Abstract
Objective To establish whether clinical patient characteristics routinely measured in primary care can identify people with differing short-term benefits and risks for SGLT2-inhibitor and DPP4-inhibitor therapies, and to derive and validate a treatment selection algorithm to identify the likely optimal therapy for individual patients.
Design Prospective cohort study.
Setting Routine clinical data from United Kingdom general practice (Clinical Practice Research Datalink [CPRD]), and individual-level clinical trial data from 14 multi-country trials of SGLT2-inhibitor and DPP4-inhibitor therapies.
Participants 26,877 new users of SGLT2-inhibitor and DPP4-inhibitor therapy in CPRD over 2013-2019, and 10,414 participants randomised to SGLT2-inhibitor or DPP4-inhibitor therapy in 14 clinical trials, including 3 head-to-head trials of the two therapies (n=2,499).
Main outcome measures The primary outcome was achieved HbA1c 6 months after initiating therapy. Clinical features associated with differential HbA1c outcomes with SGLT2-inhibitor and DPP4-inhibitor therapies were identified in routine clinical data, with associations then tested in trial data. A multivariable treatment selection algorithm to predict differential HbA1c outcomes was developed in a CPRD derivation cohort (n=14,069), with validation in a CPRD validation cohort (n=9,376) and the head-to-head trials. In CPRD, we further explored the relationship between model predictions and secondary outcomes of weight loss and treatment discontinuation.
Results The final treatment selection algorithm included HbA1c, eGFR, ALT, age, and BMI, which were identified as predictors of differential HbA1c outcomes with SGLT2-inhibitor and DPP4-inhibitor therapies using both routine and trial data. In validation cohorts, patient strata predicted to have a ≥5 mmol/mol HbA1c reduction with SGLT2-inhibitor therapy compared with DPP4-inhibitor therapy (38.8% of CPRD validation sample) had an observed greater reduction of 8.8 mmol/mol [95%CI 7.8-9.8] in the CPRD validation sample, a 5.8 mmol/mol (95%CI 3.9-7.7) greater reduction in the Cantata D/D2 trials, and a 6.6 mmol/mol [95%CI 2.2-11.0]) greater reduction in the BI1245.20 trial. In CPRD, there was a greater weight reduction with SGLT2-inhibitor therapy regardless of predicted glycaemic benefit. Strata predicted to have greater reduction in HbA1c on SGLT2-inhibitor therapy had a similar risk of discontinuation as on DPP4-inhibitor therapy. In contrast, strata predicted to have greater reduction in HbA1c with DPP4-inhibitor therapy were half as likely to discontinue DPP4-inhibitor therapy than SGLT2-inhibitor therapy.
Conclusions Routinely measured clinical features are robustly associated with differential glycaemic responses to SGLT2-inhibitor and DPP4-inhibitor therapies. Combining features into a treatment selection algorithm can inform clinical decisions concerning optimal type 2 diabetes treatment choices.
What is already known on this subject
Despite there being multiple glucose-lowering treatment options available for people with type 2 diabetes, current guidelines do not provide clear advice on selecting the optimal treatment for most patients.
It is unknown whether routinely measured clinical features modify the risks and benefits of two common treatment options, DPP4-inhibitor or SGLT2-inhibitor therapy, and which could be used to target these treatments to those patients most likely to benefit.
What this study adds
Using data from 10,414 participants in 14 randomised trials, and 26,877 patients in UK primary care, we show several routinely available clinical features, notably glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and kidney function, are robustly associated with differential HbA1c responses to initiating SGLT2-inhibitor and DPP4-inhibitor therapies.
Combining clinical features into a multivariable treatment selection model identifies validated patient strata with 1) a >5 mmol/mol HbA1c benefit for SGLT2-i therapy compared with DPP4-inhibitor therapy ; 2) a 50% reduced risk of early treatment discontinuation with DPP4-inhibitor therapy compared with SGLT2-inhibitor therapy.
Our findings demonstrate a precision medicine approach based on routine clinical features can inform clinical decisions concerning optimal type 2 diabetes treatment choices.
Competing Interest Statement
APM declares previous research funding from Eli Lilly and Company, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. BAM is an employee of the Wellcome Trust and holds an honorary post at University College London for the purposes of carrying out independent research; the views expressed in this manuscript do not necessarily reflect the views of the Wellcome Trust. SJV declares funding from IQVIA. WEH declares a grant from IQVIA. ERP declares personal fees from Eli Lilly, MSD and Novo Nordisk. RRH reports research support from AstraZeneca, Bayer and Merck Sharp & Dohme, and personal fees from Anji Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Novartis and Novo Nordisk. NS declares personal fees from Abbott Diagnostics, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer and Sanofi and grants to his University from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis and Roche Diagnostics. Representatives from GSK, Takeda, Janssen, Quintiles, AstraZeneca and Sanofi attend meetings as part of the industry group involved with the MASTERMIND consortium. No industry representatives were involved in the writing of the manuscript or analysis of data. For all authors these are outside the submitted work; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Funding Statement
This research was supported by a BHF-Turing Cardiovascular Data Science Award (SP/19/6/34809), and the Medical Research Council (UK) (MR/N00633X/1). JMD is supported by an Independent Fellowship funded by Research Englands Expanding Excellence in England (E3) fund. ATH and BMS are supported by the NIHR Exeter Clinical Research Facility. AGJ is supported by an NIHR Clinician Scientist fellowship (CS-2015-15-018). WH is supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration South West Peninsula. SJV and BAM are supported by The Alan Turing Institute (EPSRC grant EP/N510129/). SJV is supported by the University of Warwick IAA funding. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The funders had no role in any part of the study or in any decision about publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Approval for the study was granted by the CPRD Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC 13_177R), the YODA Project (# 2017-1816) and Vivli (ID 00005959).
I 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.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I 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.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* Joint senior
Data Availability
No additional data are available from the authors although CPRD data are available by application to CPRD Independent Scientific Advisory Committee, and the clinical trial data are accessible via application from the Yale University Open Data Access Project and Vivli.
