Donna Shu-Han Lin1,2, Jen-Kuang Lee3,4,5,6,7, Wen-Jone Chen1,8,9,10. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital Hsin-Chu Branch, Hsin-Chu, Taiwan. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. b85401104@gmail.com. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan. b85401104@gmail.com. 5. Department of Laboratory Medicine, National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan. b85401104@gmail.com. 6. Cardiovascular Center, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. b85401104@gmail.com. 7. Telehealth Center, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. b85401104@gmail.com. 8. Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan. 9. Cardiovascular Center, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. 10. Department of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University College of Medicine and Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The safety and efficacy of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is) in major cardiovascular adverse events were previously examined in cardiovascular outcome trials. However, the effects of these drugs on adverse limb outcomes were poorly examined. This study aimed to determine the real-world outcomes of patients with diabetes mellitus receiving GLP1RAs as compared with those receiving DPP4is in terms of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted with data collected by the Taiwan National Health Insurance database between 1 May 2011 and 31 December 2017. Patients who were treated for type 2 diabetes with a GLP1RA or DDP4i during this period (n = 1,080,993), were identified. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse limb events, defined as peripheral artery disease (PAD), critical limb ischaemia, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty or peripheral bypass for PAD, and amputation. The secondary cardiovascular outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal ischaemic stroke. Propensity-score matching (PSM) at a 1:3 ratio between GLP1RA and DPP4i groups was done to minimise possible selection bias. RESULTS: A total of 948,342 individuals treated between 1 May 2011 and 31 December 2017, were identified, with 4460 in the GLP1RA group and 13,380 in the DPP4i group after PSM. The incidence of primary composite outcome events was significantly lower in those treated with GLP1RAs compared with those treated with DPP4is (2.59 vs 4.22 events per 1000 person-years; subdistribution HR [SHR] 0.63 [95% CI 0.41, 0.96]), primarily due to lower rates of amputation (1.29 events per 1000 person-years for GLP1RAs vs 2.4 events per 1000 person-years for DPP4is; SHR 0.55 [95% CI 0.30, 0.99]). Treatment with GLP1RAs was also associated with significantly lower risks of secondary composite outcome events (11.02 vs 17.95 events per 1000 person-years; HR 0.62 [95% CI 0.51, 0.76]). Moreover, the observed beneficial effects of GLP1RAs on reducing composite adverse limb outcomes were particularly noticeable in the non-cardiovascular patients and statin users (p for interaction <0.05). CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: In individuals with diabetes, the use of GLP1RAs was associated with significantly lower risks of major adverse limb events when compared with the use of DPP4is. The reduction in risk was driven largely by reduced rate of amputations. Moreover, treatment with GLP1RAs was also associated with lower risks of cardiovascular death, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction and death from any cause. However, some unexplored confounding factors may exist in this observation study and future large-scale randomised controlled trials are needed.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The safety and efficacy of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is) in major cardiovascular adverse events were previously examined in cardiovascular outcome trials. However, the effects of these drugs on adverse limb outcomes were poorly examined. This study aimed to determine the real-world outcomes of patients with diabetes mellitus receiving GLP1RAs as compared with those receiving DPP4is in terms of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted with data collected by the Taiwan National Health Insurance database between 1 May 2011 and 31 December 2017. Patients who were treated for type 2 diabetes with a GLP1RA or DDP4i during this period (n = 1,080,993), were identified. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse limb events, defined as peripheral artery disease (PAD), critical limb ischaemia, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty or peripheral bypass for PAD, and amputation. The secondary cardiovascular outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal ischaemic stroke. Propensity-score matching (PSM) at a 1:3 ratio between GLP1RA and DPP4i groups was done to minimise possible selection bias. RESULTS: A total of 948,342 individuals treated between 1 May 2011 and 31 December 2017, were identified, with 4460 in the GLP1RA group and 13,380 in the DPP4i group after PSM. The incidence of primary composite outcome events was significantly lower in those treated with GLP1RAs compared with those treated with DPP4is (2.59 vs 4.22 events per 1000 person-years; subdistribution HR [SHR] 0.63 [95% CI 0.41, 0.96]), primarily due to lower rates of amputation (1.29 events per 1000 person-years for GLP1RAs vs 2.4 events per 1000 person-years for DPP4is; SHR 0.55 [95% CI 0.30, 0.99]). Treatment with GLP1RAs was also associated with significantly lower risks of secondary composite outcome events (11.02 vs 17.95 events per 1000 person-years; HR 0.62 [95% CI 0.51, 0.76]). Moreover, the observed beneficial effects of GLP1RAs on reducing composite adverse limb outcomes were particularly noticeable in the non-cardiovascular patients and statin users (p for interaction <0.05). CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: In individuals with diabetes, the use of GLP1RAs was associated with significantly lower risks of major adverse limb events when compared with the use of DPP4is. The reduction in risk was driven largely by reduced rate of amputations. Moreover, treatment with GLP1RAs was also associated with lower risks of cardiovascular death, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction and death from any cause. However, some unexplored confounding factors may exist in this observation study and future large-scale randomised controlled trials are needed.
