RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Emulating the GRADE Trial Using Real-World Data
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.05.23.22275392
DO 10.1101/2022.05.23.22275392
A1 Deng, Yihong
A1 Polley, Eric C.
A1 Wallach, Joshua D.
A1 Dhruva, Sanket S.
A1 Herrin, Jeph
A1 Quinto, Kenneth
A1 Gandotra, Charu
A1 Crown, William
A1 Noseworthy, Peter
A1 Yao, Xiaoxi
A1 Lyon, Timothy D.
A1 Shah, Nilay D.
A1 Ross, Joseph S.
A1 McCoy, Rozalina G.
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/25/2022.05.23.22275392.abstract
AB OBJECTIVES To emulate the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE) trial using real-world data prior to its publication. GRADE is the first comparative effectiveness study to directly compare second-line glucose-lowering medications with respect to their ability to lower hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c).DESIGN AND SETTING In this observational cohort study, we applied GRADE trial criteria to claims and laboratory data from OptumLabs® Data Warehouse (OLDW), a U.S. nationwide claims database, between 1/25/2010 and 6/30/2019.PARTICIAPNTS Adults with type 2 diabetes with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 6.8-8.5% on metformin monotherapy, identified according to GRADE trial specifications.INTERVENTIONS Glimepiride, liraglutide, sitagliptin, and insulin glargine.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was time to HbA1c ≥7.0% and secondary outcomes were other metabolic, microvascular, macrovascular, and safety outcomes specified by GRADE. Propensity scores were estimated using the gradient boosting machine method and inverse propensity score weighting was used to emulate randomization of the treatment groups, which were then compared using Cox proportional hazards regression.RESULTS We identified 8252 patients (19.7% of adults starting the study drugs in OLDW) meeting GRADE eligibility criteria (glimepiride arm=4318, liraglutide arm=690, sitagliptin arm=2993, glargine arm=251). The glargine arm was excluded from analyses due to small sample size. Median times to HbA1c ≥7.0% were 442 (95% CI, 394-480) days for glimepiride, 764 (95% CI, 741-NA) days for liraglutide, and 427 (95% CI, 380-483) days for sitagliptin. Liraglutide was associated with lower risk of reaching HbA1c ≥7.0% compared to glimepiride (HR 0.57 [95% CI, 0.43-0.75]) and sitagliptin (HR 0.55 [95% CI, 0.41-0.73]). Results were consistent for the secondary outcome of time to HbA1c >7.5%. There were no significant differences among treatment groups for the remaining secondary outcomes.CONCLUSIONS In this emulation of the GRADE trial, liraglutide was significantly more effective at maintaining glycemic control than glimepiride or sitagliptin when added to metformin monotherapy. There is value in generating timely evidence on medical treatments using real-world data as a complement to prospective trials.SUMMARY BOXESWhat is already known about this topic?Real-world data is an important source of information about clinical practice, comparative effectiveness and safety, and health outcomes and has the potential to generate timely, pragmatic evidence on medical treatments as a complement to prospective clinical trials.Multiple classes of second-line glucose-lowering medications have been approved for the management of type 2 diabetes, with limited evidence of their comparative effectiveness with respect to glycemic control.What this study adds?We emulated the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE) randomized clinical trial using data from a U.S. nationwide administrative claims database to identify the strengths and limitations of using real-world data to emulate prospective comparative effectiveness trials, particularly when examining medications in contexts that may not be the standard of care.Liraglutide is more effective than glimepiride and sitagliptin at lowering HbA1c, supporting its preferential use when substantial glycemic reduction is needed.Advanced causal inference analytic methods applied to observational data can be used to efficiently and effectively emulate clinical trials.Competing Interest StatementIn the last 36 months, Dr. McCoy also received support from NIDDK, PCORI, and AARP. She has also served as a consultant to Emmi on the development of patient education materials related to prediabetes and diabetes. Dr. Dhruva reports receiving funding support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the NIH, National Evaluation System for health Technology Coordinating Center (NESTcc), the Greenwall Foundation, and Arnold Ventures. Dr. Wallach has received research support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of the NIH, and the Collaboration for Research Integrity and Transparency (CRIT) at Yale University from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Dr Herrin works under contract to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on the development and evaluation of measures of provider quality. In the past 36 months, Dr. Shah has received support through Mayo Clinic from the Food and Drug Administration to establish the Yale-Mayo Clinic CERSI program (U01FD005938); the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid innovation under the Transforming Clinical practice Initiative; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS025164, R01HS025402, R03HS025517, and K12HS026379); the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the US National Institutes of Health (R56HL130496, R01HL131535, and R01HL151662); the National Science Foundation; and the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute to Develop a Clinical Data Research Network (LHSNet). In the past 36 months, Dr. Ross received research support through Yale University from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation for the Collaboration for Research Integrity and Transparency (CRIT) at Yale, from Medtronic, Inc. and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to develop methods for postmarket surveillance of medical devices (U01FD004585) and from the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to develop and maintain performance measures that are used for public reporting (HHSM-500-2013-13018I); Dr. Ross currently receives research support through Yale University from Johnson and Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology (NEST), from the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) program (U01FD005938); from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01HS025164, R01HL144644), and from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation to establish the Good Pharma Scorecard at Bioethics International.Clinical Protocols https://medicine.yale.edu/core/current_projects/cersi/research/ Funding StatementThis publication is supported by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of a financial assistance (Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation grant to Yale University and Mayo Clinic U01FD005938) totaling $250,000 with 100 percent funded by FDA/HHS. Dr. McCoy is also supported by the National Institute of Health (NIH) National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) grant number K23DK114497Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was exempt from Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board review because all study data are de-identified consistent with HIPAA expert de-identification determinationI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesOLDW data are available for research through a virtual data warehouse. The authors are not able to distribute the data. Study protocol, code sets, and statistical analysis plan are available online.