Comparative Effectiveness of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors vs the Other Hypoglycemic Drugs on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events and Hospitalization for Heart Failure in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Atrial Fibrillation

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1298612/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Comparative Effectiveness of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors vs the Other Hypoglycemic Drugs on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events and Hospitalization for Heart Failure in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Atrial Fibrillation

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1298612/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: In the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, evidence of the comparative effectiveness of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors vs the other hypoglycemic drugs on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of SGLT2 inhibitors vs the other hypoglycemic drugs on major adverse cardiovascular events and heart failure for hospitalization in patients with T2DM and AF.

Methods: A cohort study used data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database compared the use of SGLT2 inhibitors vs the other hypoglycemic drugs for treatment of T2DM in AF patients. We identified 40,268 patients with T2DM and AF who were newly prescribed oral hypoglycemic drugs (2,977 individualst with SGLT2 inhibitors and 37,291 individuals without SGLT2 inhibitors) between 2014 and 2018. After 1:4 propensity score matching, patients who received SGLT2 inhibitors (n=2,958) and those who did not receive SGLT2 inhibitors (n=10,691) were enrolled, and followed up until December 31, 2018. The primary study outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. Secondary outcoms were hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality. The risks of study outcomes were assessed using a Cox proportional hazard model.

Results: Mean age of all participants was 59.7 ± 11.9 years and 8.023 [58%] were male. During a mean follow-up duration of 2.1 ± 1.4 years, SGLT2 inhibitors were not significantly associated with reduced risk of MACE(hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.21) compared with the other hypoglycemic drugs. However, patients who received SGLT2 inhibitors had significantly lower risks of hospitalization for heart failure (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.93) and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.98) than those who did not receive SGLT2 inhibitors.

Conclusions: In this real-world cohort of Asian patients with T2DM and AF, new use of SGLT2 inhibitors was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization for heart failure compared with use of the other hypoglycemic drugs.

atrial fibrillation

heart failure

MACE

SGLT-2 inhibitors

type 2 diabetes mellitus

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been recently developed as oral agents for lowering glucose. Unlike insulin secretagogues and insulin sensitizers, SGLT2 inhibitors are independent of pancreatic ß cells because they block glucose and sodium reabsorption in the proximal tubule of the kidney and thereby lower glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).[1]

SGLT2 inhibitors have shown varying degrees of protective effects on cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in T2DM patients with high cardiovascular risks.[2-5] Empagliflozin and canagliflozin were shown to decrease the incidence of cardiovascular events including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke.[2, 3] Dapagliflozin did not reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) including cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke, but resulted in a lower rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure.[4] Ertugliflozin was not superior to placebo with respect to cardiovascular mortality or morbidity.[5] In terms of hospitalization for heart failure, all SGLT2 inhibitors have shown protective effects in patients with T2DM. In a meta-analysis of three randomized trials including empagliflozin, canagliflozin, and dapagliflozin, SGLT2 inhibitors showed robust benefits in reducing hospitalization for heart failure regardless of existing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or a history of heart failure.[6, 7]

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in adults.[8] AF is associated with increased risks of stroke, heart failure, and death, thus imposing a significant burden on patients, societal health, and health economy.[9] Population-based studies have shown that AF was associated with 1.5- and 2.2-fold increases in the risk of mortality in men and women, respectively.[10, 11] Whereas the mechanistic explanation for the increases in the mortality risk in AF patients is multifaceted, associated comorbidities, especially heart failure, play an important role.[12-14]

Aside from reducing the risk of hospitalization for heart failure,[6, 7] SGLT2 inhibitors also decrease the incidence of AF in T2DM patients.[15, 16] However, there is a lack of evidence about the effectiveness of SGLT2 inhibitors on MACE or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with T2DM and AF. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of SGLT2 inhibitors vs the other hypoglycemic drugs on MACE and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with T2DM and AF by analyzing a nationwide population-based cohort.

Data sources

This study used the National Health Information Database produced by the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) of South Korea. The authors declare no conflict of interest with NHIS. The NHIS provides mandatory health insurance for all South Korean citizens, covering 97% of the national population;[17] the remaining 3% of the population with low income is covered by the Medical Aid program, which has been incorporated into the single NHIS database. The NHIS claims database includes data on demographic characteristics, diagnoses, prescriptions, and deaths. The details of the database are described elsewhere.[18] All diagnoses are recorded in the NHIS database using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes. The authors are restricted from sharing the data used for this study because the Korean NHIS owns the data. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Asan Medical Center (2019-0917). An anonymized dataset was provided by the NHIS for this study and the requirement for informed consent was waived.

Study population

Initially, we identified patients with T2DM (ICD-10 codes E11–E14)[19] and AF (ICD-10 codes I48) who were prescribed hypoglycemic drugs between January 2014 and December 2018. We then extracted patients who were newly prescribed hypoglycemic drugs since January 2014 because the Korean government insurance began reimbursing SGLT2 inhibitors as secondary hypoglycemic drugs for T2DM from September 2014. We then identified patients who were diagnosed with AF before the prescription of hypoglycemic drugs. Among them, we excluded patients who met the following exclusion criteria: (1) less than 19 years of age; (2) use of hypoglycemic drugs for <90 days; (3) history of end-stage renal disease and/or dialysis; (4) history of cancer; and (5) missing data. Finally, we included a total of 40,268 patients in this analysis. We divided the remaining patients into two groups according to the use of SGLT2 inhibitors. The process of patient selection flow is described in Figure 1. The index date was defined as the date of the first prescription of SGLT2 inhibitors or other hypoglycemic drugs from January 2014.

Clinical variables

The patient’s baseline comorbidities and risk factors were defined as the ICD-10 codes assigned within 5 years of cohort entry. Supplementary Table 1 shows the details of the comorbidity definitions. Charlson’s comorbidity index and CHA₂DS₂-VASc score were calculated to evaluate the general comorbidity status and thromboembolic risk, respectively. The CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was defined as a composite score of congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75 (doubled), diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic accidents (doubled), vascular disease, age 65–74, sex category (female sex).[20] Previous cardiovascular disease was defined as a composite of heart failure, stable angina, unstable angina, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, transient ischemic accidents, or systemic embolism. Concomitant cardiovascular therapies were defined when cardiovascular medications were used continuously from baseline for at least 30 days alongside the index drug.

Study outcomes

The primary study outcome was defined as MACE, a composite of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. The secondary study outcomes were hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality. Vital status and the cause of death were retrieved from the mortality records of the National Statistical Office of Korea. Cardiovascular death was defined according to the ICD-10 codes I00.X–I99.X or R96, R98, and R99. Events of myocardial infarction (ICD-10 codes I21–I22) or ischemic stroke (ICD-10 codes I63–I64) were identified as a primary or secondary diagnosis at admission. Relevant procedural codes were additionally considered to enhance the validity of myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke episodes.[21] Hospitalization for heart failure was defined as an admission (≥1 day) with a main or subsidiary diagnosis of heart failure (ICD-10 code I50). Detailed definitions of the study outcomes are described in Supplementary Table 2. The censoring date was the earliest of the following: date of discontinuation of index drug, date of death, date of study outcomes, or the end date of the study period (December 31, 2018).

Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics are presented as mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables and as frequencies with percentages for categorical variables. The differences between the treatment groups were evaluated using analysis of variance for continuous variables and either the chi-squared or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables. To reduce the effect of selection bias, we performed a propensity score matching analysis for the comparison between the SGLT2 inhibitors group and No SGLT2 inhibitors group.[22] In addition, inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity score modeling was used for evaluating robustness of the findings.[23] We quantified as the likelihood of receiving SGLT2 inhibitors in the year before the index date by multiple logistic regression analysis. In the model, the use of SGLT2 inhibitors was used as a dependent variable, and all measured baseline characteristics as listed above, and clinically plausible interaction terms were included in the analysis. Model discrimination was assessed with C statistics (0.755), and model calibration was assessed with Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics (χ²=7.633; df=8; P=0.4701). After calculating the predicted probabilities, we matched each patient in the SGLT2 inhibitors group to those in the No SGLT2 inhibitors group at a 1:4 ratio using the Greedy algorithm with calipers of width equal to 0.2 of the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score. The balance of baseline characteristics between the SGLT2 inhibitors group and the No SGLT2 inhibitors group was evaluated using the standardized mean difference, and a standardized mean difference of <0.1 indicated a negligible difference.

For the study outcome analysis, incidence rates were estimated using the total number of study outcomes during the follow-up period divided by 100 person-years at risk. The cumulative rates of the study outcomes were evaluated using Kaplan–Meier analyses, and P values were estimated by Cox proportional hazard model that accounted for the matched nature. The risks of study outcomes were assessed using a Cox proportional hazard model and are presented as hazard ratios (HRs)

P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. R software version 4.0.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) and SAS Enterprise Guide software version 7.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) were used for statistical analyses.

Baseline characteristics

A total of 40,268 patients with AF and T2DM who were newly prescribed hypoglycemic drugs with SGLT2 inhibitors (n=2,977) or without SGLT2 inhibitors (n=37,291) were included in the study. Before propensity score matching, patients who received SGLT2 inhibitors were significantly younger and had lower CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores (Table 1). After 1:4 propensity score matching, a total of 13,649 patients were included in the final analysis (SGLT2 inhibitors group, n=2,958; No SGLT2 inhibitors group, n=10,691) (Supplementary Figure 1). Of the matched patients as a whole (male, n=8,023 [58.7%]), the mean age was 59.7 ± 11.9 years and the mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 3.0 ± 1.3. Baseline characteristics of the patients according to the use of SGLT2 inhibitors after propensity score matching are summarized in Table 1. Overall, the two matched cohorts were well-balanced (standardized mean difference <0.1).

Study outcomes

During a mean follow-up duration of 2.1 ± 1.4 years, MACE occurred in 83 (2.8%) patients in the SGLT2 inhibitors group (1.86 per 100 person-years; adjusted HR, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.21; P=0.719) and 466 (4.4%) patients (1.92 per 100 person-years) in the No SGLT2 inhibitors group (Table 2). The incidences of each component of MACE were not significantly different between the two groups (Table 2). The overall cumulative incidence curves of MACE and its components did not show significant differences between the two groups as well (Figure 2A-D).

The incidence of hospitalization for heart failure was significantly lower in the SGLT2 inhibitors group (1.29 per 100 person-years; adjusted HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.93; P=0.012) compared with the No SGLT2 inhibitors group (1.67 per 100 person-years) (Table 2). Kaplan–Meier curves also showed that the rate of hospitalization for heart failure was significantly lower in the SGLT2 inhibitors group than in the No SGLT2 inhibitors group (P=0.012) (Figure 3A).

The incidence of all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the SGLT2 inhibitors group (1.28 per person-years; adjusted HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.98; P=0.034)) than in the No SGLT2 inhibitors group (1.90 per person-years) (Table 2). Kaplan–Meier curves also showed that the rate of all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the SGLT2 inhibitors group than in the No SGLT2 inhibitors group (P=0.034) (Figure 3B).

In Cox proportional hazard model using the inverse probability of treatment weighting in initial cohort (2,977 in SGLT2 inhibitors vs 37,291 in No SGLT2 inhibitors), use of SGLT2 inhibitors was significantly associated with reduced risk of hospitalization for heart failure compared with the other hypoglycemic drugs (Table 3). However, there was no significant difference of the incidences of MACE or all-cause mortality between SGLT2 inhibitors and No SGLT2 inhibitors groups.

