Comparison of glucagons like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptide-4 inhibitors regarding cardiovascular safety and mortality in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A network meta-analysis

AimThe effects of dipeptidyl peptide-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) on type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality were compared.MethodsThe literature on DPP-4is and SGLT-2is treatment of T2DM was searched through Pubmed, Embase, and the web of science databases with the search deadline May 15, 2020. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to compare the effects of two types of inhibitors on cardiovascular events (major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular (CV) death) and all-cause mortality in T2DM patients.ResultsA total of 15 articles were screened, including 125,796 patients. Compared with DPP-4is, SGLT-2is can significantly reduce MACE [OR: 0.86 95% CI (0.78, 0.92)], CV death [OR: 0.85 95% CI (0.71, 1.01)], nonfatal MI [OR: 0.84 95%CI (0.74, 0.95)] and all-cause mortality [OR: 0.78 95% CI (0.69, 0.89)]. For nonfatal stroke, DPP-4is and SGLT-2is have no statistically significant difference [OR: 0.99 95% CI (0.91, 1.07)].ConclusionThese data indicate that SGLT-2is is more beneficial to MACE and all-cause mortality in T2DM patients than DPP-4is.     

Cardiovascular effectiveness of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis based on propensity score-matched studies

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) are two novel classes of hypoglycemic agents. The relative cardiovascular effectiveness between these two drug classes in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is unestablished due to the absence of large cardiovascular outcome trials directly comparing DPP-4i with GLP-1RA. We aimed to incorporate large propensity score-matched cohort studies to conduct a meta-analysis, to determine the relative effectiveness of GLP-1RA versus DPP-4i on cardiovascular endpoints in T2D patients. Compared to DPP-4i, GLP-1RA was associated with the significantly lower risks of major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE] (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63?0.92), cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37?0.95), myocardial infarction (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80?0.98), stroke (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76?0.96), and all-cause mortality (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42?0.96) in T2D patients; whereas these two drug classes had the similar risk of hospitalization for heart failure [HHF] (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77–1.16). Meta-regression analyses showed that six factors (i.e., mean age, female proportion, cardiovascular disease proportion, heart failure proportion, and the proportions of receiving metformin and insulin at baseline) did not significantly affect the effects of GLP-1RA on MACE and HHF (P ≥ 0.076). This meta-analysis provides the direct evidence regarding the relative cardiovascular effectiveness of GLP-1RA versus DPP-4i from real-world studies, and its findings suggest that among T2D patients GLP-1RA should be considered in preference to DPP-4i as for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and death in clinical practice.     

Cardiovascular outcomes with SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonist in Asians with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials

Background and aimsBoth type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular (CV) disease develops at a younger age in Asians and often have a higher risk of mortality. Both sodium-glucose co-transport-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2Is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) have shown a significant reduction in CV end-points in CV outcome trials (CVOTs). Whether similar CV benefit exists in Asians, is not yet clearly known.MethodsWe systematically searched relevant medical database up to January 31, 2020 and retrieved all the dedicated CVOTs conducted with SGLT-2Is and GLP-1RAs. Subsequently, we meta-analyzed the pooled data of hazard ratio (HR) of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in Asians. We additionally analyzed the data of heart failure hospitalization (HHF) or CV-death with SGLT-2Is in Asians.ResultsThe meta-analysis of three CVOTs conducted with SGLT-2Is (N = 4987), did not find any significant reduction in MACE (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.15; P = 0.35) and HHF or CV-death (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.36; P = 0.53) in Asians, compared to the placebo. In contrast, the meta-analysis of seven CVOTs conducted with GLP-1RAs (N = 4298) demonstrated a significant reduction in MACE, compared to the placebo (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.86; P < 0.0001).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis found a significant reduction in MACE with GLP-1RAs but not with SGLT-2Is in Asians. No significant reduction in HHF or CV-death demonstrated either with SGLT-2Is in Asians. Whether these results are related to an inadequate statistical power, or due to underrepresentation of Asians, or a true ethnic difference, remains to be established.     

