2型糖尿病患者降糖药物类别与心血管预后

IF 9.7 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Romain Neugebauer, Jaejin An, Sarah Krahe Dombrowski, Caryn Oshiro, Andrea Cassidy-Bushrow, Lisa Gilliam, Gregg Simonson, Andrew J Karter, Richard Bergenstal, Holly Finertie, Maher M Yassin, Greg Knowlton, Sharon R Lin, Wendy Dyer, Noel Pimentel, Keanu Izadian, Julie Schmittdiel, Tainayah W Thomas, Stephanie A Hooker, Margaret B Nolan, Eric Wright, Lindsey Aurora, Luis A Rodriguez, Jasleen Kaur, Alyce S Adams, Mark J van der Laan, Patrick J O'Connor
{"title":"2型糖尿病患者降糖药物类别与心血管预后","authors":"Romain Neugebauer, Jaejin An, Sarah Krahe Dombrowski, Caryn Oshiro, Andrea Cassidy-Bushrow, Lisa Gilliam, Gregg Simonson, Andrew J Karter, Richard Bergenstal, Holly Finertie, Maher M Yassin, Greg Knowlton, Sharon R Lin, Wendy Dyer, Noel Pimentel, Keanu Izadian, Julie Schmittdiel, Tainayah W Thomas, Stephanie A Hooker, Margaret B Nolan, Eric Wright, Lindsey Aurora, Luis A Rodriguez, Jasleen Kaur, Alyce S Adams, Mark J van der Laan, Patrick J O'Connor","doi":"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.36100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) are primary causes of morbidity and mortality in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), yet few head-to-head randomized trials have compared the effects of glucose-lowering medications on MACEs, and most observational analyses are limited by inadequate bias adjustment methods.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effectiveness of sustained exposure to 4 classes of glucose-lowering medications (sulfonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors [DPP4is], sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors [SGLT2is], and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists [GLP-1RAs]) on MACEs in US adults with T2D using modern causal methods combined with machine learning.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This comparative effectiveness study included adults with T2D who were members of 6 large US health care delivery systems and initiated treatment with 1 of 4 medication classes (sulfonylureas, DPP4is, SGLT2is, and GLP-1RAs) between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2021. Data analysis was conducted from May 1 to December 31, 2024.</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>New use of a sulfonylurea, DPP4i, SGLT2i, or GLP-1RA based on filled prescriptions.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The primary outcome was MACEs defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. Analyses were conducted using targeted learning within a trial emulation framework. Heterogeneity of treatment effects was assessed for prespecified subgroups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study included 296 676 adults. The cohort for emulating a 4-arm trial included a subset of 241 981 adults (mean [SD] age, 57.2 [12.9] years; 54.3% male) with T2D. In adjusted analyses, 2.5-year MACE risk was lowest in patients with sustained exposure to GLP-1RAs, followed by SGLT2is , sulfonylureas, and DPP4is. Comparing DPP4is with sulfonylureas and SGLT2is with GLP-1RAs, the 2.5-year cumulative risk difference was 1.9% (95% CI, 1.1%-2.7%) and 1.5% (1.1%-1.9%), respectively. Risk differences in patients with vs without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) were similar in direction but typically much smaller for patients without ASCVD. Evidence of a benefit of GLP-1RAs over SGLT2is was most pronounced in patients with baseline ASCVD or heart failure (HF), age 65 years or older, or low to moderate kidney impairment but was not found in patients younger than 50 years.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this study, MACE risk varied significantly by medication class, with most protection achieved with sustained treatment with GLP-1RAs followed by SGLT2is, sulfonylureas, and DPP4is. The magnitude of benefit of GLP-1RAs over SGLT2is depended on baseline age, ASCVD, HF, and kidney impairment. These results, along with consideration of cost, availability, and collateral clinical benefits, may inform treatment decisions for adults with T2D.</p>","PeriodicalId":14694,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Network Open","volume":"8 10","pages":"e2536100"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12529185/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Glucose-Lowering Medication Classes and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.