The risk of incident atrial fibrillation in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: a nationwide cohort study.

Although a few meta-analyses were conducted to compare the risk of incident atrial fibrillation (AF) between sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), and other anti-hyperglycemic agents using indirect or direct comparison, the above analyses showed conflicting results with each other. We aimed to evaluate the risk of new-onset AF associated with the use of SGLT2i, GLP-1RA, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) among a large longitudinal cohort of diabetic patients. In this nationwide retrospective cohort study based on the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, a total of 344,893, 44,370, and 393,100 consecutive patients with type 2 diabetes without preexisting AF receiving GLP-1RA, SGLT2i, and DPP4i, respectively, were enrolled from May 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019. We used 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) to balance covariates across paired study groups. Patients were followed from the drug index date until the occurrence of AF, death, discontinuation of the index drug, or the end of the study period (December 31, 2020), whichever occurred first. After PSM, there were 245,442, 43,682, and 39,190 paired cohorts of SGLT2i-DPP4i, SGLT2i-GLP-1RA, and GLP-1RA-DPP4i, respectively. SGLT2i treatment was associated with lower risk of new-onset AF in participants with type 2 diabetes compared with either DPP4i [hazard ratio (HR):0.90; 95% confidential interval (CI) 0.84-0.96; P = 0.0028] or GLP-1RA [HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.63-0.88; P = 0.0007] treatment after PSM. There was no difference in the risk of incident AF between GLP-1RA and DPP4i users [HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.86-1.19; P = 0.8980]. The above findings persisted among several important subgroups. Dapagliflozin was specifically associated with a lower risk of new-onset AF compared with DPP4i (P interaction = 0.02). Compared with DPP4i, SGLT2i but not GLP-1RA was associated with a lower risk of incident AF in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Chan YH ，Chao TF ，Chen SW ，Lee HF ，Li PR ，Chen WM ，Yeh YH ，Kuo CT ，See LC ，Lip GYH ... -  《Cardiovascular Diabetology》

Comparison of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitor and Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor on the Risks of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation, Stroke and Mortality in Diabetic Patients: A Propensity Score-Matched Study in Hong Kong.

To compare the effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2Is) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4Is) on adverse outcomes in diabetic patients in Hong Kong. This was a retrospective population-based cohort study of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients (n = 72,746) treated with SGLT2I or DPP4I between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, in Hong Kong. Patients with exposure to both DPP4I and SGLT2I therapy, without complete demographics or mortality data, or who had prior atrial fibrillation (AF) were excluded. The study outcomes were new-onset AF, stroke/transient ischemic attack, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality. Propensity score matching (1:1 ratio) between SGLT2I and DPP4I users was performed. The unmatched study cohort included 21,713 SGLT2I users and 39,510 DPP4I users (total: n = 61,233 patients; 55.37% males, median age: 62.7 years [interquartile range (IQR): 54.6-71.9 years]). Over a median follow-up of 2030 (IQR: 1912-2117) days, 2496 patients (incidence rate [IR]: 4.07%) developed new-onset AF, 2179 patients (IR: 3.55%) developed stroke/transient ischemic attack, 1963 (IR: 3.20%) died from cardiovascular causes and 6607 patients (IR: 10.79%) suffered from all-cause mortality. After propensity score matching (SGLT2I: n = 21,713; DPP4I: n = 21,713), SGLT2I users showed lower incidence of new-onset AF (1.96% vs. 2.78%, standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.05), stroke (1.80% vs. 3.52%, SMD = 0.11), cardiovascular mortality (0.47% vs. 1.56%, SMD = 0.11) and all-cause mortality (2.59% vs. 7.47%, SMD = 0.22) compared to DPP4I users. Cox regression found that SGLT2I users showed lower risk of new-onset AF (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.56, 0.83], P = 0.0001), stroke (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: [0.53, 0.79], P < 0.0001), cardiovascular mortality (HR: 0.39, 95% CI: [0.27, 0.56], P < 0.0001) and all-cause mortality (HR: 0.44, 95% CI: [0.37, 0.51], P < 0.0001) after adjusting for significant demographics, past comorbidities, medications and laboratory tests. Based on real-world data of type 2 diabetic patients in Hong Kong, SGLT2I use was associated with lower risk of incident AF, stroke/transient ischemic attack, and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality outcomes compared to DPP4I use.

Lee S ，Zhou J ，Leung KSK ，Wai AKC ，Jeevaratnam K ，King E ，Liu T ，Wong WT ，Chang C ，Wong ICK ，Cheung BMY ，Tse G ，Zhang Q ... -  《-》

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and the risk of atrial fibrillation in adults with diabetes: a real-world study.

