Original ResearchJuly 2022
A Cohort Study
    Author, Article, and Disclosure Information
    Visual Abstract. Cardiovascular Outcomes Comparing First-Line SGLT-2i Versus Metformin.

    Sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) have been endorsed as a preferred second-line treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2D). But data comparing SGLT-2i against metformin in the setting of first-line therapy are limited. This retrospective cohort study investigated the risk of cardiovascular events among patients who started SGLT-2i versus metformin as initial pharmacological therapy for T2D. This population-based study provides novel comparative-effectiveness data that could help optimize first-line therapy for T2D.

    Background:

    Evidence on the risk for cardiovascular events associated with use of first-line sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) compared with metformin is limited.

    Objective:

    To assess cardiovascular outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who initiated first-line treatment with SGLT-2i versus metformin.

    Design:

    Population-based cohort study.

    Setting:

    Claims data from 2 large U.S. commercial and Medicare databases (April 2013 to March 2020).

    Participants:

    Patients with T2D aged 18 years and older (>65 years in Medicare) initiating treatment with SGLT-2i or metformin during April 2013 to March 2020, without any use of antidiabetic medications before cohort entry, were identified. After 1:2 propensity score matching in each database, pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were reported.

    Intervention:

    First-line SGLT-2i (canagliflozin, empagliflozin, or dapagliflozin) or metformin.

    Measurements:

    Primary outcomes were a composite of hospitalization for myocardial infarction (MI), hospitalization for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or all-cause mortality (MI/stroke/mortality), and a composite of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) or all-cause mortality (HHF/mortality). Safety outcomes including genital infections were assessed.

    Results:

    Among 8613 first-line SGLT-2i initiators matched to 17 226 metformin initiators, SGLT-2i initiators had a similar risk for MI/stroke/mortality (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.19) and a lower risk for HHF/mortality (HR, 0.80; CI, 0.66 to 0.97) during a mean follow-up of 12 months. Initiators receiving SGLT-2i showed a lower risk for HHF (HR, 0.78; CI, 0.63 to 0.97), a numerically lower risk for MI (HR, 0.70; CI, 0.48 to 1.00), and similar risk for stroke, mortality, and MI/stroke/HHF/mortality compared with metformin. Initiators receiving SGLT-2i had a higher risk for genital infections (HR, 2.19; CI, 1.91 to 2.51) and otherwise similar safety as those receiving metformin.

    Limitation:

    Treatment selection was not randomized.

    Conclusion:

    As first-line T2D treatment, initiators receiving SGLT-2i showed a similar risk for MI/stroke/mortality, lower risk for HHF/mortality and HHF, and a similar safety profile except for an increased risk for genital infections compared with those receiving metformin.

    Primary Funding Source:

    Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School.