FDA guidance on antihyperglyacemic therapies for type 2 diabetes: One decade later

In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a guidance to industry statement concerning evaluation of the cardiovascular (CV) safety of new antihyperglycaemic therapies for type 2 diabetes. Fifteen CV outcome trials assessing three novel classes of antihyperglycaemic therapies, DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors, were completed by the end of 2018 and several others are ongoing. In addition, one comparative insulin trial also has been completed. None of these trials reported an increase in risk for major adverse CV events (MACE), and six agents have demonstrated CV benefits. This experience has led to the first FDA-approved indications for antihyperglycaemic medications to reduce the risk of CV death (empagliflozin) and to reduce the risk of MACE (liraglutide, canagliflozin), both indications specific to patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Because of the aggregate results from dedicated CV outcomes trials conducted in response to the FDA guidance statement, the contemporary paradigm for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes has evolved substantially. However, the guidance has substantially increased the cost of developing new medications to address this important disease that afflicts hundreds of millions of adults worldwide, with reduction in quality of life as well as in life expectancy. The cost burden of drug development of medications proven effective that may directly impact cost to patients and to their insurers might be alleviated by modifications to the present guidance statement. These include areas of trial design, aspects of trial operation, expansion of composite outcomes to include broader component CV outcomes and continued evolution of analytic methodology. The guidance statement will benefit from consideration of a number of modifications to support continued innovation and, of course, the safety of marketed medications for type 2 diabetes. However, the requirement to assess each new antihyperglycaemic medication in at least one large-scale standard randomized clinical outcomes trial should remain, so that clinicians can be reassured about the favourable efficacy/safety profiles of the medications they prescribe.     

Do GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2is reduce cardiovascular events in women with type 2 diabetes? A systematic review and meta-analysis

AimsThe risk of cardiovascular disease is often underestimated in women. This leads to a delay in controlling the risk factors for cardiovascular disease and even delays in prescribing medications with cardiovascular benefit. Our aim was to explore if glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) medications would reduce cardiovascular events in women with type 2 diabetes when atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) predominates.Materials and methodsWe searched for randomized trials comparing GLP-1RA or SGLT-2i to placebo in people with type 2 diabetes and had a primary outcome exploring major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Data concerning women were then extracted. A sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed according to the class of diabetes medication.ResultsA total of 9 trials (GLP-1RA in 6 trials and SGLT-2i in 3) were included. Of the 84,258 participants enrolled, 30,784 (37%) participants were women. Pooled results showed a statistically significant lower incidence of MACE favouring diabetes medications (GLP-1RA or SGLT-2i) compared to placebo (RR [95%CI] = 0.87 [0.80, 0.94]). On restricting the analysis to GLP-1RA then to SGLT-2i, results remained significant with GLP-1RA but not SGLT-2i.ConclusionsIn women with type 2 diabetes who either have increased cardiovascular risk or established cardiovascular disease and ASCVD predominates, GLP-1RA significantly reduce the incidence of MACE while SGLT-2i result in a non-significant reduction. SGLT-2i may have comparable effect when examined in more studies. GLP-1RA and SGLT-2i should be considered without delay in women with type 2 diabetes and increased risk for cardiovascular disease.     

Gender difference in cardiovascular outcomes with SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonist in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cardio-vascular outcome trials

Background and aimsType 2 diabetes confers a differential risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease according to the gender. Whether newly approved anti-diabetic drugs like sodium-glucose co-transport-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2Is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) that have shown a significant reduction in the CV end-points in CV outcome trials (CVOTs) also have a differential impact gender-wise, is still not clearly known.MethodsWe systematically searched the medical database up to December 31, 2019 and retrieved all the dedicated CVOTs conducted with SGLT-2Is and GLP-1RAs that explicitly reported the outcome of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Subsequently, we pooled the hazard ratio (HR) of MACE in both sexes separately and meta-analyzed the result gender-wise.ResultsThe meta-analysis of three CVOTs conducted with SGLT-2Is (N = 34,322), demonstrated a significant reduction in MACE in men but not in women (Men - HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.97; P = 0.006; Women - HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.00; P = 0.06) compared to placebo. The meta-analysis of seven CVOTs conducted with GLP-1RAs (N = 56,004) demonstrated a significant reduction in MACE in both sex (Men - HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.93; P < 0.0001; Women - HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.99; P = 0.03), against the placebo.ConclusionsThe reduction in MACE with SGLT-2Is appears to be significantly less in women with diabetes vs men, while GLP-1RAs confers a similar reduction in MACE, irrespective of the gender. Whether these results are related to inadequate statistical power (underrepresentation of women) in CVOT, or it reflects a true gender difference, still remains to be established.     

