Similar incidence of stroke with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in real-world cohort studies among patients with type 2 diabetes

IF 1 Q4 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM Diabetes epidemiology and management Pub Date : 2023-09-21 DOI:10.1016/j.deman.2023.100179
André J. Scheen
{"title":"Similar incidence of stroke with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in real-world cohort studies among patients with type 2 diabetes","authors":"André J. Scheen","doi":"10.1016/j.deman.2023.100179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Stroke represents a major burden in patients with type 2 diabetes. Yet, this cerebrovascular complication has been less well studied than coronary artery disease and heart failure. Some cardiovascular outcome data suggested that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) exert a less pronounced protection against stroke compared with glucagon peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) despite similar efficacy regarding major cardiovascular events (MACE-3 points). However, this conclusion was derived from indirect comparisons of placebo- controlled trials (RCTs).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The present comprehensive review analyses the effects of SGLT2is versus GLP-1RAs on nonfatal and fatal/nonfatal strokes in real-life studies carried out worldwide.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A large majority of retrospective observational cohort studies (19 out of 21) failed to find any significant difference in the risk of stroke between the two pharmacological classes, independently of the presence of established cardiovascular disease. Available, yet limited, findings suggested that SGLT2is could be more efficacious against haemorrhagic than ischaemic strokes, in patients at risk for atrial fibrillation or with chronic kidney disease.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>In contrast to what was reported in RCTs, most observational studies showed similar incidence of stroke in SGLT2i users versus GLP-1RA users. Because both indirect comparisons of RCTs and retrospective cohort studies have limitations, a head-to-head RCT comparing the effects on stroke of an SGLT2i versus a GLP-1RA is needed to draw any definite conclusion.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72796,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes epidemiology and management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes epidemiology and management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666970623000586","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Stroke represents a major burden in patients with type 2 diabetes. Yet, this cerebrovascular complication has been less well studied than coronary artery disease and heart failure. Some cardiovascular outcome data suggested that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) exert a less pronounced protection against stroke compared with glucagon peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) despite similar efficacy regarding major cardiovascular events (MACE-3 points). However, this conclusion was derived from indirect comparisons of placebo- controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

The present comprehensive review analyses the effects of SGLT2is versus GLP-1RAs on nonfatal and fatal/nonfatal strokes in real-life studies carried out worldwide.

Results

A large majority of retrospective observational cohort studies (19 out of 21) failed to find any significant difference in the risk of stroke between the two pharmacological classes, independently of the presence of established cardiovascular disease. Available, yet limited, findings suggested that SGLT2is could be more efficacious against haemorrhagic than ischaemic strokes, in patients at risk for atrial fibrillation or with chronic kidney disease.

Conclusion

In contrast to what was reported in RCTs, most observational studies showed similar incidence of stroke in SGLT2i users versus GLP-1RA users. Because both indirect comparisons of RCTs and retrospective cohort studies have limitations, a head-to-head RCT comparing the effects on stroke of an SGLT2i versus a GLP-1RA is needed to draw any definite conclusion.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在2型糖尿病患者中,使用SGLT2抑制剂和GLP-1受体激动剂的卒中发生率相似
背景中风是2型糖尿病患者的主要负担。然而,这种脑血管并发症的研究不如冠状动脉疾病和心力衰竭。一些心血管结果数据表明,与胰高血糖素肽-1受体激动剂(GLP-1RA)相比,钠-葡萄糖协同转运蛋白2抑制剂(SGLT2is)对中风的保护作用不太明显,尽管对主要心血管事件的疗效相似(MACE-3分)。然而,这一结论是从安慰剂对照试验(RCTs)的间接比较中得出的。方法本综述分析了在世界各地进行的现实研究中,SGLT2is与GLP-1RA对非致命性和致命性/非致命性中风的影响。结果绝大多数回顾性观察性队列研究(21项研究中有19项)未能发现两种药物类别之间的中风风险有任何显著差异,与是否存在已确定的心血管疾病无关。现有但有限的研究结果表明,在有心房颤动或慢性肾脏疾病风险的患者中,SGLT2is对出血性中风可能比缺血性中风更有效。结论与随机对照试验中的报道相反,大多数观察性研究显示,SGLT2i使用者与GLP-1RA使用者的中风发生率相似。由于随机对照试验的间接比较和回顾性队列研究都有局限性,因此需要对SGLT2i与GLP-1RA对中风的影响进行头对头的随机对照试验,以得出任何明确的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Diabetes epidemiology and management
Diabetes epidemiology and management Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Public Health and Health Policy
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 days
期刊最新文献
Assessment of vitamin D status in obese and non-obese patients: A case-control study The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diabetes-related mortality Diabetes in pregnancy: Anxious minds precarious times Primary care monitoring of HbA1c tests in type 2 diabetic patients in Northern France and impact of the successive COVID-19 pandemic containments Evaluation of a Support Tool for Diabetes Control in primary care – A Qualitative study with primary care staff
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1