MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors vs Sulfonylureas for Gout Prevention Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Metformin

2024· article· en· W4394812117 on OpenAlexaffabout
Natalie McCormick, Chio Yokose, Na Lu, Deborah J. Wexler, J. Antonio Aviña‐Zubieta, Mary A. De Vera, Rozalina G. McCoy, Hyon K. Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Internal Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGout, Hyperuricemia, Uric Acid
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaResearch Canada
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineType 2 diabetesGoutMetforminHazard ratioPropensity score matchingPopulationDiabetes mellitusSulfonylureaEndocrinologyInsulinConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) are a revolutionary treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2D) with cardiovascular, kidney, and serum urate-lowering benefits. Objective: To compare risk of incident gout and rate of recurrent flares between patients with T2D initiating SGLT2i vs sulfonylurea, most common second-line glucose-lowering therapy, when added to metformin monotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This sequential, propensity score-matched, new-user comparative effectiveness study using target trial emulation framework included adults with T2D receiving metformin monotherapy in a Canadian general population database from January 1, 2014, to June 30, 2022. Exposures: Initiation of SGLT2i vs sulfonylurea. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was incident gout diagnosis, ascertained by emergency department (ED), hospital, outpatient, and medication dispensing records. Secondary outcomes were gout-primary hospitalizations and ED visits and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), as well as recurrent flare rates among prevalent gout patients. Heart failure (HF) hospitalization was assessed as positive control outcome and osteoarthritis encounters as negative control. For target trial emulations, we used Cox proportional hazards and Poisson regressions with 1:1 propensity score matching (primary analysis) and overlap weighting (sensitivity analysis). The analysis was conducted from September to December, 2023. Results: Among 34 604 propensity score matched adults with T2D initiating SGLT2i or sulfonylurea (20 816 [60%] male, mean [SD] age, 60 [12.4] years), incidence of gout was lower among SGLT2i initiators (4.27 events per 1000 person-years) than sulfonylurea initiators (6.91 events per 1000 person-years), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.48-0.80) and a rate difference (RD) of -2.64 (95% CI, -3.99 to -1.29) per 1000 person-years. Associations persisted regardless of sex, age, or baseline diuretic use. SGLT2i use was also associated with fewer recurrent flares among gout patients (rate ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.55-0.82; and RD, -20.9; 95% CI, -31.9 to -10.0 per 1000 person-years). HR and RD for MACE associated with SGLT2i use were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.77-0.98) and -3.58 (95% CI, -6.19 to -0.96) per 1000 person-years. For control outcomes, SGLT2i users had lower risk of HF (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38-0.76), as expected, with no difference in osteoarthritis (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.94-1.34). Results were similar when applying propensity score overlap weighting. Conclusions: In this population-based cohort study, the gout and cardiovascular benefits associated with SGLT2i in these target trial emulations may guide selection of glucose-lowering therapy in patients with T2D, at risk for or already with gout.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Internal MedicineSame topicGout, Hyperuricemia, Uric AcidFrench-language works237,207