Effectiveness and safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists versus SGLT-2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: an Italian cohort study.
Aged
Cardiovascular Diseases
/ diagnosis
Cohort Studies
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2
/ diagnosis
Glucagon-Like Peptide 1
/ therapeutic use
Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor
/ agonists
Humans
Hypoglycemic Agents
/ adverse effects
Middle Aged
Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors
/ adverse effects
Stroke
/ diagnosis
Cardiovascular outcomes
Death
Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists
Renal disease
Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors
Journal
Cardiovascular diabetology
ISSN: 1475-2840
Titre abrégé: Cardiovasc Diabetol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101147637
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 08 2022
24 08 2022
Historique:
received:
30
05
2022
accepted:
10
07
2022
entrez:
23
8
2022
pubmed:
24
8
2022
medline:
26
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and SGLT-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) have shown to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), death and worsening nephropathy when added to standard of care. However, these two dug classes differ in efficacy and safety. We compared the effectiveness and safety profile of GLP-1 RA and SGLT-2i in a large and unselected cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes resident in Lombardy from 2015 to 2020. Using linkable administrative health databases, we included patients aged 50 years and older initiating GLP-1 RA or SGLT-2i. Clinical events were: death, hospital admission for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, heart failure (HF), and renal disease as individual and composite outcomes (MACE-3: all cause-death, non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke; MACE-4: MACE-3 plus unstable angina). Outcomes were evaluated separately in subjects with and without previous cardiovascular (CV) diseases. Treatments were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression model after Propensity Score Matching (PSM) in both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses. Serious adverse events were also evaluated. The analysis comprised 20,762 patients per cohort. The ITT analysis showed a significant risk reduction for non-fatal MI (HR 0.77; CI 95% 0.66-0.90), MACE-3 (HR 0.91; CI 95% 0.84-0.98), and MACE-4 (HR 0.92; CI 95% 0.86-0.99) in GLP-1RA compared with SGLT-2i users, while no difference was reported in the incidence of HF hospitalization and stroke between the two cohorts. Similar benefits were found in the subgroup of patients without previous CV diseases only. PP analysis largely confirmed the main results. The incidence of serious adverse events was low in both cohorts (< 1%). GLP-1RA showed to be equally safe and more effective than SGLT-2i in reducing the risk of MACE-3, MACE-4 and MI. This study adds to the growing body of real-world evidence addressing the specific clinical properties of GLP-1RA and SGLT-2i in everyday practice to tailor treatment to the individual patient.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and SGLT-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) have shown to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), death and worsening nephropathy when added to standard of care. However, these two dug classes differ in efficacy and safety. We compared the effectiveness and safety profile of GLP-1 RA and SGLT-2i in a large and unselected cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes resident in Lombardy from 2015 to 2020.
METHODS
Using linkable administrative health databases, we included patients aged 50 years and older initiating GLP-1 RA or SGLT-2i. Clinical events were: death, hospital admission for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, heart failure (HF), and renal disease as individual and composite outcomes (MACE-3: all cause-death, non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke; MACE-4: MACE-3 plus unstable angina). Outcomes were evaluated separately in subjects with and without previous cardiovascular (CV) diseases. Treatments were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression model after Propensity Score Matching (PSM) in both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses. Serious adverse events were also evaluated.
RESULTS
The analysis comprised 20,762 patients per cohort. The ITT analysis showed a significant risk reduction for non-fatal MI (HR 0.77; CI 95% 0.66-0.90), MACE-3 (HR 0.91; CI 95% 0.84-0.98), and MACE-4 (HR 0.92; CI 95% 0.86-0.99) in GLP-1RA compared with SGLT-2i users, while no difference was reported in the incidence of HF hospitalization and stroke between the two cohorts. Similar benefits were found in the subgroup of patients without previous CV diseases only. PP analysis largely confirmed the main results. The incidence of serious adverse events was low in both cohorts (< 1%).
CONCLUSIONS
GLP-1RA showed to be equally safe and more effective than SGLT-2i in reducing the risk of MACE-3, MACE-4 and MI. This study adds to the growing body of real-world evidence addressing the specific clinical properties of GLP-1RA and SGLT-2i in everyday practice to tailor treatment to the individual patient.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35999556
doi: 10.1186/s12933-022-01572-y
pii: 10.1186/s12933-022-01572-y
pmc: PMC9400295
doi:
Substances chimiques
Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor
0
Hypoglycemic Agents
0
Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors
0
Glucagon-Like Peptide 1
89750-14-1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
162Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Cells. 2021 Oct 09;10(10):
pubmed: 34685677
Eur J Heart Fail. 2020 Feb;22(2):196-213
pubmed: 31816162
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Jun 12;71(23):2628-2639
pubmed: 29540325
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 19;11(2):e0149203
pubmed: 26895073
Diabetes Care. 2021 Mar;44(3):826-835
pubmed: 33495295
BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2020 Jun;8(1):
pubmed: 32591373
J Endocr Soc. 2020 Dec 31;5(2):bvaa193
pubmed: 33447691
Metabolism. 2022 Feb;127:154937
pubmed: 34808144
Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2021 Sep 28;20(1):196
pubmed: 34583699
Lancet. 2019 Jul 13;394(10193):121-130
pubmed: 31189511
Kidney Int. 2020 Oct;98(4S):S1-S115
pubmed: 32998798
Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2022 Apr 9;21(1):51
pubmed: 35397526
Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2010 Nov 16;9:76
pubmed: 21080957
Metabolism. 2020 Mar;104:154045
pubmed: 31821814
Circulation. 2017 Jul 18;136(3):249-259
pubmed: 28522450
Circulation. 2019 Apr 23;139(17):2022-2031
pubmed: 30786725
Metabolites. 2022 Feb 15;12(2):
pubmed: 35208256
BMJ. 2021 May 11;373:n1091
pubmed: 33975892
JAMA Cardiol. 2021 Feb 1;6(2):148-158
pubmed: 33031522
Diabetes Care. 2022 Apr 1;45(4):909-918
pubmed: 35100355
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017 Sep;5(9):709-717
pubmed: 28781064
Ann Intern Med. 2021 Nov;174(11):1528-1541
pubmed: 34570599
J Am Heart Assoc. 2021 Jun;10(11):e019356
pubmed: 34032121
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2021 Jul 02;:
pubmed: 34215881
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2021 Jul;23(7):1484-1495
pubmed: 33606897
Diabetes Care. 2022 Jan 1;45(Suppl 1):S125-S143
pubmed: 34964831
Kidney360. 2020 Dec 08;2(2):254-262
pubmed: 35373017
Diabetes Care. 2020 Feb;43(2):487-493
pubmed: 31857443
Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2021 Mar 22;20(1):67
pubmed: 33752680
J Diabetes Complications. 2021 Sep;35(9):107972
pubmed: 34247911
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2020 May;26(5):610-618
pubmed: 32347181
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2019 May;21(5):1237-1250
pubmed: 30697905
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2021 Oct;9(10):653-662
pubmed: 34425083