESULTS: The risk of cardiac failure was lower in the MoM cohort compared with the non-MoM cohort (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.901; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.853 to 0.953). The risk of cardiac failure was similar following matching (aHR 0.909; 95% CI 0.838 to 0.987) and the findings were consistent in subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: The risk of cardiac failure following total hip arthroplasty was not increased in those in whom MoM implants were used, compared with those in whom other types of prostheses were used, in the first seven years after surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:20-7.

Population-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink study using algorithm modelling to identify the true burden of hidradenitis suppurativa.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiology data regarding hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) are conflicting and prevalence estimates vary 80-fold, from 0·05% in a population-based study to 4%. OBJECTIVES: To assess the hypothesis that previous population-based studies underestimated true HS prevalence by missing undiagnosed cases. METHODS: We performed a population-based observational and case-control study using the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) linked to hospital episode statistics data. Physician-diagnosed cases in the CPRD were identified from specific Read codes. Algorithms identified unrecognized 'proxy' cases, with at least five Read code records for boils in flexural skin sites. Validation of proxy cases was undertaken with general practitioner (GP) questionnaires to confirm criteria-diagnosed cases. A case-control study assessed disease associations. RESULTS: On 30 June 2013, 23 353 physician-diagnosed HS cases were documented in 4 364 308 research-standard records. In total, 68 890 proxy cases were identified, reduced to 10 146 criteria-diagnosed cases after validation, extrapolated from 107 completed questionnaires (61% return rate). Overall point prevalence was 0·77% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·76-0·78%]. An additional 18 417 cases had a history of one to four flexural skin boils. In physician-diagnosed cases, odds ratios (ORs) for current smoker and obesity (body mass index > 30 kg m-2 ) were 3·61 (95% CI 3·44-3·79) and 3·29 (95% CI 3·14-3·45). HS was associated with type 2 diabetes, Crohn disease, hyperlipidaemia, acne and depression, and not associated with ulcerative colitis or polycystic ovary syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to results of previous population-based studies, HS is relatively common, with a U.K. prevalence of 0·77%, one-third being unrecognized, criteria-diagnosed cases using the most stringent disease definition. If individuals with probable cases are included, HS prevalence rises to 1·19%.

Prevalence, glucose control and relative survival of people with Type 2 diabetes in the UK from 1991 to 2013.

AIMS: To characterize the prevalence of Type 2 diabetes between 1991 and 2013 in the UK and to determine whether corresponding glucose control and survival had changed in the diabetic population during this period. METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, people diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes between 1991 and 2013 were identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and the annual point prevalence calculated. Mean HbA1c by year was estimated. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate the risk of all-cause mortality by year for incident cases of Type 2 diabetes treated with glucose-lowering therapy. RESULTS: Crude prevalence of diagnosed Type 2 diabetes increased from 1.32% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.30% to 1.34%] in 1991 to 4.54% (4.52% to 4.56%) in 2013. Mean HbA1c for people with diagnosed Type 2 diabetes was 71 mmol/mol (8.6%) in 1991, 59 mmol/mol (7.5%) in 2003 and 58 mmol/mol (7.5%) in 2013. For diagnosed Type 2 diabetes treated with glucose-lowering therapy, when compared with 1991, the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.33 (0.27-0.41) in 2013. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of diagnosed Type 2 diabetes trebled in the UK between 1991 and 2013. Improved survival in people with diagnosed Type 2 diabetes is likely to account, at least in part, for the increase in prevalence observed.

Glucose-lowering with exogenous insulin monotherapy in type 2 diabetes: dose association with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events and cancer.

AIMS: To evaluate the association between insulin exposure and all-cause mortality, incident major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and incident cancer in people with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin monotherapy. METHODS: For this retrospective study, people with type 2 diabetes who progressed to insulin monotherapy from the year 2000 were identified from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The risks of progression to serious adverse outcomes were compared using Cox proportional hazards models. In the main analysis, insulin exposure was introduced into the model as prescribed international units per kilogram per day, as a cumulative, continuous, annually updated, time-dependent covariable. RESULTS: A total of 6484 subjects with type 2 diabetes who progressed to treatment with insulin monotherapy from the year 2000 onwards were followed for a mean of 3.3 years. The event numbers were as follows: deaths, n = 1110; incident MACE, n = 342; incident cancers, n = 382. Unadjusted event rates were 61.3 deaths per 1000 person-years, 26.4 incident MACE per 1000 person-years and 24.6 incident cancers per 1000 person-years. The adjusted hazard ratios in relation to 1-unit increases in insulin dose were 1.54 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32-1.78] for all-cause mortality, 1.37 (95% CI 1.05-1.81) for MACE and 1.35 (95% CI 1.04-1.75) for cancer. CONCLUSIONS: There was an association between increasing exogenous insulin dose and increased risk of all-cause mortality, MACE and cancer in people with type 2 diabetes. The limitations of observational studies mean that this should be further investigated using an interventional study design.

