Matthew J O'Brien1,2, Susan L Karam3, Amisha Wallia1,3, Raymond H Kang1, Andrew J Cooper2, Nicola Lancki2, Margaret R Moran1,2,4, David T Liss1,2, Theodore A Prospect5, Ronald T Ackermann1,2,3. 1. Institute of Public Health and Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Molecular Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Now with Oak Street Health, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Enterprise Research and Development, UnitedHealth Group, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Abstract
Importance: Understanding cardiovascular outcomes of initiating second-line antidiabetic medications (ADMs) may help inform treatment decisions after metformin alone is not sufficient or not tolerated. To date, no studies have compared the cardiovascular effects of all major second-line ADMs during this early decision point in the pharmacologic management of type 2 diabetes. Objective: To examine the association of second-line ADM classes with major adverse cardiovascular events. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study among 132 737 insured adults with type 2 diabetes who started therapy with a second-line ADM after taking either metformin alone or no prior ADM. This study used 2011-2015 US nationwide administrative claims data. Data analysis was performed from January 2017 to October 2018. Exposures: Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, thiazolidinediones (TZDs), basal insulin, and sulfonylureas or meglitinides (both referred to as sulfonylureas hereafter). The DPP-4 inhibitors served as the comparison group in all analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to first cardiovascular event after starting the second-line ADM. This composite outcome was based on hospitalization for the following cardiovascular conditions: congestive heart failure, stroke, ischemic heart disease, or peripheral artery disease. Results: Among 132 737 insured adult patients with type 2 diabetes (men, 55%; aged 45-64 years, 58%; white, 63%), there were 3480 incident cardiovascular events during 169 384 person-years of follow-up. Patients were censored after the first cardiovascular event, discontinuation of insurance coverage, transition from International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) to end of ICD-9 coding, or 2 years of follow-up. After adjusting for patient, prescriber, and health plan characteristics, the risk of composite cardiovascular events after starting GLP-1 receptor agonists was lower than DPP-4 inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96), but this finding was not significant in all sensitivity analyses. Cardiovascular event rates after starting treatment with SGLT-2 inhibitors (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.57-1.53) and TZDs (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.76-1.11) were not statistically different from DPP-4 inhibitors. The comparative risk of cardiovascular events was higher after starting treatment with sulfonylureas (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.23-1.49) or basal insulin (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.81-2.27) than DPP-4 inhibitors. Conclusions and Relevance: Among insured adult patients with type 2 diabetes initiating second-line ADM therapy, the short-term cardiovascular outcomes of GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT-2 inhibitors, and DPP-4 inhibitors were similar. Higher cardiovascular risk was associated with use of sulfonylureas or basal insulin compared with newer ADM classes. Clinicians may consider prescribing GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT-2 inhibitors, or DPP-4 inhibitors more routinely after metformin rather than sulfonylureas or basal insulin.
