Evidence Hub

Comparison of the effects on cardiovascular events between use of metformin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors as the first-line hypoglycaemic agents in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a claims database analysis

R. Nishimura, T. Takeshima, K. Iwasaki, Sumiko Aoi

BMJ Open, 2022

2,089 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

Objectives To compare the risk of cardiovascular events from the initiation of therapy between metformin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) as first-line therapy. Design Retrospective cohort study using two claims databases. Setting The MDV database (provided by Medical Data Vision) comprised data from acute care hospitals, and the JMDC database (provided by JMDC) comprised data from individuals covered by health insurance societies. Participants Those who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at ≥18 years, prescribed metformin or DPP-4i as the first-line hypoglycaemic agent, had medical records of ≥6 months before the index prescription and had available glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) data for the period, including the index date and 30 days before it (defined as the baseline) were included. Those diagnosed with type 1 diabetes and/or a history of myocardial infarction (MI) or cerebrovascular diseases were excluded. Primary and secondary outcome measures The outcomes were cumulative risks from Kaplan-Meier curves or HRs of patients prescribed metformin compared with DPP-4i. The primary endpoint was the diagnosis of MI or stroke associated with hospitalisation. Patient demographics, prescribed drugs and laboratory test values of HbA1c and estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline were adjusted. The study period starting from the index included treatment after initial monotherapy. Results Overall, 2089 and 6686 patients in the MDV database and 1506 and 3635 in…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 2,089 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free