Can people with type 2 diabetes live longer than those without? A comparison of mortality in people initiated with metformin or sulphonylurea monotherapy and matched, non-diabetic controls.

AIMS: Clinical and observational studies have shown an increased risk of cardiovascular events and death associated with sulphonylureas versus metformin. However, it has never been determined whether this was due to the beneficial effects of metformin or detrimental effects of sulphonylureas. The objective of this study was therefore to compare all-cause mortality in diabetic patients treated first-line with either sulphonylurea or metformin monotherapy with that in matched individuals without diabetes. METHODS: We used retrospective observational data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) from 2000. Subjects with type 2 diabetes who progressed to first-line treatment with metformin or sulphonylurea monotherapy were selected and matched to people without diabetes. Progression to all-cause mortality was compared using parametric survival models that included a range of relevant co-variables. RESULTS: We identified 78,241 subjects treated with metformin, 12,222 treated with sulphonylurea, and 90,463 matched subjects without diabetes. This resulted in a total, censored follow-up period of 503,384 years. There were 7498 deaths in total, representing unadjusted mortality rates of 14.4 and 15.2, and 50.9 and 28.7 deaths per 1000 person-years for metformin monotherapy and their matched controls, and sulphonylurea monotherapy and their matched controls, respectively. With reference to observed survival in diabetic patients initiated with metformin monotherapy [survival time ratio (STR) = 1.0], adjusted median survival time was 15% lower (STR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.90) in matched individuals without diabetes and 38% lower (0.62, 0.58-0.66) in diabetic patients treated with sulphonylurea monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with type 2 diabetes initiated with metformin monotherapy had longer survival than did matched, non-diabetic controls. Those treated with sulphonylurea had markedly reduced survival compared with both matched controls and those receiving metformin monotherapy. This supports the position of metformin as first-line therapy and implies that metformin may confer benefit in non-diabetes. Sulphonylurea remains a concern.

Association between first-line monotherapy with sulphonylurea versus metformin and risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events: a retrospective, observational study.

AIMS: To evaluate the risk of all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) for patients exposed to first-line monotherapy with sulphonylurea or metformin. METHODS: Data were from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Patients with type 2 diabetes were selected if initiated with metformin or sulphonylurea monotherapy as their first-line glucose-lowering regimen 2000-2012. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality; the secondary endpoint was MACE (myocardial infarction or stroke). Times to endpoints were compared using Cox proportional hazards models. Additional analyses were performed on subsets matched directly on key characteristics and by propensity score. RESULTS: In the main analysis, 76 811 patients were prescribed metformin monotherapy (mean follow-up 2.9 years) and 15 687 sulphonylurea monotherapy (mean follow-up 3.1 years). A total of 2604 patients were included in each arm of the directly matched cohorts and 8836 in the propensity-matched. With respect to all-cause mortality, using all three analytical approaches the hazard ratio (HR) was significantly increased for sulphonylurea compared with metformin: adjusted HR = 1.580 (95% CI 1.483-1.684) for the main analysis, 1.902 (1.733-2.088) for those matched on propensity score, and 1.272 (1.021-1.584) for the directly matched cohort analysis. For MACE, the respective HRs were 1.196 (1.090-1.313), 1.202 (1.001-1.442) and 0.814 (0.578-1.148), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: All-cause mortality was significantly increased in patients prescribed sulphonylurea compared with metformin monotherapy. Whilst residual confounding and confounding by indication may remain, this study indicates that first-line treatment with sulphonylurea monotherapy should be reconsidered.

Combination therapy with metformin plus sulphonylureas versus metformin plus DPP-4 inhibitors: association with major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality.

AIMS: To compare the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality for combination therapies with metformin and either sulphonylurea (SU) or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i). METHODS: Data were from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Patients with type 2 diabetes were selected if initiated with combination therapies comprising metformin plus SU or DPP-4i 2007-2012. The co-primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and MACE (myocardial infarction or stroke). Times to endpoints were compared using Cox proportional hazards models. Additional analyses were performed on subsets matched directly on key characteristics and by propensity score. RESULTS: A total of 33 983 patients were prescribed SU and 7864 DPP-4i, and 5447 patients in each cohort could be matched directly and 6901 by propensity score. In the main analysis, there were 716 MACE events and 1217 deaths. Crude event rates for MACE were 11.3 events per 1000 person-years (pkpy) for SU, versus 5.3 pkpy for DPP-4i. For all-cause mortality, rates were 16.9 versus 7.3 pkpy, respectively. Following adjustment, there was a significant increase in the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for all-cause mortality in those exposed to SU across all analytical models: aHR = 1.357 (95% CI 1.076-1.710) for all subjects, 1.850 (1.245-2.749) directly matched and 1.497 (1.092-2.052) propensity-matched. For MACE, aHR was 1.710 (1.280-2.285) for all subjects, 1.323 (0.832-2.105) directly matched and 1.547 (1.076-2.225) propensity-matched. CONCLUSIONS: There was a reduction in all-cause mortality for patients treated with metformin combined with DPP-4i versus metformin plus SU, and a similar trend for MACE.

