Study identification

EU PAS number

EUPAS108001

Study ID

108002

Official title and acronym

Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Risk: Impact of Study Design Differences on Comparative Safety Results

DARWIN EU® study

No

Study countries

Switzerland
United States

Study description

A recent cohort study using the British Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) database found that new use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) was associated with an increased risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) compared to other oral antidiabetic therapies (hazard ratio, HR 1.75, 95% CI: 1.22 to 2.49 during a median follow-up of 3.6 years). We implemented an active comparator, new user (ACNU) cohort design using US MarketScan and Medicare data and found that DPP4i did not increase IBD risk compared to therapeutic alternatives: pooled adjusted HRs (aHRs) for IBD were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.47-1.59) comparing to sulfonylureas (SU) and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.48 – 1.19) comparing to thiazolidinediones (TZD). We suspect that differences between results are primarily driven by different study designs. For example, our ACNU cohort included only patients who were treatment-naïve to both drugs at baseline, whereas Abrahami et al modeled DPP4i exposure as a time-varying variable (i.e. allowing the same patient to contribute both DPP4i unexposed and exposed person-time). To explore the impact and robustness of risk estimates to study design differences, this study will apply the ACNU design to CPRD data to assess the association between DPP4i use and IBD risk.

Study status

Ongoing
Research institutions and networks

Institutions

Contact details

Til Stürmer

Primary lead investigator
Study timelines

Date when funding contract was signed

Planned:
Actual:

Study start date

Planned:
Actual:

Data analysis start date

Planned:
Actual:

Date of final study report

Planned:
Sources of funding
Other

More details on funding

R01 AG056479 Propensity scores and preventive drug use in the elderly
Regulatory

Was the study required by a regulatory body?

No

Is the study required by a Risk Management Plan (RMP)?

Not applicable