Abstract
Aims/hypothesis
Several cardiovascular outcome trials on sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have been released recently, including trials enrolling patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Comparisons of the efficacy and safety of SGLT2i, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) thus require an update. Assessments in patient subgroups, i.e., as stratified by age or the presence of CHF, CKD or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), are also currently lacking.
Methods
We searched the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases for relevant studies published up until 5 December 2020. RCTs comparing SGLT2i, GLP-1RA and DPP-4i with placebo (or other controls) or with each other with cardiovascular (CV) or renal outcomes were eligible for inclusion. The primary efficacy endpoint was 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events (3P-MACE), which are defined as CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal ischaemic stroke. All-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure (HHF) and composite renal outcomes were also analysed. Pre-specified subgroup analyses of 3P-MACE were also performed.
Results
A total of 21 trials with 170,930 participants were included in this network meta-analysis. Both GLP-1RA and SGLT2i were associated with lower risks of 3P-MACE than placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84, 0.94 and RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83, 0.94, respectively). GLP-1RA and SGLT2i were also associated with lower risks of 3P-MACE than DPP-4i (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82, 0.98 and RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81, 0.97, respectively). A comparison between SGLT2i and GLP-1RA demonstrated no difference in their risks of 3P-MACE (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91, 1.08). Only GLP-1RA was associated with a lower risk of stroke compared with placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76, 0.94). SGLT2i is superior to GLP-1RA in reducing HHF (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.68, 0.84) and renal outcomes (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65, 0.93). Subgroup analyses indicated that the benefits of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA were more pronounced in elderly patients, white and Asian patients, those with established ASCVD and those with longer durations of diabetes mellitus and worse glycaemic control.
Conclusions/interpretation
SGLT2i and GLP-1RA are superior to DPP-4i in terms of CV and renal outcomes. GLP-1RA is the only drug class that reduces the risk of stroke. SGLT2i is superior in reducing HHF and renal outcomes. Therefore, the choice between SGLT2i and GLP-1RA should be individualised according to patient profiles.
PROSPERO registration number:
CRD42020206600.
Graphical abstract
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a highly prevalent chronic disease, affecting approximately 8.5% of the adult population worldwide [1]. Diabetes is associated with high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) [2]; in fact, ASCVD accounts for more than 60% of deaths among individuals with diabetes [3, 4]. Historically, the development of antidiabetic agents had focused on glucose-lowering effects only. Since 2008, however, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has mandated that randomised placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) be completed for all new glucose-lowering candidate drugs to confirm their cardiovascular (CV) safety before approval [5, 6]. Intriguingly, various CVOTs have shown not only that sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) [7,8,9,10] and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) [11,12,13,14,15,16] are safe, but that they even provide better results than placebo in terms of CV outcomes. These results shifted the goals of diabetes management from focusing on glycaemic control only to actively improving CV outcomes.
Although the effects of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA on CV events have been scrutinised in previous meta-analyses [17,18,19], new data on this subject continue to be released, such that an update is warranted. As evidence of the efficacy of SGLT2i continues to grow, trials on these drugs have expanded their study populations from diabetes patients only to also include patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) or chronic kidney disease (CKD) but not diabetes. The Dapagliflozin in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease (DAPA-CKD) [20] trial was the first published SGLT2i CVOT that extended the enrolled population to patients with CKD either with or without diabetes. Over a median follow-up period of 2.4 years, the composite renal outcome was reduced by 39% in the dapagliflozin group compared with the placebo group, with significant concomitant reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and hospitalisation for heart failure (HHF). The DAPA-HF [21] trial was the first SGLT2i CVOT that specifically enrolled patients with CHF and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less. Over a median follow-up period of 18.2 months, the composite outcome of CV death or HHF was reduced significantly, by 26%, in the dapagliflozin group compared with the placebo group. Trials targeting patients with CHF or CKD with or without diabetes that followed included the EMPEROR-Reduced [22], SCORED [23] and SOLOIST-WHF [24] trials. These studies have added to the existing body of data and shed new light on the performance of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA in non-diabetic patients and the mechanisms of their hypoglycaemia-independent effects.
