MedElevator
Войти в исследования Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025
Heterogeneity of Cardiovascular Effects of Second-Line Glucose-Lowering Therapies in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Across the Range of Moderate Baseline Cardiovascular Risk.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Deng Yihong, Polley Eric C, Herrin Jeph, Swarna Kavya S, Kent David M, Ross Joseph S, Maron Bradley A, Mickelson Mindy M, McCoy Rozalina G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) have favorable cardiovascular outcomes compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is) and sulfonylureas in adults with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk. How these benefits vary across lower levels of cardiovascular risk is unknown.
METHODS: We used nationwide claims data to emulate a comparative effectiveness trial and examine the heterogeneity of treatment effects of GLP-1RAs, SGLT2is, DPP4is, and sulfonylureas on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) among adults with type 2 diabetes and moderate cardiovascular risk (annualized MACE risk 1%-5%, estimated using the annualized claims-based MACE estimator).
RESULTS: Among 386 276 included adults with type 2 diabetes, 25.2% had baseline ACME-predicted MACE risk >1% to ≤2% (lower-risk patients) and 13.3% had ACME-predicted risk >4% to ≤5% (higher-risk patients). By year 3 of treatment, higher-risk patients derived greater absolute benefit than lower-risk patients when treated with GLP-1RAs versus sulfonylureas (absolute reduction in the estimated rate of MACE of 3.1% in higher-risk patients and 1.6% in lower-risk patients), SGLT2is versus sulfonylureas (absolute reduction, 3.9% in higher-risk patients and 1.3% in lower-risk patients), and GLP-1RAs versus DPP4is (absolute reduction, 1.6% in higher-risk patients and 0.5% in lower-risk patients). The relative benefits for MACE were also greater in higher-risk than lower-risk patients with SGLT2is versus DPP4is (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78 [95% CI, 0.70-0.87] in higher-risk patients; HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.88-1.12] in lower-risk patients). Conversely, the relative benefits of DPP4is and GLP-1RAs versus sulfonylureas were greater in lower-risk patients: HR 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71-0.81) in lower-risk and HR 0.91 (95% CI, 0.97-0.96) in higher-risk patients for DPP4is versus sulfonylureas; HR 0.67 (95% CI, 0.58-0.78) in lower-risk and HR 0.80 (95% CI, 0.70-0.93) in higher-risk patients for GLP-1RAs versus sulfonylurea. Benefits of SGLT2is and GLP-1RAs were comparable across all risk levels.
CONCLUSIONS: Cardiovascular benefits of SGLT2is and GLP-1RAs exist across all levels of moderate cardiovascular risk, reinforcing the importance of choosing glucose-lowering therapies that can prevent MACE in all people with type 2 diabetes.
METHODS: We used nationwide claims data to emulate a comparative effectiveness trial and examine the heterogeneity of treatment effects of GLP-1RAs, SGLT2is, DPP4is, and sulfonylureas on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) among adults with type 2 diabetes and moderate cardiovascular risk (annualized MACE risk 1%-5%, estimated using the annualized claims-based MACE estimator).
RESULTS: Among 386 276 included adults with type 2 diabetes, 25.2% had baseline ACME-predicted MACE risk >1% to ≤2% (lower-risk patients) and 13.3% had ACME-predicted risk >4% to ≤5% (higher-risk patients). By year 3 of treatment, higher-risk patients derived greater absolute benefit than lower-risk patients when treated with GLP-1RAs versus sulfonylureas (absolute reduction in the estimated rate of MACE of 3.1% in higher-risk patients and 1.6% in lower-risk patients), SGLT2is versus sulfonylureas (absolute reduction, 3.9% in higher-risk patients and 1.3% in lower-risk patients), and GLP-1RAs versus DPP4is (absolute reduction, 1.6% in higher-risk patients and 0.5% in lower-risk patients). The relative benefits for MACE were also greater in higher-risk than lower-risk patients with SGLT2is versus DPP4is (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78 [95% CI, 0.70-0.87] in higher-risk patients; HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.88-1.12] in lower-risk patients). Conversely, the relative benefits of DPP4is and GLP-1RAs versus sulfonylureas were greater in lower-risk patients: HR 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71-0.81) in lower-risk and HR 0.91 (95% CI, 0.97-0.96) in higher-risk patients for DPP4is versus sulfonylureas; HR 0.67 (95% CI, 0.58-0.78) in lower-risk and HR 0.80 (95% CI, 0.70-0.93) in higher-risk patients for GLP-1RAs versus sulfonylurea. Benefits of SGLT2is and GLP-1RAs were comparable across all risk levels.
CONCLUSIONS: Cardiovascular benefits of SGLT2is and GLP-1RAs exist across all levels of moderate cardiovascular risk, reinforcing the importance of choosing glucose-lowering therapies that can prevent MACE in all people with type 2 diabetes.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
HumansDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2MaleFemaleCardiovascular DiseasesMiddle AgedSodium-Glucose Transporter 2 InhibitorsDipeptidyl-Peptidase IV InhibitorsAgedHypoglycemic AgentsGlucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor AgonistsSulfonylurea CompoundsRisk AssessmentBlood GlucoseHeart Disease Risk FactorsUnited StatesTreatment OutcomeAdult