ArticlePragmatic and observational research2025
Evaluating the Potential of Prevalent New User Design as an Alternative When New User Design is Impractical.
Article in Pragmatic and observational research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The New User Design can be applied if the target drug has not been administered for a specified period. Therefore, comparisons between drugs administered alone are easier to undertake than comparisons of drugs used in combination. Thus, assessing concomitant medications may be associated with several challenges, including limitations to the New User Design. One such limitation is performing analyses that consider the history of administration of drugs of the same class. In the present study, we considered the limitations of the New User Design and proposed solutions based on the potential of the Prevalent New User Design. Patients and Methods: Using the Japan Medical Data Center database (JMDC), patients diagnosed with diabetes mellitus who received sulfonylureas (SUs) between December 2009 and December 2010 with subsequent addition or switch to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4Is) were categorized into the SU+DPP4I group. The odds ratio (OR) was estimated using conditional logistic regression analysis. Using the "elapsed time" and "number of prescriptions" axes of the Prevalent New User Design, records from 1,426 and 1,342 individuals, respectively, were analyzed. Results: The hypoglycemia risk ORs were 1.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-9.00) for the "elapsed time" axis and 1.67 (95% CI 0.40-7.00) for the "number of prescriptions" axis. These findings are consistent with the results of a meta-analysis of previous randomized controlled trials. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the Prevalent New User Design can be effectively applied for real-world risk assessment scenarios; this design constitutes a potential alternative design to the New User Design. We adopted a Prevalent New User Design considering the patients' treatment history. However, there was a limitation in that we could not obtain information regarding the patients' perceptions of treatment prior to initiating therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.