How many people inject insulin? UK estimates from 1991 to 2010.

AIMS: We set out to estimate the prevalence rate of insulin use in the UK population, the total number of people in the UK who use insulin, the proportion of users with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and changes between 1991 and 2010. METHODS: Patients receiving prescriptions for insulin were identified in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and attributed a diagnosis of type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The annual prevalence of insulin use was calculated and applied to population data. RESULTS: The crude prevalence rate of insulin use increased from 2.43 (95% CI 2.38-2.49) per 1000 population in 1991 to 6.71 (6.64-6.77) per 1000 in 2010. The largest change was an increase in the prevalence of insulin users with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes from 0.67 (0.64-0.70) to 4.34 (4.29-4.39) per 1000 population. The absolute number using insulin increased from 137 000 people (121 000-155 000) in 1991 to 421 000 (400 000-444 000) in 2010. The proportion taking insulin alone (as against combination with oral agents) decreased from 97% in the first decade to 37% in the second. CONCLUSION: The number of people using insulin trebled between 1991 and 2010, largely due to a considerable increase in the number of people with type 2 diabetes using insulin.

The incidence of type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom from 1991 to 2010.

AIMS: To characterize the incidence of type 2 diabetes in the UK over the previous 20 years; and determine if there has been an increase in people aged 40 years or less at diagnosis. METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes between 1991 and 2010 were identified from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Patient data were grouped into 5-year intervals by year of diagnosis and age at diagnosis. A standardized incidence ratio (SIR) was determined (1991-1995 = 100). The percentage of newly diagnosed patients for each age group and aged ≤40 years was calculated for each 5-year calendar period. The incidence rate by age and 5-year calendar period was also determined. RESULTS: In 2010, the crude incidence rate of type 2 diabetes was 515 per 100,000 population. The overall SIR increased to 158 (95% CI 157-160, p < 0.001), 237 (235-238, p < 0.001) and 275 (273-276, p < 0.001) for 1996-2000, 2001-2005 and 2006-2010, respectively. For those ≤40, the respective values were 217 (209-226, p < 0.001), 327 (320-335, p < 0.001) and 598 (589-608, p < 0.001). An increase in incidence occurred with increasing 5-year calendar period. The incidence of type 2 diabetes was higher for males after the age of 40 and higher for females aged ≤40. The percentage of patients aged ≤40 years at diagnosis increased with each increasing 5-year calendar period (5.9, 8.4, 8.5 and 12.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant increase in the incidence of diagnosed type 2 diabetes between 1991 and 2010 and the proportion of people diagnosed at a relatively early age has increased markedly.

Weight change in people with type 2 diabetes: secular trends and the impact of alternative antihyperglycaemic drugs.

AIM: This study aimed to describe the pattern of weight change in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) over time and when using alternative treatment regimens. METHODS: Data were from routine clinical practice in the UK. The weight trend was determined for each year from 1995 to 2010 for both prevalent and incident cases. Baseline weight was compared to absolute (mean Δ) and relative weights (% Δ) at 6, 12 and 24 months. RESULTS: Mean, standardized weight in prevalent cases increased from 83.4 to 92.1 kg for males and from 73.5 to 79.9 kg for females between 1995 and 2010 (p < 0.0001). For incident cases, the respective figures were 86.7 to 93.6 kg for males and 76.0 to 80.7 kg for females (p < 0.001). Between baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months, there were significant changes in weight for the majority of the treatment regimens selected for analysis. The largest weight increase at 12 months was for the patients who were prescribed a combination therapy with insulin and a thiazolidinedione, with a median increase of 4.1 kg (95% CI -0.60 to 8.0, p < 0.001). The largest weight decrease at 12 months was for the patients who were prescribed a combination therapy of metformin and exenatide, with a median decrease of -7.0 kg (95% CI -12.0 to -2.0, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There was a continual increase in body weight in people with T2DM over time, and considerable differences in the impact on weight using alternative treatment regimens. At the same time, glycaemic control remained relatively unchanged.