    References

    • 1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry. Diabetes Mellitus—Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk in New Antidiabetic Therapies to Treat Type 2 Diabetes. December 2008. Accessed at www.fda.gov/media/71297/download on 13 January 2022. Google Scholar
    • 2. Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, et al; EMPA-REG OUTCOME Investigators. Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2117-28. [PMID: 26378978] doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1504720 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 3. Neal B, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW, et al; CANVAS Program Collaborative Group. Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:644-657. [PMID: 28605608] doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1611925 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 4. Wiviott SD, Raz I, Bonaca MP, et al; DECLARE–TIMI 58 Investigators. Dapagliflozin and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:347-357. [PMID: 30415602] doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1812389 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 5. Lin DS, Lee JK, Hung CS, et al. The efficacy and safety of novel classes of glucose-lowering drugs for cardiovascular outcomes: a network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Diabetologia. 2021;64:2676-2686. [PMID: 34536085] doi:10.1007/s00125-021-05529-w CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Supplemental approval letter for empagliflozin. Accessed at www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/appletter/2016/204629Orig1s008ltr.pdf on 13 January 2022. Google Scholar
    • 7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Supplemental approval letter for canagliflozin. Accessed at www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/appletter/2018/204042Orig1s027ltr.pdf on 13 January 2022. Google Scholar
    • 8. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Supplemental approval letter for dapagliflozin. Accessed at www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/appletter/2019/202293Orig1s018,%20205649Orig1s011ltr.pdf on 13 January 2022. Google Scholar
    • 9. American Diabetes Association. 9. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: standards of medical care in diabetes-2021. Diabetes Care. 2021;44:S111-S124. [PMID: 33298420] doi:10.2337/dc21-S009 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 10. Davies MJ, D’Alessio DA, Fradkin J, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2018;41:2669-2701. [PMID: 30291106] doi:10.2337/dci18-0033 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 11. Cosentino F, Grant PJ, Aboyans V, et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2019 ESC guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases developed in collaboration with the EASD. Eur Heart J. 2020;41:255-323. [PMID: 31497854] doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz486 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 12. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). Lancet. 1998;352:854-65. [PMID: 9742977] doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07037-8 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 13. Sundström J, Kristófi R, Östlund O, et al; SMARTEST Study Group. A registry-based randomised trial comparing an SGLT2 inhibitor and metformin as standard treatment of early stage type 2 diabetes (SMARTEST): rationale, design and protocol. J Diabetes Complications. 2021;35:107996. [PMID: 34389234] doi:10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2021.107996 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 14. Barr EL, Zimmet PZ, Welborn TA, et al. Risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in individuals with diabetes mellitus, impaired fasting glucose, and impaired glucose tolerance: the Australian Diabetes, Obesity, and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab). Circulation. 2007;116:151-7. [PMID: 17576864] doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.685628 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 15. Raebel MA, Xu S, Goodrich GK, et al. Initial antihyperglycemic drug therapy among 241 327 adults with newly identified diabetes from 2005 through 2010: a Surveillance, Prevention, and Management of Diabetes Mellitus (SUPREME-DM) study. Ann Pharmacother. 2013;47:1280-91. [PMID: 24259692] doi:10.1177/1060028013503624 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 16. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Framework for FDA's Real-World Evidence Program. Accessed at www.fda.gov/media/120060/download on 13 January 2022. Google Scholar
    • 17. Schneeweiss S. Improving therapeutic effectiveness and safety through big healthcare data. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016;99:262-5. [PMID: 26659268] doi:10.1002/cpt.316 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 18. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;183:758-64. [PMID: 26994063] doi:10.1093/aje/kwv254 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 19. Verbrugge FH. Role of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with diabetes mellitus and heart failure. Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2017;14:275-283. [PMID: 28647919] doi:10.1007/s11897-017-0340-1 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 20. Franklin JM, Patorno E, Desai RJ, et al. Emulating randomized clinical trials with nonrandomized real-world evidence studies: first results from the RCT DUPLICATE initiative. Circulation. 2021;143:1002-1013. [PMID: 33327727] doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.051718 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 21. Patorno E, Goldfine AB, Schneeweiss S, et al. Cardiovascular outcomes associated with canagliflozin versus other non-gliflozin antidiabetic drugs: population based cohort study. BMJ. 2018;360:k119. [PMID: 29437648] doi:10.1136/bmj.k119 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 22. Patorno E, Pawar A, Bessette LG, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors versus glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists in older adults. Diabetes Care. 2021;44:826-835. [PMID: 33495295] doi:10.2337/dc20-1464 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 23. Xie Y, Bowe B, Gibson AK, et al. Comparative effectiveness of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors vs sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181:1043-1053. [PMID: 34180939] doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.2488 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 24. Fralick M, Schneeweiss S, Redelmeier DA, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors versus metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: an observational study using data from routine care. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2021;23:2320-2328. [PMID: 34169619] doi:10.1111/dom.14474 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 25. Chen TH, Li YR, Chen SW, et al. