Acute pancreatitis risk in type 2 diabetes patients treated with canagliflozin versus other antihyperglycemic agents: an observational claims database study. (2nd July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yuan, Zhong; DeFalco, Frank; Wang, Lu; Hester, Laura; Weaver, James; Swerdel, Joel N.; Freedman, Amy; Ryan, Patrick; Schuemie, Martijn; Qiu, Rose; Yee, Jacqueline; Meininger, Gary; Berlin, Jesse A.; Rosenthal, Norman
• Is Part Of: Current medical research and opinion. Volume 36:Number 7(2020)
• Page Start: 1117
• Page End: 1124
• Publication Date: 2020-07-02
• Subjects: Acute pancreatitis -- canagliflozin -- type 2 diabetes -- observational study; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Therapeutics -- Periodicals; 615.5
• DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2020.1761312
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0300-7995

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: Observational evidence suggests that patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at increased risk for acute pancreatitis (AP) versus those without T2DM. A small number of AP events were reported in clinical trials of the sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor canagliflozin, though no imbalances were observed between treatment groups. This observational study evaluated risk of AP among new users of canagliflozin compared with new users of six classes of other antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs). Methods: Three US claims databases were analyzed based on a prespecified protocol approved by the European Medicines Agency. Propensity score adjustment controlled for imbalances in baseline covariates. Cox regression models estimated the hazard ratio of AP with canagliflozin compared with other AHAs using on-treatment (primary) and intent-to-treat approaches. Sensitivity analyses assessed robustness of findings. Results: Across the three databases, there were between 12, 023–80, 986 new users of canagliflozin; the unadjusted incidence rates of AP (per 1000 person-years) were between 1.5–2.2 for canagliflozin and 1.1–6.6 for other AHAs. The risk of AP was generally similar for new users of canagliflozin compared with new users of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, insulin, and other AHAs, with no consistent between-treatment differences observed across databases. Intent-to-treat and sensitivity analysis findings were qualitatively consistent with on-treatment findings. Conclusions: In this large observational study, incidence rates of AP in patients with T2DM treated with canagliflozin or other AHAs were generally similar, with no evidence suggesting that canagliflozin is associated with increased risk of AP compared with other AHAs.