Importance: Understanding cardiovascular outcomes of initiating second-line antidiabetic medications (ADMs) may help inform treatment decisions after metformin alone is not sufficient or not tolerated. To date, no studies have compared the cardiovascular effects of all major second-line ADMs during this early decision point in the pharmacologic management of type 2 diabetes. Objective: To examine the association of second-line ADM classes with major adverse cardiovascular events. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study among 132 737 insured adults with type 2 diabetes who started therapy with a second-line ADM after taking either metformin alone or no prior ADM. This study used 2011-2015 US nationwide administrative claims data. Data analysis was performed from January 2017 to October 2018. Exposures: Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, thiazolidinediones (TZDs), basal insulin, and sulfonylureas or meglitinides (both referred to as sulfonylureas hereafter). The DPP-4 inhibitors served as the comparison group in all analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to first cardiovascular event after starting the second-line ADM. This composite outcome was based on hospitalization for the following cardiovascular conditions: congestive heart failure, stroke, ischemic heart disease, or peripheral artery disease. Results: Among 132 737 insured adult patients with type 2 diabetes (men, 55%; aged 45-64 years, 58%; white, 63%), there were 3480 incident cardiovascular events during 169 384 person-years of follow-up. Patients were censored after the first cardiovascular event, discontinuation of insurance coverage, transition from International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) to end of ICD-9 coding, or 2 years of follow-up. After adjusting for patient, prescriber, and health plan characteristics, the risk of composite cardiovascular events after starting GLP-1 receptor agonists was lower than DPP-4 inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96), but this finding was not significant in all sensitivity analyses. Cardiovascular event rates after starting treatment with SGLT-2 inhibitors (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.57-1.53) and TZDs (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.76-1.11) were not statistically different from DPP-4 inhibitors. The comparative risk of cardiovascular events was higher after starting treatment with sulfonylureas (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.23-1.49) or basal insulin (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.81-2.27) than DPP-4 inhibitors. Conclusions and Relevance: Among insured adult patients with type 2 diabetes initiating second-line ADM therapy, the short-term cardiovascular outcomes of GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT-2 inhibitors, and DPP-4 inhibitors were similar. Higher cardiovascular risk was associated with use of sulfonylureas or basal insulin compared with newer ADM classes. Clinicians may consider prescribing GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT-2 inhibitors, or DPP-4 inhibitors more routinely after metformin rather than sulfonylureas or basal insulin.
Authors: Alan J Garber; Martin J Abrahamson; Joshua I Barzilay; Lawrence Blonde; Zachary T Bloomgarden; Michael A Bush; Samuel Dagogo-Jack; Ralph A DeFronzo; Daniel Einhorn; Vivian A Fonseca; Jeffrey R Garber; W Timothy Garvey; George Grunberger; Yehuda Handelsman; Irl B Hirsch; Paul S Jellinger; Janet B McGill; Jeffrey I Mechanick; Paul D Rosenblit; Guillermo E Umpierrez Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Preman Kumarathurai; Christian Anholm; Bjørn S Larsen; Rasmus Huan Olsen; Sten Madsbad; Ole Kristiansen; Olav W Nielsen; Steen B Haugaard; Ahmad Sajadieh Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Christianne L Roumie; Robert A Greevy; Carlos G Grijalva; Adriana M Hung; Xulei Liu; Harvey J Murff; Tom A Elasy; Marie R Griffin Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-06-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ronald T Ackermann; Amisha Wallia; Matthew J O'Brien; Raymond Kang; Andrew Cooper; Margaret R Moran; David T Liss Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2017-09-01
Authors: Steven P Marso; Gilbert H Daniels; Kirstine Brown-Frandsen; Peter Kristensen; Johannes F E Mann; Michael A Nauck; Steven E Nissen; Stuart Pocock; Neil R Poulter; Lasse S Ravn; William M Steinberg; Mette Stockner; Bernard Zinman; Richard M Bergenstal; John B Buse Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Sadiya S Khan; Noam Barda; Philip Greenland; Noa Dagan; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Ran Balicer; Laura J Rasmussen-Torvik Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Mark P Maskery; Christian Holscher; Stephanie P Jones; Christopher I Price; W David Strain; Caroline L Watkins; David J Werring; Hedley Ca Emsley Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2020-09-20 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Laura K Triantafylidis; Chelsea E Hawley; Christopher Fagbote; Jiahua Li; Nicole Genovese; Julie M Paik Journal: J Pharm Pract Date: 2019-09-24
Authors: Sonia Kelkar; Taofik Oyekunle; Adva Eisenberg; Lauren Howard; William J Aronson; Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; Matthew R Cooperberg; Zachary Klaassen; Martha K Terris; Stephen J Freedland; Ilona Csizmadi Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2021-03-09
Authors: Enrico Torre; Giorgio Lorenzo Colombo; Sergio Di Matteo; Chiara Martinotti; Maria Chiara Valentino; Alberto Rebora; Francesca Cecoli; Eleonora Monti; Marco Galimberti; Paolo Di Bartolo; Germano Gaggioli; Giacomo Matteo Bruno Journal: Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2021-06-14