Table 4:
Sensitivity and subgroup analyses, Hazard Ratio (95% CI) *
| SGLT2 v DPP4 (Cohort 1) |
SGLT2 v GLP1 (Cohort 2) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity analyses | ||
| Propensity Score specification † | ||
| 1:1 nearest neighbor‡ | 0.98 (0.68, 1.41) | 0.72 (0.53, 0.99) |
| 1:N variable ratio | 0.88 (0.59, 1.31) | 0.68 (0.46, 1.00) |
| Fine stratification | 0.79 (0.61, 1.02) | 0.74 (0.55, 0.98) |
| Intention to treat analysis | ||
| 3 months | 1.00 (0.50, 1.98) | 0.49 (0.28, 0.86) |
| 6 months | 0.83 (0.52, 1.34) | 0.62 (0.41, 0.92) |
| 12 months | 0.82 (0.58, 1.17) | 0.64 (0.47, 0.88) |
| Any duration | 0.85 (0.63, 1.16) | 0.67 (0.51, 0.88) |
| As treated analysis | ||
| 3 months | 0.93 (0.46, 1.89) | 0.54 (0.31, 0.95) |
| 6 months | 0.97 (0.58, 1.65) | 0.70 (0.46, 1.06) |
| 12 months | 0.99 (0.66, 1.47) | 0.76 (0.54, 1.06) |
| Any duration‡ | 0.98 (0.68, 1.41) | 0.72 (0.53, 0.99) |
| Subgroup analysis e | ||
| Exclusion criteria | ||
| No major risk factors§ | 0.92 (0.55, 1.51) | 0.64 (0.41, 1.01) |
| Active ingredient | ||
| Canagliflozin | 0.83 (0.57, 1.21) | 0.66 (0.47, 0.92) |
| Dapagliflozin | 0.57 (0.29, 1.14) | 0.52 (0.28, 0.97) |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 0.66 (0.37, 1.20) | 0.72 (0.40, 1.29) |
| Female | 0.77 (0.51, 1.17) | 0.76 (0.53, 1.10) |
| Age | ||
| Age <60 | 0.78 (0.49, 1.25) | 0.75 (0.47, 1.20) |
| Age >=60 | 1.09 (0.64, 1.84) | 0.79 (0.51, 1.23) |
| Frailty§ | ||
| Low frailty | 1.00 (0.46, 2.15) | 1.12 (0.58, 2.16) |
| Medium frailty | 0.60 (0.33, 1.09) | 0.59 (0.31, 1.10) |
| High Frailty | 0.84 (0.49, 1.43) | 0.64 (0.40, 1.02) |
DPP4: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors; GLP1: Glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists; HR: Hazard Ratio; SGLT2: Sodium Glucose Cotransporter-2 inhibitors
For the subgroup analysis, propensity Score was re-estimated within each subgroup and patients were re-matched on the new re-estimated score. Estimates were pooled across the two databases using fixed effects meta-analysis See Appendix Figures 6 and 7 for database-specific estimates.
1:1 NN is primary analysis, a parallel balanced variable ratio matching approach was used; fine stratification utilized 50 strata
Indicates the primary analysis
Patients without evidence of any antibiotic or DMARD use or history of any infections were included for analysis
Patients were stratified into three groups based on their estimated frailty score; see text for details.