Current guidelines on the choice of glucose-lowering agents recommend an individualised approach considering the patient’s CV comorbidities, with SGLT2i or GLP-1RA suggested in patients who have established ASCVD, CHF or CKD, independent of HbA1c levels. However, data directly comparing SGLT2i and GLP-1RA are lacking, and further evidence is needed to guide clinical choices between these two types of agents. In addition, past conclusions from subgroup analyses of CVOTs were often limited by patient number, and direct comparisons of the effects of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA in various subgroups would be highly beneficial in terms of optimising the treatment of diabetes.
Since the release of the latest guideline updates and the most recent meta-analysis, at least five large outcome trials of SGLT2i have been published. In this current network meta-analysis, we included 21 RCTs in our analysis, including the most recently published trials, namely, the SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED trials. We aimed to compare the relative efficacy of SGLT2i, GLP-1RA and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) in terms of clinical outcomes. Besides a main analysis including MACE (a composite endpoint composed of myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, and CV death), all-cause mortality, HHF and composite renal outcomes, the effects of these drugs in several subgroups – e.g., as stratified by age or the presence of ASCVD, CHF or CKD – were also assessed.
Methods
The protocol of this study has been registered in PROSPERO (number CRD42020206600). The meta-analysis was performed according to the guidelines provided in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P).
Data sources and search strategies
Patients eligible for inclusion were those with or without diabetes who participated in randomised trials conducted to evaluate one of the three classes of novel glucose-lowering agents (SGLT2i, GLP-1RA or DPP-4i) with pre-specified follow-up for CV or renal outcomes or for all-cause mortality. The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for English-language studies published from the inception of each database up until 5 December 2020. The search scope was limited to published outcome trials (i.e., those with CV outcomes, heart failure outcomes or renal outcomes) evaluating novel glucose-lowering drug classes, including the SGLT2i, GLP-1RA and DPP-4i classes, in patients with or without diabetes. The search keywords included ‘sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor’, ‘glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist’, ‘dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor’, ‘major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)’, ‘cardiovascular risk’, ‘cardiovascular event’, ‘heart failure’, ‘renal outcome’, ‘chronic kidney disease’, and their synonyms and related keywords.
Outcomes
The primary outcome was the standard 3-point MACE (3P-MACE), which consisted of CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and non-fatal ischaemic stroke. The secondary outcomes were CV death, fatal or non-fatal MI, fatal or non-fatal ischaemic stroke, all-cause mortality, HHF and the composite renal outcome. The definitions of composite renal outcomes varied across the included trials, but most of them were composed of an eGFR decline greater than 40% or 50% and progressed to end-stage renal disease. Definitions of the composite renal outcomes in each of the included trials are listed in electronic supplementary material (ESM) Table 1.
Data extraction
The following data were extracted for the included studies: name of trial, year of publication, total number of patients, patient demographics (including age and sex), definition of population (diabetes, CHF or CKD), and information regarding subgroup variables (age, sex, BMI, BP control, race, use of metformin, ASCVD, diabetes duration, HbA1c, eGFR, and CHF history) (Table 1). As for the extraction of outcome data, we extracted the sample size and number of events in each arm. For some situations, especially the subgroup analysis, we extracted the reported HR or adjusted HR that had been calculated by the study authors. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess the risk of bias for the studies enrolled in our analysis.