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor versus metformin as first-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a multi-institution database study. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2020;19:189. [PMID: 33167990] doi:10.1186/s12933-020-01169-3 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 26. Khokhar B, Jette N, Metcalfe A, et al. Systematic review of validated case definitions for diabetes in ICD-9-coded and ICD-10-coded data in adult populations. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e009952. [PMID: 27496226] doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009952 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 27. Miller DR, Safford MM, Pogach LM. Who has diabetes? Best estimates of diabetes prevalence in the Department of Veterans Affairs based on computerized patient data. Diabetes Care. 2004;27 Suppl 2:B10-21. [PMID: 15113777] doi:10.2337/diacare.27.suppl_2.b10 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 28. Glynn RJ, Knight EL, Levin R, et al. Paradoxical relations of drug treatment with mortality in older persons. Epidemiology. 2001;12:682-9. [PMID: 11679797] doi:10.1097/00001648-200111000-00017 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 29. Schneeweiss S, Avorn J. A review of uses of health care utilization databases for epidemiologic research on therapeutics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:323-37. [PMID: 15862718] doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.012 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 30. Tchetgen Tchetgen E. The control outcome calibration approach for causal inference with unobserved confounding. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;179:633-40. [PMID: 24363326] doi:10.1093/aje/kwt303 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 31. DeSantis A. Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors for the treatment of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus. UptoDate. Accessed at www.uptodate.com/contents/sodium-glucose-co-transporter-2-inhibitors-for-the-treatment-of-hyperglycemia-in-type-2-diabetes-mellitus#H2325150020 on 13 January 2022. Google Scholar
    • 32. Dave CV, Schneeweiss S, Patorno E. Comparative risk of genital infections associated with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2019;21:434-438. [PMID: 30207042] doi:10.1111/dom.13531 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 33. Kiyota Y, Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ, et al. Accuracy of Medicare claims-based diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction: estimating positive predictive value on the basis of review of hospital records. Am Heart J. 2004;148:99-104. [PMID: 15215798] doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2004.02.013 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 34. Wahl PM, Rodgers K, Schneeweiss S, et al. Validation of claims-based diagnostic and procedure codes for cardiovascular and gastrointestinal serious adverse events in a commercially-insured population. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19:596-603. [PMID: 20140892] doi:10.1002/pds.1924 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 35. Tirschwell DL, Longstreth WT. Validating administrative data in stroke research. Stroke. 2002;33:2465-70. [PMID: 12364739] doi:10.1161/01.str.0000032240.28636.bd CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 36. Saczynski JS, Andrade SE, Harrold LR, et al. A systematic review of validated methods for identifying heart failure using administrative data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21 Suppl 1:129-40. [PMID: 22262599] doi:10.1002/pds.2313 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 37. Social Security Administration. Requesting SSA's Death Information. Accessed at www.ssa.gov/dataexchange/request_dmf.html on 13 January 2022. Google Scholar
    • 38. IBM Watson Health. IBM MarketScan Research Databases for life sciences researchers. Accessed at www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/OWZWJ0QO on 13 January 2022. Google Scholar
    • 39. Research Data Assistance Center (ResDAC). Master Beneficiary Summary File (MBSF) Base. Accessed at www.resdac.org/cms-data/files/mbsf-base on 13 January 2022. Google Scholar
    • 40. Waikar SS, Wald R, Chertow GM, et al. Validity of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes for acute renal failure. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;17:1688-94. [PMID: 16641149] doi:10.1681/ASN.2006010073 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 41. Ray WA, Griffin MR, Fought RL, et al. Identification of fractures from computerized Medicare files. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:703-14. [PMID: 1619449] doi:10.1016/0895-4356(92)90047-q CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 42. Hudson M, Avina-Zubieta A, Lacaille D, et al. The validity of administrative data to identify hip fractures is high---a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:278-85. [PMID: 23347851] doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.10.004 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 43. Ginde AA, Blanc PG, Lieberman RM, et al. Validation of ICD-9-CM coding algorithm for improved identification of hypoglycemia visits. BMC Endocr Disord. 2008;8:4. [PMID: 18380903] doi:10.1186/1472-6823-8-4 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 44. Schelleman H, Bilker WB, Brensinger CM, et al. Anti-infectives and the risk of severe hypoglycemia in users of glipizide or glyburide. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;88:214-22. [PMID: 20592722] doi:10.1038/clpt.2010.74 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 45. Bobo WV, Cooper WO, Epstein RA, et al. Positive predictive value of automated database records for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in children and youth exposed to antipsychotic drugs or control medications: a Tennessee Medicaid Study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:157. [PMID: 22112194] doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-157 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 46. Dave CV, Schneeweiss S, Kim D, et al. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and the risk for severe urinary tract infections: a population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171:248-256. [PMID: 31357213] doi:10.7326/M18-3136 LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 47. Belatti DA, Phisitkul P. Declines in lower extremity amputation in the US Medicare population, 2000-2010. Foot Ankle Int. 2013;34:923-31. [PMID: 23386749] doi:10.1177/1071100713475357 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 48. Chen Y, Sloan FA, Yashkin AP. Adherence to diabetes guidelines for screening, physical activity and medication and onset of complications and death. J Diabetes Complications. 2015;29:1228-33. [PMID: 26316423] doi:10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2015.07.005 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 49. Patorno E, Gopalakrishnan C, Zorina OI, et al. 992. Dynamic channeling among initiators of a recently marketed medication for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) [Abstract]. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24:565-566. doi:10.1002/pds.3838 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • 50. Shin H, Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ, et al. Trends in first-line glucose-lowering drug use in adults with type 2 diabetes in light of emerging evidence for SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA. Diabetes Care. 2021;44:1774-1782. [PMID: 34385345] doi:10.2337/dc20-2926 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 51. Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:757-63. [PMID: 9382394] doi:10.7326/0003-4819-127-8_part_2-199710151-00064 LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 52. Groenwold RH, White IR, Donders AR, et al. Missing covariate data in clinical research: when and when not to use the missing-indicator method for analysis. CMAJ. 2012;184:1265-9. [PMID: 22371511] doi:10.1503/cmaj.110977 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 53. Austin PC. Statistical criteria for selecting the optimal number of untreated subjects matched to each treated subject when using many-to-one matching on the propensity score. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172:1092-7. [PMID: 20802241] doi:10.1093/aje/kwq224 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 54. Wang SV, Schneeweiss S, Rassen JA. Optimal matching ratios in drug safety surveillance [Letter]. Epidemiology. 2014;25:772-3. [PMID: 25076153] doi:10.1097/EDE.0000000000000148 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 55. Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat. 2011;10:150-61. [PMID: 20925139] doi:10.1002/pst.433 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 56. Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009;28:3083-107. [PMID: 19757444] doi:10.1002/sim.3697 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 57. Austin PC. Using the standardized difference to compare the prevalence of a binary variable between two groups in observational research. Commun Stat Simul Comput. 2009;38(6):1228-34. doi:10.1080/03610910902859574 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • 58. Wang SV, Jin Y, Fireman B, et al. Relative performance of propensity score matching strategies for subgroup analyses. Am J Epidemiol. 2018;187:1799-1807. [PMID: 29554199] doi:10.1093/aje/kwy049 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 59. Cox DR. Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 1972;34:187-202. Google Scholar
    • 60. Lin E, Tong T, Chen Y, et al. Fixed-effects model: the most convincing model for meta-analysis with few studies. arXiv. Preprint posted online 11 February 2020. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2002.04211 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • 61. Rothman K. Episheet. Spreadsheets for the Analysis of Epidemiologic Data. Accessed at http://017c85b.netsolhost.com//wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Episheet.xls on 13 January 2022. Google Scholar
    • 62. Shin H, Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ, et al. Evolving channeling in prescribing SGLT-2 inhibitors as first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2022;31:566-576. [PMID: 34985178] doi:10.1002/pds.5406 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 63. Schneeweiss S. A basic study design for expedited safety signal evaluation based on electronic healthcare data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19:858-68. [PMID: 20681003] doi:10.1002/pds.1926 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 64. Schneeweiss S. Sensitivity analysis and external adjustment for unmeasured confounders in epidemiologic database studies of therapeutics. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006;15:291-303. [PMID: 16447304] doi:10.1002/pds.1200 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 65. RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. 2020. Accessed at www.rstudio.com on 13 January 2022. Google Scholar
    • 66. Aetion. Evidence Platform®. Software for real-world data analysis. Accessed at http://aetion.com on 13 January 2022. Google Scholar
    • 67. Wang SV, Verpillat P, Rassen JA, et al. Transparency and reproducibility of observational cohort studies using large healthcare databases. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016;99:325-32. [PMID: 26690726] doi:10.1002/cpt.329 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 68. Patorno E, Schneeweiss S, Gopalakrishnan C, et al. Using real-world data to predict findings of an ongoing phase IV cardiovascular outcome trial: cardiovascular safety of linagliptin versus glimepiride. Diabetes Care. 2019;42:2204-2210. [PMID: 31239281] doi:10.2337/dc19-0069 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 69. Scheen AJ. Cardiovascular effects of new oral glucose-lowering agents: DPP-4 and SGLT-2 inhibitors. Circ Res. 2018;122:1439-1459. [PMID: 29748368] doi:10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.117.311588 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 70. Gilbert RE, Connelly KA. Reduction in the incidence of myocardial infarction with sodium-glucose linked cotransporter-2 inhibitors: evident and plausible. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2019;18:6. [PMID: 30634959] doi:10.1186/s12933-019-0812-6 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 71. Giorgino F, Vora J, Fenici P, et al. Cardiovascular protection with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: does it apply to all patients. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020;22:1481-1495. [PMID: 32285611] doi:10.1111/dom.14055 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 72. McGuire DK, Shih WJ, Cosentino F, et al. Association of SGLT2 inhibitors with cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiol. 2021;6:148-158. [PMID: 33031522] doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.4511 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 73. Patorno E, Gopalakrishnan C, Franklin JM, et al. Claims-based studies of oral glucose-lowering medications can achieve balance in critical clinical variables only observed in electronic health records. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018;20:974-984. [PMID: 29206336] doi:10.1111/dom.13184 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 74. Bansal V, Kalita J, Misra UK. Diabetic neuropathy. Postgrad Med J. 2006;82:95-100. [PMID: 16461471] doi:10.1136/pgmj.2005.036137 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 75. Suissa S. Mortality reduction in EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial: beyond the antidiabetes effect. Diabetes Care. 2018;41:219-223. [PMID: 29358464] doi:10.2337/dc17-1059 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 76. Nyirjesy P, Sobel JD. Genital mycotic infections in patients with diabetes. Postgrad Med. 2013;125:33-46. [PMID: 23748505] doi:10.3810/pgm.2013.05.2650 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar