Use of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, changes in body mass index and risk of fracture: A population-based cohort study.

AIMS: Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor-induced weight loss might play a role in the debated elevated fracture risk with these agents. The aim of the current study was to investigate the association between SGLT-2 inhibitor use, changes in body mass index (BMI) and fracture risk. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD (2013-2018). The study population (N = 34,960) consisted of adults with diabetes initiating a sulphonylurea or SGLT-2 inhibitor. Cox proportional hazards models estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for major osteoporotic fracture with SGLT-2 inhibitor use versus sulphonylurea use, stratified by change in BMI, average daily dose and cumulative dose. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, lifestyle variables, comorbidities, and concomitant drug use. RESULTS: SGLT-2 inhibitor use was not associated with an increased fracture risk compared to sulphonylurea use (adjusted HR 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.80-1.79). This finding remained consistent after stratification by BMI change. However, the highest cumulative dose category was associated with an increased fracture risk (adjusted HR: 2.10, 95 %CI: 1.11-3.99). CONCLUSION: SGLT-2 inhibitor use was not associated with increased osteoporotic fracture risk, irrespective of change in BMI. However, a high cumulative dose could be an important risk factor.

Use of Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter-2-Inhibitors (SGLT2-Is) and Risk of Lower Limb Amputation.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2-inhibitors (SGLT2-Is), such as canagliflozin, has been associated with an increased risk of lower limb amputations (LLAs) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, conflicting results have been reported for different SGLT2-Is and the underlying mechanism is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the risk of LLA and diabetic foot ulcer with SGLT2-I use compared to other anti-diabetic drugs and to explore hypovolemia as a potential underlying mechanism. METHODS: A cohort study was conducted using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD (2013-2019). The study population (N=51,847) consisted of T2DM patients over 18 years of age with at least one prescription of a non-insulin anti-diabetic drug. Concomitant diuretic use and the presence of signs of hypovolemia were determined to assess the potential underlying mechanism. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for LLA in current SGLT2-I use versus current sulphonylurea (SU) use. Analyses were adjusted for lifestyle variables, comorbidities, and concomitant drug use. RESULTS: Current SGLT2-I use was not associated with an increased risk of LLA compared to current SU use (fully adjusted HR 0.70; 95% confidence interval 0.38-1.29). Concomitant use of diuretics and the presence of signs of hypovolemia were not associated with an increased risk of LLA. CONCLUSION: Use of SGLT2-Is, with or without signs of hypovolemia, was not associated with an increased risk of LLA or DFU versus current SU use. Future studies powered to detect potential differences between individual SGLT2-Is are required to rule out a canagliflozin-specific effect.

Standardized reporting for rapid relative effectiveness assessments of pharmaceuticals.

OBJECTIVES: Many European countries perform rapid assessments of the relative effectiveness (RE) of pharmaceuticals as part of the reimbursement decision making process. Increased sharing of information on RE across countries may save costs and reduce duplication of work. The objective of this article is to describe the development of a tool for rapid assessment of RE of new pharmaceuticals that enter the market, the HTA Core Model® for Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment (REA) of Pharmaceuticals. METHODS: Eighteen member organisations of the European Network of Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) participated in the development of the model. Different versions of the model were developed and piloted in this collaboration and adjusted accordingly based on feedback on the content and feasibility of the model. RESULTS: The final model deviates from the traditional HTA Core Model® used for assessing other types of technologies. This is due to the limited scope (strong focus on RE), the timing of the assessment (just after market authorisation), and strict timelines (e.g. 90 days) required for performing the assessment. The number of domains and assessment elements was limited and it was decided that the primary information sources should preferably be a submission file provided by the marketing authorisation holder and the European Public Assessment Report. CONCLUSIONS: The HTA Core Model® for Rapid REA (version 3.0) was developed to produce standardised transparent RE information of pharmaceuticals. Further piloting can provide input for possible improvements, such as further refining the assessment elements and new methodological guidance on relevant areas.