Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Pharmacol.

Sec. Pharmacoepidemiology

Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1642522

This article is part of the Research TopicAdvancement of RWD/RWE Utilization for Enhancing Drug Development and Benefit/Risk AssessmentView all 5 articles

Difference in Outcome Event Coverage between Insurance-Based and Hospital-Based Databases: A Methodological Study of Diabetes Drug Use and Cardiovascular Events in Japan

Provisionally accepted
  • 1Tsukuba Daigaku Igaku Iryokei, Tsukuba, Japan
  • 2Kokuritsu Kenko Kiki Kanri Kenkyu Kiko, Shinjuku, Japan
  • 3Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Introduction: In countries with unrestricted access to healthcare, such as Japan, patients may initiate a drug at a clinic or hospital and then may visit another hospital when outcome events occur. Theoretically, an insurance-based database can capture all outcomes, whereas a hospital-based database can only capture outcomes when patients visit that hospital. We examined the difference in outcome event coverage between insurance-based and hospital-based databases in Japan, and its impact on pharmacoepidemiology studies, using diabetes drug use and cardiovascular events as an example. Method: Using the JMDC payer database, we identified new users of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as the first choice of treatment for type 2 diabetes. Composite outcome was defined as the first hospitalization with a diagnosis of heart failure, stroke, or myocardial infarction. Among patients who initiated drug use at hospitals, we estimated the proportion of events captured in the same hospital among all events recorded in the insurance data. Subsequently, considering a hypothetical hospital-based database study (in which outcome events could only be captured in the same hospital), we estimated an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for SGLT2 versus DPP-4 inhibitors. Results: There were 72,556 and 39,214 new users of DPP-4 and SGLT2 inhibitors, respectively, with no history of cardiovascular events, including 18,325 and 9,478 who initiated treatments at hospitals, respectively. Among the 18,325 patients who initiated DPP-4 inhibitors, 195 events occurred, of which 94 (48%) could be captured in the same hospital. Among the 9,478 patients who initiated SGLT-2 inhibitors, 89 events occurred, of which 40 (45%) could be captured in the same hospital. The aHR (95% confidence interval) was 0.74 (0.49–1.12) in the hypothetical hospital-based database study, whereas it was 0.88 (0.64–1.21) in the insurance-based analysis. A sensitivity analysis restricted to hospitals in the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) system showed that the percentage exceeded 50% for both the composite and individual disease events. Discussion: This Japanese study revealed that nearly half (over half when restricted to DPC hospitals) of cardiovascular events were captured in the same hospital where the diabetes drug was initiated.

Keywords: Pharmacoepidemiology, Administrative claims database, Hospital database, diabetes, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors

Received: 06 Jun 2025; Accepted: 01 Sep 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Ando, Hasegawa, Ishiguro, Komiyama, Kuno and Iwagami. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Masao Iwagami, Tsukuba Daigaku Igaku Iryokei, Tsukuba, Japan

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.