Statistical analysis
The comparison of outcomes among the different glucose-lowering drug classes was made using the frequentist approach and multivariate meta-analysis estimated by restricted maximum likelihood. Pooled random-effects RRs, which were calculated directly from the reported tabular table (sample size and number of events), were chosen as the summary statistics. The pairwise comparisons among the treatment (SGLT2i, GLP-1RA and DPP-4i) and control groups were made using visual forest plots rather than tables. The overall heterogeneity of all the comparisons was assessed using the I2 statistic, in which values of >25%, >50% and >75% corresponded to mild, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively. There were no direct comparisons between any two classes in all the trials; therefore, there was no evaluation of inconsistency between the direct and indirect effects in this network meta-analysis. The potential publication bias was assessed using the visual funnel plot (control as the reference category) with the Egger’s test in the traditional meta-analysis.
Focusing on 3P-MACE, we conducted several subgroup analyses according to pre-specified subgroup variables, including age (dichotomised by 65 years), sex, BMI (dichotomised by 30 kg/m2), BP control (lower BP levels: good; higher BP levels: poor), race (white, black and Asian), use of metformin at baseline, pre-existing ASCVD, diabetes duration (dichotomised by 10 years), HbA1c at baseline (lower vs higher), baseline renal function (eGFR ≥60 vs <60 ml min−1 [1.73 m]−2), and the diagnosis of CHF. The network meta-analysis was carried out using the statistical package ‘netmeta’ (version 1.2-1; updated by 16 April 2020) in R (version 3.6.3).
Results
Results of the search
The initial search identified 762 citations. After critical assessment of these papers, 21 RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1), with a total of 170,930 participants.
Study characteristics
The characteristics of the 21 included studies are presented in Table 1. The enrolled studies were published from 2013 to 2020. Of these studies, ten compared SGLT2i (the EMPA-REG OUTCOME, CANVAS, DECLARE-TIMI 58, DAPA-HF, CREDENCE, VERTIS CV, DAPA-CKD, EMPEROR-Reduced, SOLOIST-WHF, and SCORED studies), seven compared GLP-1RA (the ELIXA, SUSTAIN-6, LEADER, EXSCEL, Harmony Outcomes, REWIND, and PIONEER 6 studies), and four compared DPP-4i (the EXAMINE, SAVOR-TIMI 53, TECOS, and CARMELINA studies) against placebo. At present, however, there have still been no trials conducted to directly compare the CV outcomes of these three classes of glucose-lowering agents.
Risk of bias
All the 21 trials met the criteria for low risk of bias. The detailed results of the risk-of-bias assessments are provided in the supplementary materials (ESM Fig. 1).
3P-MACE and the individual components
ESM Fig. 2 shows the network of comparisons for the outcomes in these studies. Figure 2a–d shows the results of all the clinical outcomes. The results showed that both GLP-1RA and SGLT2i were associated with lower risks for 3P-MACE than placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84, 0.94 and RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83, 0.94, respectively). GLP-1RA and SGLT2i were also associated with lower risks of 3P-MACE than DPP-4i (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82, 0.98 and RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81, 0.97, respectively). The comparison between SGLT2i and GLP-1RA demonstrated no difference in their risks of 3P-MACE (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91, 1.08). The comparison between DPP-4i and placebo also suggested no difference in their frequencies of 3P-MACE (Fig. 2a). In addition, the overall heterogeneity was moderate, with an I2 of 30.9% (95% CI 0%, 62.2%).
As for fatal or non-fatal MI, both GLP-1RA and SGLT2i were associated with lower risks than placebo (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85, 0.998 and RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81, 0.98, respectively). SGLT2i and GLP-1RA were also associated with lower risks than DPP-4i, although the differences in risks were not statistically significant (Fig. 2b). In terms of fatal or non-fatal stroke, only the GLP-1RA class was associated with lower risks than placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76, 0.94). The results also demonstrated that the GLP-1RA class was associated with a lower risk of stroke than SGLT2i and DDP4i, although the differences in risks were not statistically significant (Fig. 2c). With respect to CV death, both GLP-1RA and SGLT2i were associated with lower risks than placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81, 0.97 and RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80, 0.93, respectively). Noticeably, both SGLT2i (to a significant degree) and GLP-1RA (to a borderline significant degree) were also associated with lower risks for CV death than DPP-4i. The comparison between SGLT2i and GLP-1RA revealed no difference in terms of CV mortality (Fig. 2d). In addition, the overall heterogeneity levels of MI, stroke and CV death were low (I2 = 24.3%), low (I2 = 7.8%), and low (I2 = 16.5%), respectively.