Cardiovascular Outcomes with SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure with or without type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and aimsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with SGLT-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) in patients with known heart failure (HF) with or without type 2 diabetes (T2DM), that have studied the outcomes of cardiovascular (CV) death, hospitalization due to HF (HHF), and composite of CV death or HHF.MethodsA systematic search in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library database were made up till November 20, 2020 using specific keywords. RCTs that qualified underwent a meta-analysis by applying the inverse variance-weighted averages of pooled logarithmic hazard ratio (HR) using both random- and fixed-effects model.ResultsThis meta-analysis of 9 RCTs (N = 19,741) have found a significant 26% relative risk reduction in composite of CV death or HHF (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69–0.79; p < 0.001) with SGLT-2i in patients with HF. The meta-analysis of 8 RCTs (N = 16,460) also showed a significant reduction in CV death (HR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78–0.95; p = 0.003) and HHF (HR 0.68; 95% CI, 0.62–0.74; p < 0.001) outcomes with SGLT-2i in patients with HF. Subgroup analysis stratified on baseline ejection fraction (EF) showed a similar benefit in the composite of CV death or HHF in patients with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) or preserved EF (HFpEF).ConclusionsSGLT-2i significantly reduces the composite of CV death or HHF, CV death, and HHF in patients with HF. Although subgroup analysis suggested an insignificant P_heterogenity for these outcomes irrespective of the types of HF, however, reduction in both CV death and HHF were more pronounced in patients with HFrEF.     

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists or sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors as add-on therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes? A systematic review and meta-analysis of surrogate metabolic endpoints

ObjectiveAs sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are second-line treatment options in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), our study sought to provide precise effect estimates regarding the role of GLP-1RAs vs SGLT-2is as add-on treatments in patients uncontrolled by metformin monotherapy.Research design and methodsPubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and ‘grey literature’ were searched from their inception up to December 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with durations ≥ 12 weeks to evaluate the safety and efficacy of adding a GLP-1RA vs an SGLT-2i in patients with T2DM.ResultsThree eligible RCTs were identified. Administration of GLP-1RAs vs SGLT-2is resulted in significant decreases in HbA1c with no significant impact on either body weight or fasting plasma glucose. GLP-1RA treatment led to a significant increase in odds for achieving an HbA1c < 7% compared with SGLT-2is, whereas no difference was detected in body weight reductions of > 5%. Significantly greater risk for any hypoglycaemia, nausea and diarrhoea, and lower risk for genital infections, was also observed with GLP-1RAs, while no differences regarding severe hypoglycaemia, treatment discontinuation and impact on blood pressure levels were identified. No other major safety issues arose.ConclusionOur meta-analysis suggests that GLP-1RAs provide better glycaemic effects than SGLT-2is in patients with T2DM uncontrolled by metformin, albeit while increasing risk for hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal adverse events.     

Comparable COVID-19 outcomes with current use of GLP-1 receptor agonists,DPP-4 inhibitors or SGLT-2 inhibitors among patients with diabetes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2

Incretin-based therapies, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), have been hypothesized to exert beneficial effects on COVID-19 outcomes due to anti-inflammatory properties. In this population-based cohort study, we retrieved data from nationwide registries on all individuals diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection up to 1 November 2020. For individuals with diabetes, we examined the impact of use of GLP-1 RAs (n = 370) and DPP-4i (n = 284) compared with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) (n = 342) on risk of hospital admission and severe outcomes. Relative risks (RRs) were calculated after applying propensity score weighted methods to control for confounding. Current users of GLP-1 RAs had an adjusted RR of 0.89 (95% confidence interval 0.34-2.33), while users of DPP-4i had an adjusted RR of 2.42 (95% confidence interval 0.99-5.89) for 30-day mortality compared with SGLT-2i use. Further, use of GLP-1 RAs or DPP-4i compared with SGLT-2i was not associated with decreased risk of hospital admission. Thus, use of incretin-based therapies in individuals with diabetes and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was not associated with improved clinical outcomes.     

