> More than twice as many patients _with diabetes_ exposed to GLP-1 RAs developed nAMD compared to those in a matched cohort of similar patients who were unexposed. Emphasis mine, but it's important context that probably wouldn't fit in the title.
Yes that's correct, I unfortunately had to summarize the title to fit the character limit.
I really wonder about this study. I'm not great at reading these things but the 'Design, Setting, and Participants' implies two groups, one that got it and one that didn't, but it doesn't say it was randomized meaning the ones that didn't get it had reasons for not getting it compared to the ones that did get it having reasons for getting it. This screams selection bias between the two groups. Maybe this is just pointing out that it is more likely to get the drug if you are more progressed in the disease. I'd really like to see how they controlled for something like this.