Other clinical outcomes
The results demonstrated that both GLP-1RA and SGLT2i were associated with lower risks of all-cause mortality than placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83, 0.96, and RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81, 0.93, respectively). Both SGLT2i (to a significant degree) and GLP-1RA (to a borderline significant degree) were also associated with reduced risks of all-cause mortality compared with DPP-4i. The comparison between SGLT2i and GLP-1RA showed similar effects for the two classes on all-cause mortality (Fig. 3a). Regarding HHF, the SGLT2i class was associated with reduced risks compared with the other three groups. On the other hand, the GLP-1RA class was also associated with lower risks for HHF than DPP-4i and placebo (Fig. 3b). In terms of renal outcomes, the SGLT2i class was associated with lower risks than the other three groups. Notably, the GLP-1RA class was also associated with lower risks of composite renal outcomes than placebo (to a significant degree) and DPP-4i (to a borderline significant degree) (Fig. 3c). In addition, the overall heterogeneity levels of all-cause death, HHF and composite renal outcome were moderate (I2 = 31.5%), low (I2 = 0%), and moderate (I2 = 58.5%), respectively.
Subgroup analysis for 3P-MACE
Subgroup analyses showed that among individuals aged <65 years, only GLP-1RA significantly reduced 3P-MACE compared with placebo. Among those aged ≥65 years, the relative efficacy levels of each class of drugs were similar to those in the main analysis (Fig. 4a). The benefits of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA, as compared with either placebo or DPP-4i, were more apparent in the white and Asian populations (Fig. 4b). Among individuals with pre-existing ASCVD, the relative efficacy levels of these glucose-lowering agents were similar to those in the main analysis, while in those without established ASCVD, the analysis showed no clear superiority of one type of agent compared with another (Fig. 4c). Among individuals with diabetes duration <10 years, only GLP-1RA significantly reduced 3P-MACE compared with placebo. However, the relative efficacy levels of these glucose-lowering agents were similar to those in the main analysis in patients with diabetes duration ≥10 years (Fig. 4d). Other subgroup analyses, including analyses of sex, BMI, BP control, use of metformin, HbA1c level, eGFR and history of CHF, are illustrated in ESM Figs 3–9.
Publication bias and heterogeneity
ESM Figs 10–16 demonstrate the funnel plot along with Egger’s test on the seven outcomes. Some asymmetry was noted in MACE (p = 0.034), CV death (P = 0.098) and all-cause mortality (p = 0.108), indicating a potential threat of publication bias. ESM Table 2 lists the heterogeneity (expressed as I2 derived from the traditional meta-analysis) in each class of the drugs and the overall drugs. It should be noted that heterogeneity within each class of drug was smaller than the overall heterogeneity on HHF and composite renal outcome, suggesting there were more homogeneous effects within classes and difference between classes.
Discussion
In this network meta-analysis, we included the most updated data from RCTs of SGLT2i, GLP-1RA and DPP-4i that were designed to assess their efficacy in terms of CV or renal outcomes. Our analyses confirmed several findings. First, when compared with placebo, both SGLT2i and GLP-1RA significantly reduced the risks of MACE, death from any cause, HHF and composite outcome of renal events. Regarding the components of MACE, when compared with placebo, both SGLT2i and GLP-1RA reduced the risks of MI and CV death; however, only the GLP-1RA class was associated with a lower risk of stroke (ESM Fig. 17). Second, the DPP-4i class was similar to placebo in terms of MACE, all the components of MACE, death from any cause, HHF and composite outcome of renal events. Third, when compared with GLP-1RA, SGLT2i led to significantly lower risks of HHF and renal events, but were associated with an increased risk of stroke that almost reached statistical significance. GLP-1RA and SGLT2i were otherwise similar in terms of MACE, MI, CV death and all-cause mortality. In addition to the above-mentioned results, subgroup analyses revealed that the efficacy levels of GLP-1RA and SGLT2i in reducing MACE are more pronounced in those older than 65 years, in Asians and white people, in those with established ASCVD, and in those with diabetes for over 10 years (ESM Fig. 18).
