Table 4.

Sensitivity analyses of risk of incident type 2 diabetes among particiapnts initiating denosumab compared with propensity score matched controls using an oral bisphosphonate

	No of patients	No of events	Person years	Incidence/1000 person years (95% CI)	Hazard ratio (95% CI)
Incident new users of denosumab-oral bisphosphonate pairs
Oral bisphosphonate	4802	89	10 345	8.6 (6.9 to 10.6)	Reference
Denosumab	961	6	2036	3.0 (1.1 to 6.4)	0.35 (0.15 to 0.79)
Asymmetric trimming excluding extreme propensity scores
Oral bisphosphonate	20 015	326	39 961	8.2 (7.3 to 9.1)	Reference
Denosumab	4056	56	10 049	5.6 (4.2 to 7.2)	0.68 (0.52 to 0.90)
Death as a competing risk
Oral bisphosphonate	21 038	347	41 900	8.3 (7.4 to 9.2)	Reference
Denosumab	4301	60	10617	5.7 (4.3 to 7.3)	0.68 (0.52 to 0.89)
Six month lag period for drug use
Oral bisphosphonate	21 038	274	41 900	6.5 (5.8 to 7.4)	Reference
Denosumab	4301	47	10 617	4.4 (3.3 to 5.9)	0.65 (0.48 to 0.88)
Analysis repeated with modified matching algorithm from primary analysis*
Oral bisphosphonate	20 262	340	40 866	8.3 (7.5 to 9.3)	Reference
Denosumab	4210	59	10 428	5.7 (4.3 to 7.3)	0.68 (0.52 to 0.89)
Excluding covid-19 pandemic period†
Oral bisphosphonate	19 268	341	40 049	8.5 (7.6 to 9.5)	Reference
Denosumab	3928	57	10 090	5.7 (4.3 to 7.3)	0.66 (0.50 to 0.87)

CI=confidence interval.

^*Participants who were selected as comparators in a previous cluster were not eligible for subsequent clusters; additional inverse probability weighting analysis addressed potentially unbalanced censoring between groups (see supplemental table 16).

^†From March 2020.