Alexander Kutz, Dae Hyun Kim, Deborah J Wexler, Jun Liu, Sebastian Schneeweiss, Robert J Glynn, Elisabetta Patorno
{"title":"SGLT-2抑制剂、GLP-1受体激动剂和DPP-4抑制剂在2型糖尿病中的心血管有效性和安全性比较。","authors":"Alexander Kutz, Dae Hyun Kim, Deborah J Wexler, Jun Liu, Sebastian Schneeweiss, Robert J Glynn, Elisabetta Patorno","doi":"10.2337/dc23-0671","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the comparative cardiovascular effectiveness and safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) in older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) across different frailty strata.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>We performed three 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort studies, each stratified by three frailty strata, using data from Medicare beneficiaries (2013-2019) with T2D who initiated SGLT-2is, GLP-1RAs, or DPP-4is. In time-to-event analyses, we assessed the primary cardiovascular effectiveness composite outcome of acute myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome was a composite of severe adverse events that have been linked to SGLT-2i or GLP-1RA use.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with DPP-4is, the overall hazard ratio (HR) for the primary effectiveness outcome associated with SGLT-2is (n = 120,202 matched pairs) was 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.75), corresponding to an incidence rate difference (IRD) of -13.35 (95% CI -15.06 to -11.64). IRD ranged from -6.74 (95% CI -8.61 to -4.87) in nonfrail to -27.24 (95% CI -41.64 to -12.84) in frail people (P for interaction < 0.01). Consistent benefits were observed for GLP-1RAs compared with DPP-4is (n = 113,864), with an overall HR of 0.74 (95% CI 0.71-0.77) and an IRD of -15.49 (95% CI -17.46 to -13.52). IRD in the lowest frailty stratum was -7.02 (95% CI -9.23 to -4.81) and -25.88 (95% CI -38.30 to -13.46) in the highest (P for interaction < 0.01). Results for SGLT-2is versus GLP-1RAs (n = 89,865) were comparable. Severe adverse events were not more frequent with SGLT-2is or GLP-1RAs than DPP-4is.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SGLT-2is and GLP-1RAs safely improved cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality, with the largest absolute benefits among frail people.</p>","PeriodicalId":11140,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":14.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10620535/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Cardiovascular Effectiveness and Safety of SGLT-2 Inhibitors, GLP-1 Receptor Agonists, and DPP-4 Inhibitors According to Frailty in Type 2 Diabetes.\",\"authors\":\"Alexander Kutz, Dae Hyun Kim, Deborah J Wexler, Jun Liu, Sebastian Schneeweiss, Robert J Glynn, Elisabetta Patorno\",\"doi\":\"10.2337/dc23-0671\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the comparative cardiovascular effectiveness and safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) in older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) across different frailty strata.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>We performed three 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort studies, each stratified by three frailty strata, using data from Medicare beneficiaries (2013-2019) with T2D who initiated SGLT-2is, GLP-1RAs, or DPP-4is. In time-to-event analyses, we assessed the primary cardiovascular effectiveness composite outcome of acute myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome was a composite of severe adverse events that have been linked to SGLT-2i or GLP-1RA use.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with DPP-4is, the overall hazard ratio (HR) for the primary effectiveness outcome associated with SGLT-2is (n = 120,202 matched pairs) was 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.75), corresponding to an incidence rate difference (IRD) of -13.35 (95% CI -15.06 to -11.64). IRD ranged from -6.74 (95% CI -8.61 to -4.87) in nonfrail to -27.24 (95% CI -41.64 to -12.84) in frail people (P for interaction < 0.01). Consistent benefits were observed for GLP-1RAs compared with DPP-4is (n = 113,864), with an overall HR of 0.74 (95% CI 0.71-0.77) and an IRD of -15.49 (95% CI -17.46 to -13.52). IRD in the lowest frailty stratum was -7.02 (95% CI -9.23 to -4.81) and -25.88 (95% CI -38.30 to -13.46) in the highest (P for interaction < 0.01). Results for SGLT-2is versus GLP-1RAs (n = 89,865) were comparable. Severe adverse events were not more frequent with SGLT-2is or GLP-1RAs than DPP-4is.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SGLT-2is and GLP-1RAs safely improved cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality, with the largest absolute benefits among frail people.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11140,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diabetes Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":14.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10620535/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diabetes Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2337/dc23-0671\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2337/dc23-0671","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative Cardiovascular Effectiveness and Safety of SGLT-2 Inhibitors, GLP-1 Receptor Agonists, and DPP-4 Inhibitors According to Frailty in Type 2 Diabetes.
Objective: To evaluate the comparative cardiovascular effectiveness and safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) in older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) across different frailty strata.
Research design and methods: We performed three 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort studies, each stratified by three frailty strata, using data from Medicare beneficiaries (2013-2019) with T2D who initiated SGLT-2is, GLP-1RAs, or DPP-4is. In time-to-event analyses, we assessed the primary cardiovascular effectiveness composite outcome of acute myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome was a composite of severe adverse events that have been linked to SGLT-2i or GLP-1RA use.
Results: Compared with DPP-4is, the overall hazard ratio (HR) for the primary effectiveness outcome associated with SGLT-2is (n = 120,202 matched pairs) was 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.75), corresponding to an incidence rate difference (IRD) of -13.35 (95% CI -15.06 to -11.64). IRD ranged from -6.74 (95% CI -8.61 to -4.87) in nonfrail to -27.24 (95% CI -41.64 to -12.84) in frail people (P for interaction < 0.01). Consistent benefits were observed for GLP-1RAs compared with DPP-4is (n = 113,864), with an overall HR of 0.74 (95% CI 0.71-0.77) and an IRD of -15.49 (95% CI -17.46 to -13.52). IRD in the lowest frailty stratum was -7.02 (95% CI -9.23 to -4.81) and -25.88 (95% CI -38.30 to -13.46) in the highest (P for interaction < 0.01). Results for SGLT-2is versus GLP-1RAs (n = 89,865) were comparable. Severe adverse events were not more frequent with SGLT-2is or GLP-1RAs than DPP-4is.
Conclusions: SGLT-2is and GLP-1RAs safely improved cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality, with the largest absolute benefits among frail people.
期刊介绍：
The journal's overarching mission can be captured by the simple word "Care," reflecting its commitment to enhancing patient well-being. Diabetes Care aims to support better patient care by addressing the comprehensive needs of healthcare professionals dedicated to managing diabetes.
Diabetes Care serves as a valuable resource for healthcare practitioners, aiming to advance knowledge, foster research, and improve diabetes management. The journal publishes original research across various categories, including Clinical Care, Education, Nutrition, Psychosocial Research, Epidemiology, Health Services Research, Emerging Treatments and Technologies, Pathophysiology, Complications, and Cardiovascular and Metabolic Risk. Additionally, Diabetes Care features ADA statements, consensus reports, review articles, letters to the editor, and health/medical news, appealing to a diverse audience of physicians, researchers, psychologists, educators, and other healthcare professionals.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