Both SGLT2i and GLP-1RA have demonstrated benefits in terms of reducing CV events, but via entirely distinct mechanisms [6]. GLP1 receptors are present in the brain, pancreas and stomach, and are responsible for the control of centrally mediated satiety, sympathetic activation, postprandial insulin release and gastrointestinal motility inhibition [6]. The actions of GLP-1RA are complex, not only enhancing the aforementioned effects of GLP1 receptors, but ultimately leading to anti-atherogenic effects. In addition to actions via the incretin system, GLP-1RA has also demonstrated anti-inflammation, endothelial function enhancement, and plaque stabilisation effects through other pathways [25,26,27]. This in in contrast to SGLT2i, which exert actions primarily through glucosuria and natriuresis, with subsequently reduced tubuloglomerular feedback, improved intraglomerular hypertension and hyperfiltration, and decreased cardiac preload and afterload [28, 29]. These actions lead to reduced myocardial stress and ventricular arrhythmias. SGLT2i exhibit their effects primarily through haemodynamic changes and less through anti-atherogenic effects. The results of our analysis and prior studies conform with this concept. Both GLP-1RA and SGLT2i are effective in reducing risks of MACE, death from any cause, HHF, and composite outcome of renal events when compared with placebo. When the components of MACE are examined, however, only the GLP-1RA class significantly reduces the risk of stroke. A direct comparison between GLP-1RA and SGLT2i was consistent with this finding, while just missing statistical significance. This likely reflects the effects of GLP-1RA on plaque stabilisation. On the other hand, SGLT2i outperformed GLP-1RA in terms of reducing HHF and renal events, findings which are also compatible with its haemodynamic influences.
In our analysis, GLP-1RA failed to reach statistical significance in terms of stroke reduction when directly compared with SGLT2i (SGLT2i HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98, 1.33). The efficacy levels of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA in terms of the reduction of stroke risk have been inconsistent across individual studies. In a network meta-analysis by Fei et al [19], when comparing SGLT2i, GLP-1RA and DPP-4i to placebo, the GLP-1RA class was also the only class of drugs to demonstrate a significant reduction in strokes. However, a direct comparison between SGLT2i and GLP-1RA was not conducted by Fei et al. Tsapas et al [30] also examined the effectiveness of glucose-lowering agents in a network meta-analysis with a subgroup analysis of patients stratified by CV risk. They found that SGLT2i and GLP-1RA did not differ in terms of their risks of stroke in patients with low CV risk, but GLP-1RA significantly reduced stroke events compared with SGLT2i in patients with increased CV risk. Interestingly, when examining individual trials included in our analysis, most trials involving SGLT2i reported either similar incidence rates of stroke in the intervention and placebo arms or just slightly fewer events in the intervention arm. However, in the most recently published SCORED [23] study – an RCT that enrolled patients with diabetes, concomitant CKD, and risk for CV disease – there were approximately 1.5 times the number of stroke events in the placebo arm compared with the sotagliflozin group. Notably, however, this was not observed in the SOLOIST-WHF [24] study, in which sotagliflozin was compared with placebo in patients with diabetes who were recently hospitalised for worsening heart failure. Sotagliflozin is, currently, the SGLT2i with the highest affinity for sodium–glucose cotransporter 1 (SLGT1) receptors. Whether the protective effects against stroke are limited to sotagliflozin, or more specifically, sotagliflozin in patients with CKD, is unknown, and requires further study.