Subgroup analysis according to baseline characteristics

In a subgroup analysis according to baseline characteristics, the benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in terms of MACE and cardiovascular mortality was not evident in most subgroups (Supplementary Figure 1 and 2). For MACE, the benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors was significantly different between patients without renin-angiotensin receptor blocker (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.58) and those with renin-angiotensin receptor blocker (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.98) (P for interaction=0.018).

For hospitalization for heart failure, there were no significant interactions between SGLT2 inhibitors and all subgroups, except in the subgroups stratified by CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores and insulin use (both P for interaction<0.001; Supplementary Figure 3). SGLT2 inhibitors significantly reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure among male patients, those with previous cardiovascular disease, previous heart failure, previous myocardial infarction, hypertension, CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores ≥3, renin-angiotensin receptor blocker use, beta-blocker use, diuretics use, or anticoagulant use, and those without previous ischemic stroke, chronic kidney disease, or insulin use.

The effect of SGLT2 inhibitors in terms of all-cause mortality was shown in Supplementary Figure 4. Use of SGLT2 inhibitors tended to have benefit for all-cause mortality in almost subgroups.

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first investigation of the effectiveness of SGLT2 inhibitors in real-world patients with T2DM and AF. The main findings of this study are as follows: (1) patients treated with SGLT2 inhibitors did not have a significantly lower risk of MACE and its components compared with those treated without SGLT2 inhibitors; (2) the use of SGLT2 inhibitors was significantly associated with a lower risk of hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality than the other hypoglycemic drugs; and (3) the benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors for hospitalization for heart failure were consistent across high-risk subgroups, including those with previous cardiovascular disease, previous heart failure, previous myocardial infarction, or high CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores (≥3).

In randomized cardiovascular outcome trials of SGLTs inhibitors, results regarding cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality were different depending on the type of SGLT2 inhibitor used.[2-5] A recent meta-analysis of three randomized trials using empagliflozin, canagliflozin, and dapagliflozin reported that SGLT2 inhibitors reduced the risks of cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality specifically in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.[6] In a real-world cohort study, the use of SGLT2 inhibitors was associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality.[24, 25] In the present study, SGLT2 inhibitors use was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality but not in cardiovascular mortality. Recently, two studies on Korean T2DM patients also reported that new users of SGLT2 inhibitors had a lower risk of all-cause mortality than those who received other hypoglycemic drugs;[19, 26] however, these studies did not evaluate the risk of cardiovascular mortality.[19, 26]

In the present study, we found a discrepancy in the effect of SLGT2 inhibitors for cardiovascular and all-cause mortalities. Unfortunately, we cannot explain the exact reason for this discrepancy, but we assume that the following mechanisms may be involved. First, the study patients were younger compared with those included in previous randomized trials on SGLT2 inhibitors[2-5] (59 years vs. 63–64 years) and had fewer cardiovascular therapeutics including antiplatelet agents, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blocker, beta-blocker, statin, and diuretics even though the prevalence of cardiovascular disease was not overtly different (53% vs. 40%–99%). Thus, the cardiovascular effect of SGLT2 inhibitors might be diminished in these patients with relatively low cardiovascular risks. Second, the number of cardiovascular deaths in the propensity score-matched cohort was too small to produce a statistically significant difference between treatment groups. Moreover, during the propensity score matching process, relatively fewer patients with cardiovascular risks were selected among the SGLT2 inhibitors group (54.5% vs. 51.1%), which might have led to the non-significant results for cardiovascular mortality. Finally, the pleiotropic effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on energy metabolism, lipid profile, uric acid, blood pressure, hematocrit, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, inflammation, and nitric oxide as well as hypoglycemia and weight reduction may have contributed to the reduced risk of all-cause mortality compared with other hypoglycemic drugs.[27, 28]

