Jinnie J Rhee1,2, Jialin Han1, Maria E Montez-Rath1, Sun H Kim2,3, Mark R Cullen4, Randall S Stafford5, Wolfgang C Winkelmayer6, Glenn M Chertow1,2. 1. Division of Nephrology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 2. Stanford Diabetes Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 3. Division of Endocrinology, Gerontology, and Metabolism, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 4. Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 5. Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 6. Section of Nephrology and Selzman Institute for Kidney Health, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Abstract
AIM: To determine the association with cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study of new users of SGLT-2 inhibitors and DPP-4 inhibitors with T2D and CKD using data from Optum Clinformatics DataMart. We assembled three cohorts: T2D/no CKD, T2D/CKD 1-2, and T2D/CKD 3a. The study outcomes were (a) time to first heart failure (HF) hospitalization and (b) time to a composite CV endpoint comprised of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke. After inverse probability of treatment weighting, we used proportional hazards regression to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: New users of SGLT-2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors had lower risks of HF hospitalization in the T2D/no CKD (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70, 0.82) and T2D/CKD 1-2 (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48, 0.84) cohorts, but no significant association was present in the T2D/CKD 3a cohort. Compared with prescription of DPP-4 inhibitors, SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with lower risks of non-fatal MI or stroke of 23% (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70, 0.85) in the T2D/no CKD cohort, but no significant associations were present in the T2D/CKD 1-2 and T2D/CKD 3a cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Incident prescription of SGLT-2 inhibitors was associated with lower risks of HF hospitalization but not with non-fatal MI or stroke despite suggesting benefit, relative to prescription of DPP-4 inhibitor across different stages of CKD.
AIM: To determine the association with cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study of new users of SGLT-2 inhibitors and DPP-4 inhibitors with T2D and CKD using data from Optum Clinformatics DataMart. We assembled three cohorts: T2D/no CKD, T2D/CKD 1-2, and T2D/CKD 3a. The study outcomes were (a) time to first heart failure (HF) hospitalization and (b) time to a composite CV endpoint comprised of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke. After inverse probability of treatment weighting, we used proportional hazards regression to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: New users of SGLT-2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors had lower risks of HF hospitalization in the T2D/no CKD (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70, 0.82) and T2D/CKD 1-2 (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48, 0.84) cohorts, but no significant association was present in the T2D/CKD 3a cohort. Compared with prescription of DPP-4 inhibitors, SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with lower risks of non-fatal MI or stroke of 23% (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70, 0.85) in the T2D/no CKD cohort, but no significant associations were present in the T2D/CKD 1-2 and T2D/CKD 3a cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Incident prescription of SGLT-2 inhibitors was associated with lower risks of HF hospitalization but not with non-fatal MI or stroke despite suggesting benefit, relative to prescription of DPP-4 inhibitor across different stages of CKD.
Authors: Jane S Saczynski; Susan E Andrade; Leslie R Harrold; Jennifer Tjia; Sarah L Cutrona; Katherine S Dodd; Robert J Goldberg; Jerry H Gurwitz Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Kåre I Birkeland; Marit E Jørgensen; Bendix Carstensen; Frederik Persson; Hanne L Gulseth; Marcus Thuresson; Peter Fenici; David Nathanson; Thomas Nyström; Jan W Eriksson; Johan Bodegård; Anna Norhammar Journal: Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 32.069
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: Peter M Wahl; Keith Rodgers; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Brian F Gage; Javed Butler; Charles Wilmer; Marshall Nash; Gregory Esper; Norman Gitlin; Neal Osborn; Louise J Short; Rhonda L Bohn Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Elisabetta Patorno; Ajinkya Pawar; Jessica M Franklin; Mehdi Najafzadeh; Anouk Déruaz-Luyet; Kimberly G Brodovicz; Steven Sambevski; Lily G Bessette; Adrian J Santiago Ortiz; Martin Kulldorff; Sebastian Schneeweiss Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jacob A Udell; Zhong Yuan; Toni Rush; Nicholas M Sicignano; Michael Galitz; Norman Rosenthal Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jacob A Udell; Zhong Yuan; Patrick Ryan; Toni Rush; Nicholas M Sicignano; Michael Galitz; Norman Rosenthal Journal: Endocrinol Diabetes Metab Date: 2019-10-15