Comparison of the effects of 10 GLP-1 RA and SGLT2 inhibitor interventions on cardiovascular,mortality, and kidney outcomes in type 2 diabetes: A network meta-analysis of large randomized trials

The relative efficacy of different sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in reducing cardiorenal events in type 2 diabetic adults is unclear. We searched PubMed and Embase. Three primary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), and kidney function progression (KFP). Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We calculated surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to rank drug treatments. Subcutaneous semaglutide (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55?0.96) and albiglutide (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63?0.93) significantly reduced MACE versus lixisenatide. Canagliflozin (HRs: 0.69, 0.68, 0.67 and 0.58) and empagliflozin (HRs: 0.70, 0.69, 0.68 and 0.59) significantly reduced HHF versus dulaglutide, exenatide, lixisenatide and subcutaneous semaglutide. Dapagliflozin (HRs: 0.62, 0.60, 0.68 and 0.63) and empagliflozin (HRs: 0.64, 0.61, 0.69 and 0.64) significantly reduced KFP versus dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide and lixisenatide. Different drug treatments had the maximum SUCRA values as for preventing different cardiorenal endpoints. Different GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors have different efficacy in preventing cardiorenal endpoints in type 2 diabetes, and the most efficacious drugs are different as for preventing different cardiorenal endpoints.     

Cardiovascular efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: A meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials

BACKGROUND Dipeptidyl peptidase-4(DPP-4) inhibitors are a generally safe and well tolerated antidiabetic drug class with proven efficacy in type 2 diabetes mellitus(T2 DM). Recently, a series of large, randomized controlled trials(RCTs) addressing cardiovascular outcomes with DPP-4 inhibitors have been published.AIM To pool data from the aforementioned trials concerning the impact of DPP-4 inhibitors on surrogate cardiovascular efficacy outcomes and on major cardiac arrhythmias.METHODS We searched PubMed and grey literature sources for all published RCTs assessing cardiovascular outcomes with DPP-4 inhibitors compared to placebo until October 2020. We extracted data concerning the following "hard" efficacy outcomes: fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, hospitalization for unstable angina, hospitalization for coronary revascularization and cardiovascular death. We also extracted data regarding the risk for major cardiac arrhythmias, such as atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, ventricular fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia.RESULTS We pooled data from 6 trials in a total of 52520 patients with T2 DM assigned either to DPP-4 inhibitor or placebo. DPP-4 inhibitors compared to placebo led to a non-significant increase in the risk for fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction [risk ratio(RR) = 1.02, 95%CI: 0.94-1.11, I2 = 0%], hospitalization for heart failure(RR = 1.09, 95%CI: 0.92-1.29, I2 = 65%) and cardiovascular death(RR = 1.02, 95%CI: 0.93-1.11, I2 = 0%). DPP-4 inhibitors resulted in a non-significant decrease in the risk for fatal and non-fatal stroke(RR = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.85-1.08, I2 = 0%) and coronary revascularization(RR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.90-1.09, I2 = 0%), Finally, DPP-4 inhibitors demonstrated a neutral effect on the risk for hospitalization due to unstable angina(RR = 1.00, 95%CI: 0.85-1.18, I2 = 0%). As far as cardiac arrhythmias are concerned, DPP-4 inhibitors did not significantly affect the risk for atrial fibrillation(RR = 0.95, 95%CI: 0.78-1.17, I2 = 0%), while they were associated with a significant increase in the risk for atrial flutter, equal to 52%(RR = 1.52, 95%CI: 1.03-2.24, I2 = 0%). DPP-4 inhibitors did not have a significant impact on the risk for any of the rest assessed cardiac arrhythmias.CONCLUSION DPP-4 inhibitors do not seem to confer any significant cardiovascular benefit for patients with T2 DM, while they do not seem to be associated with a significant risk for any major cardiac arrhythmias, except for atrial flutter. Therefore, this drug class should not be the treatment of choice for patients with established cardiovascular disease or multiple risk factors, except for those cases when newer antidiabetics(glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors) are not tolerated, contraindicated or not affordable for the patient.     