It has been postulated that SGLT2i and GLP-1RA may not only serve as secondary means of preventing CV events, but that they may also play a role in primary prevention. In the present meta-analysis, the effects of SGLT2i, GLP-1RA and DPP-4i were examined separately in patients with and without pre-existing ASCVD. In the subgroup analysis, patients without established ASCVD taking SGLT2i, GLP-1RA, DPP-4i and placebo had comparable MACE. On the other hand, in patients with pre-existing ASCVD, both SGLT2i and GLP-1RA were associated with lower risks of MACE compared with placebo; this effect was also present when compared with DPP-4i, although the differences in risks were less significant. In a systematic review and meta-analysis by Zelniker et al [18], the authors reported that SGLT2i and GLP-1RA reduced MACE to similar extents in patients with diabetes, but only in those with established ASCVD. This finding conforms with the results of our analysis. Thus, as of today, evidence only supports SGLT2i and GLP-1RA as secondary means of preventing MACE in patients with ASCVD.
In the subgroup analysis of the present study, we evaluated the effects of SGLT2i, GLP-1RA and DPP-4i in white, black and Asian individuals. SGLT2i, GLP-1RA and DPP-4i exhibited no differences in terms of reducing MACE compared with placebo in the black population. However, both SGLT2i and GLP-1RA led to lower risks of MACE when compared with placebo in white people and Asians, similar to the results of our main analysis. When comparing SGLT2i and GLP-1RA against DPP-4i, a significant reduction of MACE was seen only in Asians. Differences in the epidemiology of ASCVD and its risk factors among various races have been well reported in the past. For example, the prevalence levels of several CV risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes and obesity, were found to be higher among African Americans than among white people [31, 32]. Conversely, the triacylglycerol/HDL-cholesterol ratio, an atherogenic index that is an independent predictor of MI, is generally lower in black people and higher in Asians [33]. Several non-traditional risk factors, such as inflammatory markers, have been proposed to play a role in ASCVD in South Asians, in whom coronary artery disease occurs at younger ages [34, 35]. The variable effects of risk factors on CV outcomes across different ethnic groups reflects the complex interplay between genetic background and ASCVD. Why and how the efficacy of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA in reducing MACE varies across races is largely unknown and will likely require investigations at the genomic and proteomic levels to fully elucidate.
There were several limitations in this study. First, there were seven outcomes and 14 subgroup analyses and the family-wise type 1 error would be much higher than 0.05. This is due to the lack of adjustment for multiple comparison in the current study, and therefore there would be a few false positive results (ESM Tables 3–14). The obtained conclusions from this study should be taken more conservatively. Second, the subgroup analysis was presented descriptively without statistical tests. There are some developed approaches to deal with the covariate effects in the network meta-analysis when using the individual patient-level data (IPD). However, using the aggregated information regarding patient characteristics in a network meta-regression is vulnerable to ecological bias, according to previous reports [36, 37]. Therefore, future network meta-analysis with IPD is warranted to confirm the conclusions obtained from the subgroup analysis.
