Donna Shu-Han Lin1,2, An-Li Yu2, Hao-Yun Lo2, Cheng-Wei Lien2, Jen-Kuang Lee3,4,5,6,7, Wen-Jone Chen2,8,9. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Hsin-Chu Branch, Hsinchu, Taiwan. 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, 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. Cardiovascular Center, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. 9. Department of Emergency, National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan.
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This study aimed to assess the real-world outcomes of people with diabetes mellitus treated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs) compared with those treated with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in terms of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events. Peripheral artery disease is a common cause of morbidity in people with diabetes. Previous cardiovascular outcome trials have demonstrated the benefits of GLP1RAs and SGLT2is for reducing various cardiovascular events, but the safety and efficacy of these drugs on limb outcomes remain subject to debate and ambiguity. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in which data were collected from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. In total, 379,256 individuals with diabetes receiving either GLP1RA or SGLT2i with treatment initiated between 1 May 2016 and 31 December 2019 were identified. The primary outcome was major adverse limb events (MALE), defined as the composite of newly diagnosed critical limb ischaemia, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty or peripheral bypass for peripheral artery disease, and non-traumatic amputation. The secondary outcome was major adverse cardiac events, which was a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal ischaemic stroke. Other examined outcomes included death from any cause and hospitalisation for heart failure. Propensity score matching was performed at a 1:4 ratio between the GLP1RA and SGLT2i groups to mitigate possible selection bias. RESULTS: A total of 287,091 patients were eligible for analysis, with 81,152 patients treated with SGLT2i and 20,288 patients treated with GLP1RA after matching. The incidence of MALE was significantly lower in the GLP1RA group than in the SGLT2i group (3.6 vs 4.5 events per 1000 person-years; subdistribution HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.67, 0.96), primarily due to a lower incidence of critical limb ischaemia. The reduced risks of MALE associated with GLP1RA use were particularly noticeable in people with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (subdistribution HR 0.66 vs 1.11; p for interaction 0.006). CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: In people with diabetes, GLP1RA use was associated with significantly reduced risks of MALE compared with SGLT2i within the first 2 years after initiation, especially among people with diabetic neuropathy.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This study aimed to assess the real-world outcomes of people with diabetes mellitus treated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs) compared with those treated with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in terms of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events. Peripheral artery disease is a common cause of morbidity in people with diabetes. Previous cardiovascular outcome trials have demonstrated the benefits of GLP1RAs and SGLT2is for reducing various cardiovascular events, but the safety and efficacy of these drugs on limb outcomes remain subject to debate and ambiguity. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in which data were collected from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. In total, 379,256 individuals with diabetes receiving either GLP1RA or SGLT2i with treatment initiated between 1 May 2016 and 31 December 2019 were identified. The primary outcome was major adverse limb events (MALE), defined as the composite of newly diagnosed critical limb ischaemia, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty or peripheral bypass for peripheral artery disease, and non-traumatic amputation. The secondary outcome was major adverse cardiac events, which was a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal ischaemic stroke. Other examined outcomes included death from any cause and hospitalisation for heart failure. Propensity score matching was performed at a 1:4 ratio between the GLP1RA and SGLT2i groups to mitigate possible selection bias. RESULTS: A total of 287,091 patients were eligible for analysis, with 81,152 patients treated with SGLT2i and 20,288 patients treated with GLP1RA after matching. The incidence of MALE was significantly lower in the GLP1RA group than in the SGLT2i group (3.6 vs 4.5 events per 1000 person-years; subdistribution HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.67, 0.96), primarily due to a lower incidence of critical limb ischaemia. The reduced risks of MALE associated with GLP1RA use were particularly noticeable in people with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (subdistribution HR 0.66 vs 1.11; p for interaction 0.006). CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: In people with diabetes, GLP1RA use was associated with significantly reduced risks of MALE compared with SGLT2i within the first 2 years after initiation, especially among people with diabetic neuropathy.
Authors: Steven P Marso; Stephen C Bain; Agostino Consoli; Freddy G Eliaschewitz; Esteban Jódar; Lawrence A Leiter; Ildiko Lingvay; Julio Rosenstock; Jochen Seufert; Mark L Warren; Vincent Woo; Oluf Hansen; Anders G Holst; Jonas Pettersson; Tina Vilsbøll Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bernard Zinman; Christoph Wanner; John M Lachin; David Fitchett; Erich Bluhmki; Stefan Hantel; Michaela Mattheus; Theresa Devins; Odd Erik Johansen; Hans J Woerle; Uli C Broedl; Silvio E Inzucchi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bruce Neal; Vlado Perkovic; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Dick de Zeeuw; Greg Fulcher; Ngozi Erondu; Wayne Shaw; Gordon Law; Mehul Desai; David R Matthews Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lisandro D Colantonio; Demetria Hubbard; Keri L Monda; Katherine E Mues; Lei Huang; Yuling Dai; Elizabeth A Jackson; Todd M Brown; Robert S Rosenson; Mark Woodward; Paul Muntner; Michael E Farkouh Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-07-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Marc P Bonaca; Stephen D Wiviott; Thomas A Zelniker; Ofri Mosenzon; Deepak L Bhatt; Lawrence A Leiter; Darren K McGuire; Erica L Goodrich; Remo Holanda De Mendonca Furtado; John P H Wilding; Avivit Cahn; Ingrid A M Gause-Nilsson; Per Johanson; Martin Fredriksson; Peter A Johansson; Anna Maria Langkilde; Itamar Raz; Marc S Sabatine Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-08-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Adrian F Hernandez; Jennifer B Green; Salim Janmohamed; Ralph B D'Agostino; Christopher B Granger; Nigel P Jones; Lawrence A Leiter; Anne E Rosenberg; Kristina N Sigmon; Matthew C Somerville; Karl M Thorpe; John J V McMurray; Stefano Del Prato Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 79.321
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