Association of Hemoglobin A1cLevels with Use of Sulfonylureas, Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors, and Thiazolidinediones in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Metformin: Analysis from the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics Initiative

JAMA Network Open

Volumn 1, Issue 4, 2018, Pages

  Vashisht, Rohit ^a,b   Jung, Kenneth ^a,b   Schuler, Alejandro ^a,b   Banda, Juan M ^a,b   Park, Rae Woong ^a,c   Jin, Sanghyung ^a,c   Li, Li ^d   Dudley, Joel T ^d   Johnson, Kipp W ^d   Shervey, Mark M ^d   Xu, Hua ^a,e   Wu, Yonghui ^a,f   Natrajan, Karthik ^a,g,h   Hripcsak, George ^a,h   Jin, Peng ^a,h   Van Zandt, Mui ^a,i   Reckard, Anthony ^a,i   Reich, Christian G ^a,i   Weaver, James ^a,j   Schuemie, Martijn J ^j   Ryan, Patrick B ^a,h,j   Callahan, Alison ^a,b   Shah, Nigam H ^a,b   more..

^a Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c Ajou University School of Medicine   (South Korea)

^d MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL   (United States)

^h Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

ⁱ IQVIA   (United States)

^j JANSSEN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (Belgium)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

2,4 THIAZOLIDINEDIONE DERIVATIVE; ANTIDIABETIC AGENT; DIPEPTIDYL PEPTIDASE IV INHIBITOR; GLYCOSYLATED HEMOGLOBIN; METFORMIN; SULFONYLUREA DERIVATIVE;

BLOOD; COHORT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS;

COHORT STUDIES; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; DIPEPTIDYL-PEPTIDASE IV INHIBITORS; FEMALE; GLYCATED HEMOGLOBIN A; HUMANS; HYPOGLYCEMIC AGENTS; MALE; METFORMIN; SULFONYLUREA COMPOUNDS; THIAZOLIDINEDIONES;

EID: 85069579507     PISSN: None     EISSN: 25743805     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1755     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Menke A, Casagrande S, Geiss L, Cowie CC. Prevalence of and trends in diabetes among adults in the United States, 1988-2012. JAMA. 2015; 314 (10): 1021-1029. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.10029 26348752
2. Ogurtsova K, da Rocha Fernandes JD, Huang Y, IDF diabetes atlas: global estimates for the prevalence of diabetes for 2015 and 2040. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017; 128: 40-50. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2017.03.024 28437734
3. Lin P-J, Kent DM, Winn A, Cohen JT, Neumann PJ. Multiple chronic conditions in type 2 diabetes mellitus: prevalence and consequences. Am J Manag Care. 2015; 21 (1): e23-e34. 25880265
4. Struijs JN, Baan CA, Schellevis FG, Westert GP, van den Bos GAM. Comorbidity in patients with diabetes mellitus: impact on medical health care utilization. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006; 6 (1): 84. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-6-84 16820048
5. Adriaanse MC, Drewes HW, van der Heide I, Struijs JN, Baan CA. The impact of comorbid chronic conditions on quality of life in type 2 diabetes patients. Qual Life Res. 2016; 25 (1): 175-182. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1061-0 26267523
6. Marathe PH, Gao HX, Close KL. American Diabetes Association standards of medical care in diabetes 2017. J Diabetes. 2017; 9 (4): 320-324. doi: 10.1111/1753-0407.12524 28070960
7. Garber AJ, Abrahamson MJ, Barzilay JI, Consensus statement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology on the comprehensive type 2 diabetes management algorithm-2017 executive summary. Endocr Pract. 2017; 23 (2): 207-238. doi: 10.4158/EP161682.CS 28095040
8. Stewart WF, Shah NR, Selna MJ, Paulus RA, Walker JM. Bridging the inferential gap: the electronic health record and clinical evidence. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007; 26 (2): w181-w191. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.26.2.w181 17259202
9. Hripcsak G, Duke JD, Shah NH, Observational health data sciences and informatics (OHDSI): opportunities for observational researchers. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015; 216: 574-578. 26262116
10. Hripcsak G, Ryan PB, Duke JD, Characterizing treatment pathways at scale using the OHDSI network. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016; 113 (27): 7329-7336. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1510502113 27274072
11. American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2017. Danvers, MA: Diabetes Care; 2017. doi: 10.2337/dc17-S001
12. Reusch JEB, Manson JE. Management of type 2 diabetes in 2017: getting to goal. JAMA. 2017; 317 (10): 1015-1016. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.0241 28249081
13. Bennett WL, Maruthur NM, Singh S, Comparative effectiveness and safety of medications for type 2 diabetes: an update including new drugs and 2-drug combinations. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 154 (9): 602-613. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-154-9-201105030-00336 21403054
14. FitzHenry F, Resnic FS, Robbins SL, Creating a common data model for comparative effectiveness with the observational medical outcomes partnership. Appl Clin Inform. 2015; 6 (3): 536-547. doi: 10.4338/ACI-2014-12-CR-0121 26448797
15. Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics. OHDSI Standardized Vocabularies. https://github.com/OHDSI/CommonDataModel/wiki/Standardized-Vocabularies. Accessed June 8, 2018.
16. Stuart EA. Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Stat Sci. 2010; 25 (1): 1-21. doi: 10.1214/09-STS313 20871802
17. Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat. 2011; 10 (2): 150-161. doi: 10.1002/pst.433 20925139
18. Montgomery JM, Nyhan B, Torres M. How conditioning on post-treatment variables can ruin your experiment and what to do about it. In: Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association; 2016; Chicago, IL. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/post-treatment-bias.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2018.
19. Abadie A, Imbens GW. Bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects. J Bus Econ Stat. 2011; 29 (1): 1-11. doi: 10.1198/jbes.2009.07333
20. Madigan D, Stang PE, Berlin JA, A systematic statistical approach to evaluating evidence from observational studies. Annu Rev Stat Appl. 2014; 1 (1): 11-39. doi: 10.1146/annurev-statistics-022513-115645
21. Lipsitch M, Tchetgen Tchetgen E, Cohen T. Negative controls: a tool for detecting confounding and bias in observational studies. Epidemiology. 2010; 21 (3): 383-388. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181d61eeb 20335814
22. Schuemie MJ, Ryan PB, DuMouchel W, Suchard MA, Madigan D. Interpreting observational studies: why empirical calibration is needed to correct p-values. Stat Med. 2014; 33 (2): 209-218. doi: 10.1002/sim.5925 23900808
23. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: The R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2011.
24. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med. 2007; 4 (10): e296. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 17941714
25. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005; 28 (suppl 1): S4-S36. doi: 10.2337/diacare.28.suppl_1.S4 15618112
26. Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: "to whom do the results of this trial apply?" Lancet. 2005; 365 (9453): 82-93. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17670-8 15639683
27. Bothwell LE, Greene JA, Podolsky SH, Jones DS. Assessing the gold standard-lessons from the history of RCTs. N Engl J Med. 2016; 374 (22): 2175-2181. doi: 10.1056/NEJMms1604593 27248626