Conclusions
In the current network meta-analysis including 21 CVOTs of SGLT2i, GLP-1RA and DPP-4i, both SGLT2i and GLP-1RA were associated with lower risks of MACE, death from any cause, HHF and composite outcome of renal events. The effects of DPP-4i were neutral and similar to those of placebo. The GLP-1RA class was superior in terms of reducing the risk of stroke, whereas SGLT2i led to significantly lower risks of HHF and renal events. The efficacy levels of GLP-1RA and SGLT2i in reducing MACE were more pronounced in elderly patients, in Asians and white people, in those with pre-existing ASCVD, and in those with diabetes for longer durations. These results may guide choices between SGLT2i and GLP-1RA in clinical practice, although further validation by studies directly comparing these two classes of drugs would be beneficial.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Abbreviations
- 3P-MACE:
-
3-Point major adverse cardiovascular events
- ASCVD:
-
Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease
- CHF:
-
Congestive heart failure
- CKD:
-
Chronic kidney disease
- CV:
-
Cardiovascular
- CVOT:
-
Cardiovascular outcome trial
- DPP-4i:
-
Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors
- GLP-1RA:
-
Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists
- HHF:
-
Hospitalisation for heart failure
- IPD:
-
Individual patient-level data
- MACE:
-
Major adverse cardiovascular events
- MI:
-
Myocardial infarction
- SGLT2i:
-
Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors
References
Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 Collaborators (2015) Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 386(9995):743–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60692-4
Preis SR, Hwang S-J, Coady S et al (2009) Trends in all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality among women and men with and without diabetes mellitus in the Framingham Heart Study, 1950 to 2005. Circulation. 119(13):1728–1735. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.829176
Rao Kondapally Seshasai S, Kaptoge S, Thompson A et al (2011) Diabetes mellitus, fasting glucose, and risk of cause-specific death. N Engl J Med 364(9):829–841. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1008862
Virani SS, Alonso A, Benjamin EJ et al (2020) Heart disease and stroke statistics-2020 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 141(9):e139–e596. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000757
Hiatt WR, Kaul S, Smith RJ (2013) The cardiovascular safety of diabetes drugs--insights from the rosiglitazone experience. N Engl J Med 369(14):1285–1287. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1309610
Wilcox T, De Block C, Schwartzbard AZ, Newman JD (2020) Diabetic agents, from metformin to SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 receptor agonists: JACC Focus Seminar. J Am Coll Cardiol 75(16):1956–1974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.02.056
Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM et al (2015) Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 373(22):2117–2128. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1504720
Neal B, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW et al (2017) Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 377(7):644–657. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1611925
Wiviott SD, Raz I, Bonaca MP et al (2019) Dapagliflozin and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 380(4):347–357. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1812389
Cannon CP, Pratley R, Dagogo-Jack S et al (2020) Cardiovascular outcomes with ertugliflozin in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 383(15):1425–1435. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2004967
Marso SP, Daniels GH, Brown-Frandsen K et al (2016) Liraglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 375(4):311–322. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1603827
Marso SP, Bain SC, Consoli A et al (2016) Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 375(19):1834–1844. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1607141
Husain M, Birkenfeld AL, Donsmark M et al (2019) Oral Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 381(9):841–851. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1901118
Gerstein HC, Colhoun HM, Dagenais GR et al (2019) Dulaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes (REWIND): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 394(10193):121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31149-3
Hernandez AF, Green JB, Janmohamed S et al (2018) Albiglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Harmony Outcomes): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 392(10157):1519–1529. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32261-X
Pfeffer MA, Claggett B, Diaz R et al (2015) Lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes and acute coronary syndrome. N Engl J Med 373(23):2247–2257. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1509225
Lo KB, Gul F, Ram P et al (2020) The effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in diabetic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiorenal Med 10(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1159/000503919
Zelniker TA, Wiviott SD, Raz I et al (2019) Comparison of the effects of glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Circulation. 139(17):2022–2031. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038868
Fei Y, Tsoi M-F, Cheung BMY (2019) Cardiovascular outcomes in trials of new antidiabetic drug classes: a network meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Diabetol 18(1):112. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-019-0916-z