Authors: Julio Rosenstock; Vlado Perkovic; Odd Erik Johansen; Mark E Cooper; Steven E Kahn; Nikolaus Marx; John H Alexander; Michael Pencina; Robert D Toto; Christoph Wanner; Bernard Zinman; Hans Juergen Woerle; David Baanstra; Egon Pfarr; Sven Schnaidt; Thomas Meinicke; Jyothis T George; Maximilian von Eynatten; Darren K McGuire Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jonathan D Newman; Caron B Rockman; Mikhail Kosiborod; Yu Guo; Hua Zhong; Howard S Weintraub; Arthur Z Schwartzbard; Mark A Adelman; Jeffrey S Berger Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2016-09-18 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: William Duckworth; Carlos Abraira; Thomas Moritz; Domenic Reda; Nicholas Emanuele; Peter D Reaven; Franklin J Zieve; Jennifer Marks; Stephen N Davis; Rodney Hayward; Stuart R Warren; Steven Goldman; Madeline McCarren; Mary Ellen Vitek; William G Henderson; Grant D Huang Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-12-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Edward W Gregg; Paul Sorlie; Ryne Paulose-Ram; Qiuping Gu; Mark S Eberhardt; Michael Wolz; Vicki Burt; Lester Curtin; Michael Engelgau; Linda Geiss Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Jennifer B Green; M Angelyn Bethel; Paul W Armstrong; John B Buse; Samuel S Engel; Jyotsna Garg; Robert Josse; Keith D Kaufman; Joerg Koglin; Scott Korn; John M Lachin; Darren K McGuire; Michael J Pencina; Eberhard Standl; Peter P Stein; Shailaja Suryawanshi; Frans Van de Werf; Eric D Peterson; Rury R Holman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-06-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Caroline S Fox; Sherita Hill Golden; Cheryl Anderson; George A Bray; Lora E Burke; Ian H de Boer; Prakash Deedwania; Robert H Eckel; Abby G Ershow; Judith Fradkin; Silvio E Inzucchi; Mikhail Kosiborod; Robert G Nelson; Mahesh J Patel; Michael Pignone; Laurie Quinn; Philip R Schauer; Elizabeth Selvin; Dorothea K Vafiadis Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-08-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Binita Shah; Caron B Rockman; Yu Guo; Jaclyn Chesner; Arthur Z Schwartzbard; Howard S Weintraub; Mark A Adelman; Thomas S Riles; Jeffrey S Berger Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2014-04-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Irene Caruso; Angelo Cignarelli; Gian Pio Sorice; Annalisa Natalicchio; Sebastio Perrini; Luigi Laviola; Francesco Giorgino Journal: Metabolites Date: 2022-02-15
Authors: Subodh Verma; Mohammed Al-Omran; Lawrence A Leiter; C David Mazer; Søren Rasmussen; Hans A Saevereid; Maria Sejersten Ripa; Marc P Bonaca Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 6.408