\",\"authors\":\"Romain Neugebauer, Jaejin An, Sarah Krahe Dombrowski, Caryn Oshiro, Andrea Cassidy-Bushrow, Lisa Gilliam, Gregg Simonson, Andrew J Karter, Richard Bergenstal, Holly Finertie, Maher M Yassin, Greg Knowlton, Sharon R Lin, Wendy Dyer, Noel Pimentel, Keanu Izadian, Julie Schmittdiel, Tainayah W Thomas, Stephanie A Hooker, Margaret B Nolan, Eric Wright, Lindsey Aurora, Luis A Rodriguez, Jasleen Kaur, Alyce S Adams, Mark J van der Laan, Patrick J O'Connor\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.36100\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) are primary causes of morbidity and mortality in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), yet few head-to-head randomized trials have compared the effects of glucose-lowering medications on MACEs, and most observational analyses are limited by inadequate bias adjustment methods.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effectiveness of sustained exposure to 4 classes of glucose-lowering medications (sulfonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors [DPP4is], sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors [SGLT2is], and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists [GLP-1RAs]) on MACEs in US adults with T2D using modern causal methods combined with machine learning.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This comparative effectiveness study included adults with T2D who were members of 6 large US health care delivery systems and initiated treatment with 1 of 4 medication classes (sulfonylureas, DPP4is, SGLT2is, and GLP-1RAs) between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2021. Data analysis was conducted from May 1 to December 31, 2024.</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>New use of a sulfonylurea, DPP4i, SGLT2i, or GLP-1RA based on filled prescriptions.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The primary outcome was MACEs defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. Analyses were conducted using targeted learning within a trial emulation framework. Heterogeneity of treatment effects was assessed for prespecified subgroups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study included 296 676 adults. The cohort for emulating a 4-arm trial included a subset of 241 981 adults (mean [SD] age, 57.2 [12.9] years; 54.3% male) with T2D. In adjusted analyses, 2.5-year MACE risk was lowest in patients with sustained exposure to GLP-1RAs, followed by SGLT2is , sulfonylureas, and DPP4is. Comparing DPP4is with sulfonylureas and SGLT2is with GLP-1RAs, the 2.5-year cumulative risk difference was 1.9% (95% CI, 1.1%-2.7%) and 1.5% (1.1%-1.9%), respectively. Risk differences in patients with vs without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) were similar in direction but typically much smaller for patients without ASCVD. Evidence of a benefit of GLP-1RAs over SGLT2is was most pronounced in patients with baseline ASCVD or heart failure (HF), age 65 years or older, or low to moderate kidney impairment but was not found in patients younger than 50 years.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this study, MACE risk varied significantly by medication class, with most protection achieved with sustained treatment with GLP-1RAs followed by SGLT2is, sulfonylureas, and DPP4is. The magnitude of benefit of GLP-1RAs over SGLT2is depended on baseline age, ASCVD, HF, and kidney impairment. These results, along with consideration of cost, availability, and collateral clinical benefits, may inform treatment decisions for adults with T2D.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14694,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMA Network Open\",\"volume\":\"8 10\",\"pages\":\"e2536100\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12529185/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMA Network Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.36100\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Network Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.36100","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:主要不良心血管事件(mace)是成人2型糖尿病(T2D)发病和死亡的主要原因,但很少有随机对照试验比较降糖药物对mace的影响,大多数观察性分析受到不充分的偏倚调整方法的限制。目的:采用现代因果方法结合机器学习,比较持续暴露于4类降糖药物(磺脲类、二肽基肽酶-4抑制剂[DPP4is]、钠-葡萄糖共转运体-2抑制剂[SGLT2is]和胰高血糖素样肽-1受体激动剂[GLP-1RAs])对美国成人T2D mace的疗效。设计、环境和参与者:这项比较有效性的研究纳入了2014年1月1日至2021年12月31日期间美国6个大型医疗保健系统的T2D成人患者,并开始使用4种药物类别(磺脲类、DPP4is、SGLT2is和GLP-1RAs)中的1种进行治疗。数据分析时间为2024年5月1日至12月31日。暴露:磺脲类药物、DPP4i、SGLT2i或GLP-1RA在配药处方中的新使用。主要结局和指标:主要结局为mace,定义为非致死性心肌梗死、非致死性卒中或心血管死亡。在试验仿真框架内使用目标学习进行分析。在预先指定的亚组中评估治疗效果的异质性。结果:本研究纳入296676名成人。模拟四组试验的队列包括214981名患有T2D的成年人(平均[SD]年龄57.2[12.9]岁,男性54.3%)。在调整分析中,持续暴露于GLP-1RAs的患者2.5年MACE风险最低,其次是SGLT2is、磺脲类药物和DPP4is。DPP4is与磺脲类药物比较,SGLT2is与GLP-1RAs比较,2.5年累积风险差异分别为1.9% (95% CI, 1.1%-2.7%)和1.5%(1.1%-1.9%)。有动脉粥样硬化性心血管疾病(ASCVD)患者与无ASCVD患者的风险差异方向相似,但无ASCVD患者的风险差异通常要小得多。GLP-1RAs优于SGLT2is的证据在基线ASCVD或心力衰竭(HF)、65岁或以上或低中度肾损害的患者中最为明显,但在50岁以下的患者中未发现。结论和相关性:在本研究中,MACE风险因药物类别而异,在GLP-1RAs持续治疗后,SGLT2is、磺脲类药物和DPP4is获得了大部分保护。GLP-1RAs对SGLT2is的获益程度取决于基线年龄、ASCVD、HF和肾损害。这些结果,连同成本、可获得性和附带临床益处的考虑,可能为成人T2D的治疗决策提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Glucose-Lowering Medication Classes and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