Heerspink HJL, Stefánsson BV, Correa-Rotter R et al (2020) Dapagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med 383(15):1436–1446. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2024816
McMurray JJV, Solomon SD, Inzucchi SE et al (2019) Dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 381(21):1995–2008. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1911303
Packer M, Anker SD, Butler J et al (2020) Cardiovascular and renal outcomes with empagliflozin in heart failure. N Engl J Med 383(15):1413–1424. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2022190
Bhatt DL, Szarek M, Pitt B et al (2020) Sotagliflozin in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2030186
Bhatt DL, Szarek M, Steg PG et al (2020) Sotagliflozin in patients with diabetes and recent worsening heart failure. N Engl J Med. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2030183
Gaspari T, Welungoda I, Widdop RE, Simpson RW, Dear AE (2013) The GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide inhibits progression of vascular disease via effects on atherogenesis, plaque stability and endothelial function in an ApoE(-/-) mouse model. Diab Vasc Dis Res 10(4):353–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1479164113481817
Herzlinger S, Horton ES (2013) Extraglycemic effects of glp-1-based therapeutics: addressing metabolic and cardiovascular risks associated with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 100(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2012.11.009
Sachinidis A, Nikolic D, Stoian AP et al (2020) Cardiovascular outcomes trials with incretin-based medications: a critical review of data available on GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors. Metab Clin Exp 111:154343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metabol.2020.154343
Newman JD, Vani AK, Aleman JO, Weintraub HS, Berger JS, Schwartzbard AZ (2018) The changing landscape of diabetes therapy for cardiovascular risk reduction: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. J Am Coll Cardiol 72:1856–1869
Lytvyn Y, Bjornstad P, Udell JA, Lovshin JA, Cherney DZ (2017) Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibition in heart failure: potential mechanisms, clinical applications, and summary of clinical trials. Circulation 136:1643–1658. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.030012
Tsapas A, Avgerinos I, Karagiannis T et al (2020) Comparative effectiveness of glucose-lowering drugs for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 173(4):278–286. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-0864
Graham G (2015) Disparities in cardiovascular disease risk in the United States. Curr Cardiol Rev 11(3):238–245. https://doi.org/10.2174/1573403x11666141122220003
Graham G (2016) Racial and ethnic differences in acute coronary syndrome and myocardial infarction within the United States: from demographics to outcomes. Clin Cardiol 39(5):299–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.22524
Gazzola K, Reeskamp L, van den Born B-J (2017) Ethnicity, lipids and cardiovascular disease. Curr Opin Lipidol 28(3):225–230. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOL.0000000000000412
Volgman AS, Palaniappan LS, Aggarwal NT et al (2018) Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in South Asians in the United States: epidemiology, risk factors, and treatments: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 138(1):e1–e34. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000580
Jain A, Puri R, Nair DR (2017) South Asians: why are they at a higher risk for cardiovascular disease? Curr Opin Cardiol 32(4):430–436. https://doi.org/10.1097/HCO.0000000000000411
Cipriani A, Higgins JP, Geddes JR, Salanti G (2013) Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 159(2):130–137. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-159-2-201307160-00008
Ting N, Cappelleri JC, Ho S (2020) Design and analysis of subgroups with biopharmaceutical applications. Springer, New York
Acknowledgements
We thank Alfred HF Lin, and Zoe YZ Syu, Raising Statistics Consultant Inc. New Taipei City, Taiwan, for their assistance with the statistical analysis during the completion of the manuscript.
Authors’ relationships and activities
The authors declare that there are no relationships or activities that might bias, or be perceived to bias, their work.
Funding
This research was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan (MOST 108-2221-E-002-163-, MOST 109-2221-E-002 -083) and National Taiwan University Hospital (107-EDN11, 108-N4406, 108EDN02, 109-O20, 109-S4579, 109-EDN11).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors significantly contributed to the manuscript and approved the final version for publication. WJC and JKL contributed to the study design, data acquisition, analysis and manuscript revision. JKL and CSH contributed to data acquisition, interpretation of data and manuscript revision. DSHL contributed to data analysis, interpretation of data, manuscript drafting and revision. JKL is the guarantor of this work.
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
ESM 1
(PDF 2.07 mb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lin, D.SH., Lee, JK., Hung, CS. et al. The efficacy and safety of novel classes of glucose-lowering drugs for cardiovascular outcomes: a network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Diabetologia 64, 2676–2686 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-021-05529-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-021-05529-w