Dapagliflozin Effectiveness in Chronic Kidney Disease
The base cohort for this analysis included all patients who met the eligibility criteria (Table 1) on any day (possible index date) during the study period in the two databases that contained UACR records (Clinformatics Data Mart and RWD). To increase the number of patients in this effectiveness analysis, patients were also included if they had a urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio (UPCR) measurement that corresponded to the UACR thresholds used as inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study. UPCR values were converted using the crude model PCR equation for predicted UACR, as described by Sumida et al. [21 (link)]. To allow a pooled analysis of both countries and thereby increase the study sample size, this analysis applied the more conservative dapagliflozin 10 mg indication for CKD treatment from the USA. Therefore, all included patients were eligible for dapagliflozin 10 mg according to the approved CKD indication. All eligible patients were considered potential comparators until they initiated dapagliflozin 10 mg. Patients who subsequently initiated dapagliflozin 10 mg and met the indication for the treatment of CKD were then categorized as ‘dapagliflozin initiators’. Dapagliflozin initiators could therefore be a matched comparator in the period before initiation.
Effectiveness analysis: eligibility criteria to identify patients with a possible index date
Inclusion criteria
Age
≥ 18 years on index date
Meets CKD definition on or within 2 years before index date
UACR ≥ 30 mg/ga
UPCR ≥ 150 mg/g
CKD diagnosis code
Two eGFR measurements ≥ 90 days apart, both < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2
Exclusion criteria
Continuous enrolment before index date
< 730 days
eGFR below threshold (on or within 1 year before index date)
25 mL/min/1.73 m2
UACRa above threshold (on or within 1 year before index date) or UPCR equivalent
aAlso included quantitative UPCR converted to UACR
The index date of dapagliflozin initiators was defined as the date of the first dapagliflozin 10 mg prescription. To avoid immortal time bias and selection bias when setting an index date for the comparators [22 (link)] and to ensure a manageable size for each country-specific analysis cohort, up to five potential comparators were randomly sampled for each dapagliflozin initiator in chronological order of their index dates. These comparators were matched on the basis of age, sex, heart failure diagnosis, type 2 diabetes diagnosis and RASi prescription (defined as having a prescription for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor antagonists). Matching was performed without replacement: once comparators had been matched a dapagliflozin initiator, these comparators were no longer able to be chosen for matching with other dapagliflozin initiators. Index dates for the randomly sampled comparators were set to the index dates of their matched dapagliflozin initiators; the datasets were then merged. To maximize retention of dapagliflozin initiators and minimize potential unmeasured bias, only patients with sufficient post-index data for eGFR slope estimation were retained. Each patient could only contribute once as an initiator and/or once as a comparator.
Partial Protocol Preview
This section provides a glimpse into the protocol. The remaining content is hidden due to licensing restrictions, but the full text is available at the following link:
Access Free Full Text.
Tangri N., Rastogi A., Nekeman-Nan C., Hong L.S., Ozaki A., Franzén S, & Sofue T. (2024). Dapagliflozin Utilization in Chronic Kidney Disease and Its Real-World Effectiveness Among Patients with Lower Levels of Albuminuria in the USA and Japan. Advances in Therapy, 41(3), 1151-1167.
Publication 2024
Corresponding Organization : University of Manitoba
Other organizations :
University of California, Los Angeles, AstraZeneca (Sweden), Bournemouth University, AstraZeneca (Japan), Kagawa University
RASi prescription (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor antagonists)
Annotations
Based on most similar protocols
Etiam vel ipsum. Morbi facilisis vestibulum nisl. Praesent cursus laoreet felis. Integer adipiscing pretium orci. Nulla facilisi. Quisque posuere bibendum purus. Nulla quam mauris, cursus eget, convallis ac, molestie non, enim. Aliquam congue. Quisque sagittis nonummy sapien. Proin molestie sem vitae urna. Maecenas lorem.
As authors may omit details in methods from publication, our AI will look for missing critical information across the 5 most similar protocols.
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to
get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required