Importance: Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) are primary causes of morbidity and mortality in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), yet few head-to-head randomized trials have compared the effects of glucose-lowering medications on MACEs, and most observational analyses are limited by inadequate bias adjustment methods.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of sustained exposure to 4 classes of glucose-lowering medications (sulfonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors [DPP4is], sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors [SGLT2is], and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists [GLP-1RAs]) on MACEs in US adults with T2D using modern causal methods combined with machine learning.

Design, setting, and participants: This comparative effectiveness study included adults with T2D who were members of 6 large US health care delivery systems and initiated treatment with 1 of 4 medication classes (sulfonylureas, DPP4is, SGLT2is, and GLP-1RAs) between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2021. Data analysis was conducted from May 1 to December 31, 2024.

Exposure: New use of a sulfonylurea, DPP4i, SGLT2i, or GLP-1RA based on filled prescriptions.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was MACEs defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. Analyses were conducted using targeted learning within a trial emulation framework. Heterogeneity of treatment effects was assessed for prespecified subgroups.

Results: This study included 296 676 adults. The cohort for emulating a 4-arm trial included a subset of 241 981 adults (mean [SD] age, 57.2 [12.9] years; 54.3% male) with T2D. In adjusted analyses, 2.5-year MACE risk was lowest in patients with sustained exposure to GLP-1RAs, followed by SGLT2is , sulfonylureas, and DPP4is. Comparing DPP4is with sulfonylureas and SGLT2is with GLP-1RAs, the 2.5-year cumulative risk difference was 1.9% (95% CI, 1.1%-2.7%) and 1.5% (1.1%-1.9%), respectively. Risk differences in patients with vs without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) were similar in direction but typically much smaller for patients without ASCVD. Evidence of a benefit of GLP-1RAs over SGLT2is was most pronounced in patients with baseline ASCVD or heart failure (HF), age 65 years or older, or low to moderate kidney impairment but was not found in patients younger than 50 years.

Conclusions and relevance: In this study, MACE risk varied significantly by medication class, with most protection achieved with sustained treatment with GLP-1RAs followed by SGLT2is, sulfonylureas, and DPP4is. The magnitude of benefit of GLP-1RAs over SGLT2is depended on baseline age, ASCVD, HF, and kidney impairment. These results, along with consideration of cost, availability, and collateral clinical benefits, may inform treatment decisions for adults with T2D.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JAMA Network Open
JAMA Network Open Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
2126
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMA Network Open, a member of the esteemed JAMA Network, stands as an international, peer-reviewed, open-access general medical journal.The publication is dedicated to disseminating research across various health disciplines and countries, encompassing clinical care, innovation in health care, health policy, and global health. JAMA Network Open caters to clinicians, investigators, and policymakers, providing a platform for valuable insights and advancements in the medical field. As part of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications, JAMA Network Open contributes to the collective knowledge and understanding within the medical community.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信