Heart failure outcomes and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: A systematic review of observational studies

Aim/objectiveRecently, the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) class showed a significant reduction in heart failure (HF) hospitalization in several meta-analyses of cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs). The objective of this systematic review is to summarize the real-world evidence regarding HF outcomes of GLP-1RAs.MethodsWe searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases for observational studies that investigated HF outcomes of GLP-1RAs.ResultsOur search yielded 10 observational studies. Of those, 7 were cohort studies, and 3 were nested case-control studies. The risk of HF was the outcome in four cohort studies. One study that compared exenatide and exenatide combined with insulin to insulin showed a reduction in HF risk in the exenatide and exenatide plus insulin groups (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.22−0.52, p-value <0.001 and HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.32−0.50, p-value <0.001, respectively). The other three cohort studies did not show a statistically significant result. In the three cohort studies that investigated HF hospitalization as an outcome, two showed a lower rate of HF hospitalization [48 (16.7%) vs. 76 (28%), p-value <0.05 and HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34−0.77, p = 0.002] in the GLP-1RA groups. Conversely, the remaining study showed a reduction of 14% in HF hospitalization in the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) group compared to the GLP-1RA group (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.83−0.90). In contrast to the cohort studies, the three nested case-control studies showed similar results of no association of GLP-1RA use and HF hospitalization with OR 0.67 (95% CI 0.32–1.42), HR 0.95 (95% CI 0.83–1.10), and OR 0.84 (95% CI 0.48–1.47), respectively.ConclusionThe real-world evidence regarding the reduction in HF risk and hospitalization in GLP-1RA users is conflicting. Further well-designed, large multicenter, observational studies are needed to show clearer evidence.     

Efficacy and safety of glucose-lowering agents in patients with type 2 diabetes: A network meta-analysis of randomized,active comparator-controlled trials

AimAim of the present network meta-analysis (NMA) is the comparison across glucose-lowering drugs (GLA) concerning their effects on glucose control, body weight, hypoglycemia, gastrointestinal adverse events, and quality of life.Data synthesisThis NMA includes randomized clinical trials comparing different head-to-head comparison trials with EMA-approved GLA in type 2 diabetes, with a duration of ≥52 weeks. All drugs have to be administered at the maximal approved dose. Primary endpoints were HbA1c at 12, 52, and 104+ weeks. Secondary endpoints were body weight, quality of life, hypoglycemia, and gastrointestinal disorders. Indirect comparisons of different GLA were performed by NMA choosing metformin as reference. The standardized difference in means (SDM) and Mantel-Haenzel Odds Ratio [MH–OR] (using random-effect models) with 95% Confidence Intervals were calculated for categorical and continuous variables, respectively.We included 68 trials fulfilling all inclusion criteria. At 12 weeks, when considering indirect comparisons, insulin secretagogues (IS) were associated with a significantly greater reduction in comparison with metformin (SDM, ?0.3 [-0.4;-0.2]%); a significantly lower efficacy was observed for pioglitazone. At 52 weeks, IS were no longer associated with a greater reduction of HbA1c; whereas a significant decrease in HbA1c was observed for GLP-1 RA (SDM, ?0.2 [-0.1;-0.3]%). At 104+ weeks, only SGLT-2 inhibitors showed a significantly greater HbA1c reduction (SDM, ?0.2 [-0.1;-0.3]%), whereas sulfonylureas and insulin showed a significantly lower efficacy (SDM, 0.1 [0.0; 0.2]%), and 0.4 [0.3; 0.5]%, respectively).ConclusionsThe results of this meta-analysis should be considered together with evidence on long-term outcomes for selecting the most appropriate drugs for individual patients.     