Xu Y ，Boyle TA ，Lyu B ，Ballew SH ，Selvin E ，Chang AR ，Inker LA ，Grams ME ，Shin JI ... -  《-》

The risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors.

Ling AW ，Chan CC ，Chen SW ，Kao YW ，Huang CY ，Chan YH ，Chu PH ... -  《Cardiovascular Diabetology》

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors for people with cardiovascular disease: a network meta-analysis.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. Recently, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) were approved for treating people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Although metformin remains the first-line pharmacotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, a body of evidence has recently emerged indicating that DPP4i, GLP-1RA and SGLT2i may exert positive effects on patients with known CVD. To systematically review the available evidence on the benefits and harms of DPP4i, GLP-1RA, and SGLT2i in people with established CVD, using network meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on 16 July 2020. We also searched clinical trials registers on 22 August 2020. We did not restrict by language or publication status. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating DPP4i, GLP-1RA, or SGLT2i that included participants with established CVD. Outcome measures of interest were CVD mortality, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal stroke, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure (HF), and safety outcomes. Three review authors independently screened the results of searches to identify eligible studies and extracted study data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted standard pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses by pooling studies that we assessed to be of substantial homogeneity; subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also pursued to explore how study characteristics and potential effect modifiers could affect the robustness of our review findings. We analysed study data using the odds ratios (ORs) and log odds ratios (LORs) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and credible intervals (Crls), where appropriate. We also performed narrative synthesis for included studies that were of substantial heterogeneity and that did not report quantitative data in a usable format, in order to discuss their individual findings and relevance to our review scope. We included 31 studies (287 records), of which we pooled data from 20 studies (129,465 participants) for our meta-analysis. The majority of the included studies were at low risk of bias, using Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. Among the 20 pooled studies, six investigated DPP4i, seven studied GLP-1RA, and the remaining seven trials evaluated SGLT2i. All outcome data described below were reported at the longest follow-up duration. 1. DPP4i versus placebo Our review suggests that DPP4i do not reduce any risk of efficacy outcomes: CVD mortality (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; high-certainty evidence), myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; high-certainty evidence), stroke (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14; high-certainty evidence), and all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11; high-certainty evidence). DPP4i probably do not reduce hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; moderate-certainty evidence). DPP4i may not increase the likelihood of worsening renal function (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; low-certainty evidence) and probably do not increase the risk of bone fracture (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; moderate-certainty evidence) or hypoglycaemia (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence). They are likely to increase the risk of pancreatitis (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.37; moderate-certainty evidence). 2. GLP-1RA versus placebo Our findings indicate that GLP-1RA reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), and stroke (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA probably do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate-certainty evidence), and hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.06; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA may reduce the risk of worsening renal function (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84; low-certainty evidence), but may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of GLP-1RA on hypoglycaemia and bone fractures. 3. SGLT2i versus placebo This review shows that SGLT2i probably reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-certainty evidence), and reduce the risk of HF hospitalisation (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.71; high-certainty evidence); they do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.12; high-certainty evidence) and probably do not reduce the risk of stroke (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of treatment safety, SGLT2i probably reduce the incidence of worsening renal function (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably have no effect on hypoglycaemia (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence) or bone fracture (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18; high-certainty evidence), and may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.86; low-certainty evidence). 4. Network meta-analysis Because we failed to identify direct comparisons between each class of the agents, findings from our network meta-analysis provided limited novel insights. Almost all findings from our network meta-analysis agree with those from the standard meta-analysis. GLP-1RA may not reduce the risk of stroke compared with placebo (OR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.75 to 1.0; moderate-certainty evidence), which showed similar odds estimates and wider 95% Crl compared with standard pairwise meta-analysis. Indirect estimates also supported comparison across all three classes. SGLT2i was ranked the best for CVD and all-cause mortality. Findings from both standard and network meta-analyses of moderate- to high-certainty evidence suggest that GLP-1RA and SGLT2i are likely to reduce the risk of CVD mortality and all-cause mortality in people with established CVD; high-certainty evidence demonstrates that treatment with SGLT2i reduce the risk of hospitalisation for HF, while moderate-certainty evidence likely supports the use of GLP-1RA to reduce fatal and non-fatal stroke. Future studies conducted in the non-diabetic CVD population will reveal the mechanisms behind how these agents improve clinical outcomes irrespective of their glucose-lowering effects.

Kanie T ，Mizuno A ，Takaoka Y ，Suzuki T ，Yoneoka D ，Nishikawa Y ，Tam WWS ，Morze J ，Rynkiewicz A ，Xin Y ，Wu O ，Providencia R ，Kwong JS ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》