Fracture Risk After Initiation of Use of Canagliflozin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors promote glycosuria, resulting in possible effects on calcium, phosphate, and vitamin D homeostasis. Canagliflozin is associated with decreased bone mineral density and a potential increased risk for fracture. Objective: To estimate risk for nonvertebral fracture among new users of canagliflozin compared with a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist. Design: Population-based new-user cohort study. Setting: Two U.S. commercial health care databases providing data on more than 70 million patients from March 2013 to October 2015. Patients: Persons with type 2 diabetes who initiated use of canagliflozin were propensity score-matched in a 1:1 ratio to those initiating use of a GLP-1 agonist. Measurements: The primary outcome was a composite end point of humerus, forearm, pelvis, or hip fracture requiring intervention. Secondary outcomes included fractures at other sites. A fixed-effects meta-analysis that pooled results from the 2 databases provided an overall hazard ratio (HR). Results: 79 964 patients initiating use of canagliflozin were identified and matched to 79 964 patients initiating use of a GLP-1 agonist. Mean age was 55 years, 48% were female, average baseline hemoglobin A1c level was 8.7%, and 27% were prescribed insulin. The rate of the primary outcome was similar for canagliflozin (2.2 events per 1000 person-years) and GLP-1 agonists (2.3 events per 1000 person-years), with an overall HR of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.26). Risk for pelvic, hip, humerus, radius, ulna, carpal, metacarpal, metatarsal, or ankle fracture was also similar for canagliflozin (14.5 events per 1000 person-years) and GLP-1 agonists (16.1 events per 1000 person-years) (overall HR, 0.92 [CI, 0.83 to 1.02]). Limitation: Unmeasured confounding, measurement error, and low fracture rate. Conclusion: In this study of middle-aged patients with type 2 diabetes and relatively low fracture risk, canagliflozin was not associated with increased risk for fracture compared with GLP-1 agonists. Primary Funding Source: Brigham and Women's Hospital, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".