Metabolic and cardiovascular benefits with combination therapy of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes

Both GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and SGLT-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2I) are newer classes of anti-diabetic agents that lower HbA1c moderately and decrease body weight and systolic blood pressure (SBP) modestly. Combination therapy with GLP-1RA plus SGLT-2I have shown a greater reduction in HbA1c, body weight, and SBP compared to either agent alone without any significant increase in hypoglycemia or other side effects. Since several agents from each class of these drugs have shown an improvement in cardiovascular (CV) and renal outcomes in their respective cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOT), combination therapy is theoretically expected to have additional CV and renal benefits. In this comprehensive opinion review, we found HbA1c lowering with GLP-1RA plus SGLT-2I to be less than additive compared to the sum of HbA1c lowering with either agent alone, although body weight lowering was nearly additive and the SBP lowering was more than additive. Our additional meta-analysis of CV outcomes with GLP-1RA plus SGLT-2I combination therapy from the pooled data of five CVOT found a similar reduction in three-point major adverse cardiovascular events compared to GLP-1RA or SGLT-2I alone, against placebo. Interestingly, a greater benefit in reduction of heart failure hospitalization with GLP-1RA plus SGLT-2I combination therapy was noted in the pooled meta-analysis of two randomized controlled trials. Future adequately powered trials can confirm whether additional CV or renal benefit is truly exerted by GLP-1RA plus SGLT-2I combination therapy.     

The Effectiveness of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists on Cardiorenal Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BackgroundEvidence for the cardiorenal risk reduction properties of antihyperglycemic medications originally prescribed for type 2 diabetes, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) is rapidly emerging. We completed a meta-analysis of recent literature to provide evidence-based estimates of benefit across various populations and outcomes.MethodsWe searched Medline and Cochrane databases from 2015 to September 2021 for randomized controlled trials of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA with placebo control. Reviewers screened citations, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence. We assessed statistical and methodological heterogeneity and performed a meta-analysis of studies with similar interventions and components.ResultsA total of 137,621 adults (51% male) from 19 studies were included; 14 studies with unclear risk of bias and 5 with low risk of bias. Compared with standard of care, use of SGLT2i showed significant reductions for the outcome of cardiovascular (CV) mortality (14%), any-cause mortality (13%), major adverse CV events (MACE) (12%), heart failure (HF) hospitalization (31%), CV death or HF hospitalization (24%), nonfatal myocardial infarction (10%), and kidney composite outcome (36%). Treatment with GLP-1RA was associated with significant reductions for the outcome of CV mortality (13%), any-cause mortality (12%), MACE (14%), CV death or HF hospitalization (11%), nonfatal stroke (16%), and kidney composite outcome (22%).ConclusionsThe use of GLP-1RA and SGLT2i leads to a statistically significant benefit across most cardiorenal outcomes in the populations studied. This review shows a role for SGLT2i and GLP-1RA in cardiorenal protection in adults, independent of type 2 diabetes status.     

Cardiovascular and mortality outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis with the FREEDOM cardiovascular outcomes trial

Background and aimsFREEDOM, a cardiovascular outcome trial with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, testing a continuous subcutaneous infusion of exenatide (ITCA 650), recently reported its findings.MethodsWe meta-analysed its results with eight prior GLP-1 receptor agonists trials.ResultsGLP-1 receptor agonists reduced MACE by 13% (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.81–0.94]; p = 0.00065) and all-cause mortality by 11% (HR 0.89 [0.83–0.95]; p = 0.00084). However, FREEDOM results appear dissimilar to prior GLP-1 receptor agonist trials.ConclusionFREEDOM results should not influence current considerations about the benefits or harms of approved formulations of GLP-1 receptor agonists. There is also an ongoing debate about the safety of ITCA 650.     

