Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists and Risk of Anaphylactic Reaction Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Multisite Population-Based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Case reports and a pharmacovigilance analysis have linked glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) with anaphylactic reactions, but real-world evidence for this possible association is lacking. Using databases from the United Kingdom (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) and the United States (Medicare, Optum (Optum, Inc., Eden Prairie, Minnesota), and IBM MarketScan (IBM, Armonk, New York)), we employed a new-user, active comparator study design wherein initiators of GLP-1 RAs were compared with 2 different active comparator groups (initiators of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and initiators of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors) between 2007 and 2019. Propensity score fine stratification weighted Cox proportional hazards models were fitted to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for an anaphylactic reaction. Database-specific HRs were pooled using random-effects models. Compared with the use of DPP-4 inhibitors (n = 1,641,520), use of GLP-1 RAs (n = 324,098) generated a modest increase in the HR for anaphylactic reaction, with a wide 95% CI (36.9 per 100,000 person-years vs. 32.1 per 100,000 person-years, respectively; HR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.94, 1.42). Compared with SGLT-2 inhibitors (n = 366,067), GLP-1 RAs (n = 259,929) were associated with a 38% increased risk of anaphylactic reaction (40.7 per 100,000 person-years vs. 29.4 per 100,000 person-years, respectively; HR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.87). In this large, multisite population-based cohort study, GLP-1 RAs were associated with a modestly increased risk of anaphylactic reaction when compared with DPP-4 inhibitors and SGLT-2 inhibitors.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".