Comparative effectiveness of cardiovascular, renal and safety outcomes of second-line antidiabetic drugs use in people with type 2 diabetes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17720/h7ycmf16Abstract
Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a chronic metabolic disorder characterized by insulin resistance and impaired glucose regulation, which often leads to serious complications involving multiple organ systems. The main objective of this meta-analysis is to find the Comparative effectiveness of cardiovascular, renal, and safety outcomes of second-line antidiabetic drug use in people with type 2 diabetes. Search strategies included combinations of keywords such as “type 2 diabetes,” “second-line antidiabetic drugs,” “cardiovascular outcomes,” “renal outcomes,” “safety outcomes,” “SGLT2 inhibitors,” “GLP-1 receptor agonists,” “DPP-4 inhibitors,” “sulfonylureas,” and “meta-analysis.” The initial literature search identified 1,524 studies from various databases. After removing duplicates and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 42 studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) for MACE with SGLT2 inhibitors was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.78-0.90), indicating a 16% reduction in cardiovascular events, while the HR for GLP-1 RAs was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.81-0.94). This meta-analysis demonstrates that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists provide superior cardiovascular and renal benefits compared to traditional second-line therapies like sulfonylureas and DPP-4 inhibitors in people with type 2 diabetes.
Downloads
References
Saeedi, P., Petersohn, I., Salpea, P., et al., IDF Diabetes Atlas Committee (2019) 'Global and regional diabetes prevalence estimates for 2019 and projections for 2030 and 2045: Results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, 9th edition', Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 157, p. 107843. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2019.107843.
Rodriguez-Gutierrez, R. and McCoy, R.G. (2019) 'Measuring what matters in diabetes', JAMA, 321, pp. 1865-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.4310.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group (1998) 'Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33)', The Lancet, 352, pp. 837-53. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07019-6.
Rodriguez-Gutierrez, R., Gonzalez-Gonzalez, J.G., Zuñiga-Hernandez, J.A. and McCoy, R.G. (2019) 'Benefits and harms of intensive glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes', BMJ, 367, p. l5887. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l5887.
American Diabetes Association (2020) '6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020', Diabetes Care, 43(Suppl 1), pp. S66-76. doi: 10.2337/dc20-S006.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2016) Canagliflozin, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin as monotherapies for treating type 2 diabetes. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta390 (Accessed: 22 September 2024).
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2022) Type 2 diabetes in adults: management. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng28/chapter/Recommendations#reviewing-drug-treatments (Accessed: 22 September 2024).
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (2017) SIGN 154: Pharmacological management of glycaemic control in people with type 2 diabetes. Available at: https://www.sign.ac.uk/our-guidelines/pharmacological-management-of-glycaemic-control-in-people-with-type-2-diabetes/ (Accessed: 22 September 2024).
Davies, M.J., Aroda, V.R., Collins, B.S., et al. (2022) 'Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, 2022. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)', Diabetes Care, 45, pp. 2753-86. doi: 10.2337/dci22-0034.
Khunti, K., Charbonnel, B., Cooper, A., et al. (2021) 'Associations between second-line glucose-lowering combination therapies with metformin and HbA1c, body weight, quality of life, hypoglycaemic events and glucose-lowering treatment intensification: The DISCOVER study', Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 23, pp. 1823-33. doi: 10.1111/dom.14400.
Levin, A., Agarwal, R., Herrington, W.G., et al. (2020) 'International consensus definitions of clinical trial outcomes for kidney failure: 2020', Kidney International, 98, pp. 849-59. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2020.07.013.
Staiger, D. and Stock, J.H. (1997) 'Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments', Econometrica, 65, pp. 557-86. doi: 10.2307/2171753.
Moler-Zapata, S., Grieve, R., Basu, A. and O’Neill, S. (2023) 'How does a local instrumental variable method perform across settings with instruments of differing strengths? A simulation study and an evaluation of emergency surgery', Health Economics, 32, pp. 2113-26. doi: 10.1002/hec.4719.
Swanson, S.A., Miller, M., Robins, J.M. and Hernán, M.A. (2015) 'Definition and evaluation of the monotonicity condition for preference-based instruments', Epidemiology, 26, pp. 414-20. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000279.
Vytlacil, E. (2002) 'Independence, monotonicity, and latent index models: an equivalence result', Econometrica, 70, pp. 331-41. doi: 10.1111/1468-0262.00277.
Terza, J.V., Basu, A. and Rathouz, P.J. (2008) 'Two-stage residual inclusion estimation: addressing endogeneity in health econometric modeling', Journal of Health Economics, 27, pp. 531-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.09.009.
Basu, A., Coe, N.B. and Chapman, C.G. (2018) '2SLS versus 2SRI: Appropriate methods for rare outcomes and/or rare exposures', Health Economics, 27, pp. 937-55. doi: 10.1002/hec.3647.
Frank, I.E. and Friedman, J.H. (1993) 'A statistical view of some chemometrics regression tools', Technometrics, 35, pp. 109-35. doi: 10.1080/00401706.1993.10485033.
Tibshirani, R. (1996) 'Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso', Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 58, pp. 267-88. doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x.
Belloni, A., Chen, D., Chernozhukov, V. and Hansen, C. (2012) 'Sparse models and methods for optimal instruments with an application to eminent domain', Econometrica, 80, pp. 2369-429. doi: 10.3982/ECTA9626.
Rubin, D.B. (1987) Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. John Wiley & Sons. doi: 10.1002/9780470316696.
van Buuren, S. and Oudshoorn, C.G.M. (2000) Multivariate imputation by chained equations: MICE V1.0 user’s manual. TNO Report PG/VGZ/00.038. Leiden, Netherlands.
Powney, M., Williamson, P., Kirkham, J. and Kolamunnage-Dona, R. (2014) 'A review of the handling of missing longitudinal outcome data in clinical trials', Trials, 15, p. 237. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-237.
Lee, K.J., Roberts, G., Doyle, L.W., Anderson, P.J. and Carlin, J.B. (2016) 'Multiple imputation for missing data in a longitudinal cohort study: a tutorial based on a detailed case study involving imputation of missing outcome data', International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19, pp. 575-91. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2015.1126486.
Morris, T.P., White, I.R. and Royston, P. (2014) 'Tuning multiple imputation by predictive mean matching and local residual draws', BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14, p. 75. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-75.
White, I.R. and Royston, P. (2009) 'Imputing missing covariate values for the Cox model', Statistics in Medicine, 28, pp. 1982-98. doi: 10.1002/sim.3618.
Bartlett, J.W. and Hughes, R.A. (2020) 'Bootstrap inference for multiple imputation under uncongeniality and misspecification', Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 29, pp. 3533-46. doi: 10.1177/0962280220932189.
Schomaker, M. and Heumann, C. (2018) 'Bootstrap inference when using multiple imputation', Statistics in Medicine, 37, pp. 2252-66. doi: 10.1002/sim.7654.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