Comparative efficacy of 5 sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor and 7 glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists interventions on cardiorenal outcomes in type 2 diabetes patients: A network meta-analysis based on cardiovascular or renal outcome trials

Background:Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have been demonstrated to be able to improve the cardiovascular and renal prognosis in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the relative efficacy of various SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RAs on cardiorenal outcomes is unestablished.Methods:We searched PubMed and Embase for relevant cardiovascular or renal outcome trials (CVOTs). Endpoints of interest were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death (CVD), all-cause death (ACD), kidney function progression (KFP), and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to produce pooled hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We calculated the probability values of surface under the cumulative ranking curve to rank active and placebo interventions.Results:Fourteen COVTs were included in analysis. Sotagliflozin (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61–0.94), subcutaneous semaglutide, and albiglutide lowered MACE versus lixisenatide among others. Sotagliflozin (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40–0.89), canagliflozin, and empagliflozin lowered HHF versus subcutaneous semaglutide among others. Dapagliflozin and empagliflozin lowered KFP versus exenatide among others. Empagliflozin and oral semaglutide lowered CVD versus dapagliflozin among others. Sotagliflozin (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47–0.91) and albiglutide lowered MI versus ertugliflozin among others. Sotagliflozin (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37–0.85) and subcutaneous semaglutide lowered stroke versus empagliflozin among others. Oral semaglutide and empagliflozin lowered ACD versus subcutaneous semaglutide among others. The maximum surface under the cumulative ranking curve values followed sotagliflozin, subcutaneous semaglutide, and albiglutide in lowering MACE; sotagliflozin, canagliflozin, and empagliflozin in lowering HHF; dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in lowering KFP; empagliflozin and oral semaglutide in lowering CVD; sotagliflozin and albiglutide in lowering MI; sotagliflozin and subcutaneous semaglutide in lowering stroke; and oral semaglutide and empagliflozin in lowering ACD.Conclusions:This updated network meta-analysis reproduced the findings in the first network meta-analysis, and moreover revealed that sotagliflozin was one of the most effective drugs as for lowering MI, stroke, MACE, and HHF, whereas ertugliflozin was not. These findings will provide the according evidence regarding the usage of specific SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RAs in T2D patients for prevention of specific cardiorenal endpoints.     

Do SGLT-2 inhibitors exhibit similar cardiovascular benefit in patients having reduced ejection fraction heart failure with type 2 diabetes,prediabetes and normoglycemia?

Background and aimsWe aimed to know whether SGLT-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2I) exhibit similar cardiovascular (CV) benefit in patients having reduced ejection fraction heart failure (HFrEF) with varying degree of glycemia.MethodWe meta-analyzed the trial-level hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval of randomized trials that reported the CV outcomes stratified in to three subgroups of normoglycemia, prediabetes and diabetes.ResultsThis meta-analysis found a significant and similar CV risk reduction in patients with HFrEF without any significant interaction between three subgroups (P_Intercation = 0.98).ConclusionsSGLT-2I exhibit similar CV risk reduction in HFrEF, regardless of baseline glycemic status. However, this finding is limited to pooled data from only 2 studies in people without T2DM.     

Incretin-based glucose-lowering medications and the risk of acute pancreatitis and malignancies: a meta-analysis based on cardiovascular outcomes trials

Some epidemiological data have suggested an elevated risk of acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer after exposure to glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors. Recently, such outcomes have been assessed and adjudicated as adverse events of special interest in cardiovascular outcomes studies. We performed a meta-analysis of cases of acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer as well as any malignant neoplasm reported in cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs) with GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors. The numbers of cases observed with active drug or placebo (both on a background of standard care) were related to patient-years of observation. Rate ratios and their confidence intervals were calculated for the individual agents as well as for the classes of GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors. Neither data on individual CVOTs of GLP-1 receptor agonists nor their meta-analysis [rate ratio: 1.05 (0.78–1.41)] indicated a significantly elevated risk of acute pancreatitis. All individual DPP-4 inhibitors displayed a non-significant trend towards an increased risk of acute pancreatitis, which was significant in the meta-analysis [1.75 (1.14–2.70); P = 0.01]. Neither GLP-1 receptor agonists nor DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with a significantly elevated or reduced risk of pancreatic cancer or for the totality of all malignant neoplasms. Based on a large database of randomized, placebo-controlled, prospective cardiovascular outcomes studies with GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors, no signal for pancreatic cancer or any malignant neoplasms were detected. However, a 75% risk increase for the development of an acute pancreatitis was seen in the meta-analysis of DPP-4 inhibitor CVOTs.