61
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Association of SGLT2 Inhibitors With Cardiovascular and Kidney Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes : A Meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This meta-analysis uses data from patients with type 2 diabetes from 6 outcomes trials to investigate the association of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors with cardiovascular- and kidney disease–related outcomes.

          Key Points

          Question

          Is the effectiveness of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on cardiovascular- and kidney-related outcomes similar across the class of medications overall and by the presence or absence of prevalent cardiovascular and chronic kidney disease?

          Findings

          Results from a meta-analysis of 6 outcomes trials of 4 SGLT2 inhibitors suggest an associated reduction in risk of major adverse cardiovascular events and heterogeneity of cardiovascular death. The greatest magnitude of benefit was for reduction in risk for hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and kidney disease progression, with estimates of HHF risk outcome the most consistent observation across the trials.

          Meaning

          These findings suggest that SGLT2 inhibitors have some heterogeneity of associations with outcomes for cardiovascular death, with consistency of favorable HHF and kidney disease outcomes across the class.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors favorably affect cardiovascular (CV) and kidney outcomes; however, the consistency of outcomes across the class remains uncertain.

          Objective

          To perform meta-analyses that assess the CV and kidney outcomes of all 4 available SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes.

          Data Sources

          A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed from January 1, 2015, to January 31, 2020.

          Study Selection

          One hundred forty-five records were initially identified; 137 were excluded because of study design or topic of interest. As a result, a total of 6 randomized, placebo-controlled CV and kidney outcomes trials of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes were identified, with contributory data from 9 publications. All analyses were conducted on the total patient population of these trials.

          Data Extraction and Synthesis

          Standardized data search and abstraction were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement. Data were analyzed using a fixed-effect model.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Outcomes included time to the first event of (1) the composite of major adverse CV events of myocardial infarction, stroke, or CV death, and each component, (2) the composite of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) or CV death (HHF/CV death) and each component, and (3) kidney composite outcomes. For outcomes in the overall trial populations and in selected subgroups, hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were pooled and meta-analyzed across trials.

          Results

          Data from 6 trials comprised 46 969 unique patients with type 2 diabetes, including 31 116 (66.2%) with atherosclerotic CV disease. The mean (SD) age of all trial participants was 63.7 (7.9) years; 30 939 (65.9%) were men, and 36 849 (78.5%) were White. The median number of participants per trial was 8246 (range, 4401-17 160). Overall, SGLT2 inhibitors were associated with a reduced risk of major adverse CV events (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.95; Q statistic, P = .27), HHF/CV death (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.84; Q statistic, P = .09), and kidney outcomes (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.70; Q statistic, P = .09), with no significant heterogeneity of associations with outcome. Associated risk reduction for HHF was consistent across the trials (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.61-0.76; I 2 = 0.0%), whereas significant heterogeneity of associations with outcome was observed for CV death (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; Q statistic, P = .02; I 2  = 64.3%). The presence or absence of atherosclerotic CV disease did not modify the association with outcomes for major adverse CV events (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.95 and HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83-1.07, respectively; P = .63 for interaction), with similar absence of associations with outcome modification by prevalent atherosclerotic CV disease for HHF/CV death ( P = .62 for interaction), HHF ( P = .26 for interaction), or kidney outcomes ( P = .73 for interaction).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this meta-analysis, SGLT2 inhibitors were associated with a reduced risk of major adverse CV events; in addition, results suggest significant heterogeneity in associations with CV death. The largest benefit across the class was for an associated reduction in risk for HHF and kidney outcomes, with benefits for HHF risk being the most consistent observation across the trials.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

          Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

            The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

              David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Cardiol
                JAMA Cardiol
                JAMA Cardiology
                American Medical Association
                2380-6583
                2380-6591
                7 October 2020
                February 2021
                7 October 2020
                : 6
                : 2
                : 1-11
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, and Parkland Health and Hospital System, Dallas
                [2 ]Rutgers School of Public Health, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, Piscataway, New Jersey
                [3 ]Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick
                [4 ]Unit of Cardiology, Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm, Sweden
                [5 ]Department of Endocrinology, University of Nantes, Nantes, France
                [6 ]Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [7 ]Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis
                [8 ]AdventHealth Translational Research Institute, Orlando, Florida
                [9 ]Pfizer Inc, Groton, Connecticut
                [10 ]Merck & Co Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey
                [11 ]Pfizer Inc, Andover, Massachusetts
                [12 ]Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: July 30, 2020.
                Published Online: October 7, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.4511
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License. © 2020 McGuire DK et al. JAMA Cardiology.
                Corresponding Author: Darren K. McGuire, MD, MHSc, Division of Cardiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75235 ( darren.mcguire@ 123456utsouthwestern.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Dr McGuire had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: McGuire, Shih, Cosentino, Charbonnel, Cherney, Dagogo-Jack, Greenberg, Wang, Huyck, Gantz, Terra, Masiukiewicz, Cannon.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: McGuire, Shih, Cosentino, Charbonnel, Cherney, Pratley, Greenberg, Wang, Huyck, Gantz, Terra, Masiukiewicz, Cannon.
                Drafting of the manuscript: McGuire, Shih, Cosentino, Charbonnel, Greenberg, Wang, Huyck, Gantz, Terra, Masiukiewicz.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Shih, Wang.
                Obtained funding: Cannon.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Cherney, Cannon.
                Supervision: McGuire, Masiukiewicz, Cannon.
                Nephrology expertise: Cherney.
                Facilitating review and concurrence of written text: Gantz.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr McGuire reported receiving honoraria for clinical trial leadership from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Esperion, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lexicon, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and consultancy fees from Afimmune, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Metavant, and Sanofi outside the submitted work. Dr McGuire reported receiving personal fees and nonfinancial support from Merck and nonfinancial support from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr Cannon reported receiving grants and personal fees from Merck and Pfizer during the conduct of the study; grants from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, and Pfizer; and personal fees from Aegerion, Alnylam, Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Ascendia, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Corvidia, Eli Lilly, HLS Therapeutics, Innovent, Janssen, Kowa, Merck, Pfizer, Rhoshan, and Sanofi outside the submitted work. Dr Cosentino reported receiving fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer; research grants from Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart & Lung Foundation, and the King Gustav V and Queen Victoria Foundation; nonfinancial support from Merck Sharp & Dohme and Pfizer; and personal fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr Charbonnel reported receiving personal fees from Merck, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, MundiPharma, and Lilly and fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Takeda during the conduct of the study. Dr Cherney reported receiving personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim-Eli Lilly, Merck, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, AbbVie, Janssen, Bayer, Prometic, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novo Nordisk; and operating grants from Boehringer Ingelheim-Eli Lilly, Merck, Janssen, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr Dagogo-Jack reported leading clinical trials for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck, and Sanofi; and equity interests in Jana Care Inc and Aerami outside the submitted work. Dr Pratley reported receiving research grants, consulting, or speaker fees (directed to AdventHealth) from Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Poxel SA, Sanofi, Scohia Pharma, and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries; publication support from Merck; speaker and consulting fees from AstraZeneca; consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Glytec, and Janssen; grants from Lexicon Pharmaceuticals; and grants and consulting fees from Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, Sanofi, and Merck outside the submitted work. All payments for Dr Pratley's services were made directly to AdventHealth, a nonprofit organization. Dr Shih reported serving as consultant to the scientific advisory committee of Merck. Drs Gantz and Huyck reported being employees of Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey, and own stock in the company. Ms Greenberg and Drs Wang, Terra, and Masiukiewicz reported being employees and shareholders of Pfizer. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was supported by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey, in collaboration with Pfizer Inc, New York, New York.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: In their role as authors, employees of Pfizer Inc, New York, New York, and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey, were involved in protocol development and the analysis plan, the interpretation of data, preparation, review and approval of the manuscript and the decision to submit for publication, along with their coauthors. The study sponsors approved the manuscript from an intellectual property perspective.
                Meeting Presentation: This work was presented in part at the 80th Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association; June 12-16, 2020. This meeting was held online owing to the COVID-19 pandemic.
                Additional Contributions: Editorial support was provided by Diane Hoffman, PhD, of Engage Scientific Solutions and was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey, in collaboration with Pfizer Inc, New York, New York. The support consisted solely of formatting for submission; no contribution was made to content.
                Article
                hoi200067
                10.1001/jamacardio.2020.4511
                7542529
                33031522
                6a664982-f93e-4a1a-9219-37cb403a061a
                Copyright 2020 McGuire DK et al. JAMA Cardiology.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License.

                History
                : 6 May 2020
                : 30 July 2020
                Categories
                Research
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online First

                Comments

                Comment on this article