In the current study, the beneficial effect of SGLT2 inhibitors for hospitalization for heart failure was consistent with those reported in previous randomized trials and large population-based cohort studies.[2-4, 24, 25] [29] The incidences of hospitalization for heart failure were 0.6–0.9 per 100 patient-years in the SGLT2 inhibitor groups in previous randomized trials,[2-5] while it was 1.3 per 100 patient-years in this study. This difference might be due to the fact that we defined hospitalization for heart failure with a main or subsidiary diagnosis of heart failure, which led to a higher incidence of hospitalization for heart failure than those in previous randomized trials. When we defined the hospitalization for heart failure with the main diagnosis of heart failure, its incidence was 0.6 and 1.0 per 100 patient-years (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.84; P=0.004) in the SGLT2 inhibitors group and the No SGLT2 inhibitors group, respectively. AF and heart failure share common risk factors and pathophysiology that lead to the development of the other condition,[30, 31]and patients with AF and heart failure have a poor prognosis.[13] Individuals with T2DM showed a 2- to 4-fold increased risk of heart failure compared with those without in observational studies.[32] Therefore, our results support the effectiveness of SGLT2 inhibitors for preventing hospitalization for heart failure in patients with T2DM and AF. The beneficial effect of SGLT2 inhibitors for hospitalization for heart failure was most evident in those treated with dapagliflozin, which is in line with the results of previous studies.[4, 33, 34] The effect of other SGLT-2 inhibitors was not evident in this study and should be further assessed in larger prospective studies.

Limitations

This study has several limitations and our results should be interpreted with caution. First, because this was a retrospective observational study using the NHIS database, we could not ascertain specific clinical data such as the duration, glucose control status, or severity of T2DM,the duration, type (paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent), or rhythm status of AF as well as laboratory data such as HbA1c, brain natriuretic peptide and echocardiographic data. Second, there could be selection bias and residual confounding factors, but we tried to overcome these limitations by using propensity score matching patients with SGLT2 inhibitors and without SGLT2 inhibitors. Thirdthe study population was a homogeneous group of Korean ethnicity, so caution is required when generalizing the findings of this study to other ethnic groups. Fouth, as we defined cardiovascular outcomes using ICD-10 codes, there is a possibility of outcome misclassification. However, a recent study comparing diagnoses from claims databases with medical records showed that the overall accuracy rates were 92.0% for myocardial infarction and 90.5% for ischemic stroke.[35] Thus, we believe that misclassification of study outcomes might be low and would not have significantly affected the main results. Fifth, we were not allowed to evaluate the specific prescription or dose of medication including SGLT2 inhibitors and other hypoglycemic drugs because NHIS policy has changed not to provide an information about specific brand name drug. So, we could not compare the effectiveness of each SGLT2 inhibitors vs other hypoglycemic drugs. And also, we did not have information about use of metformin for reasons mentioned above. However, there would be no significant difference of metformin prescription between two study groups because SGLT2 inhibitors or the other hypoglycemic drugs had health insurance coverage as secondary hypoglycemic drugs after metformin for T2DM patients. In addition, we could not incorporate the effect of medication compliance in our analysis. Finally, this study had a relatively short follow-up duration (2.1 ± 1.4 years). Thus, further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with T2DM and AF. Despite these limitations, this study has the strength of being a nationwide study with large sample size. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first and the largest Asian study to report the cardiovascular effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in real-world patients with T2DM and AF.

In a real-world clinical practice in Asian patients with T2DM and AF, new users of SGLT2 inhibitors had a lower risk of hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality compared with those without SGLT2 inhibitors.

AF=atrial fibrillation

CI=confidence interval

HR=hazard ratio

ICD-10=International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision

MACE=major adverse cardiovascular events

NHIS=National Health Insurance Service

SGLT2=sodium-glucose cotransporter 2

T2DM=type 2 diabetes mellitus

Acknowledgments

The National Health Information Database was provided by the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) of South Korea. The authors thank the National Health Insurance Service for their cooperation in this study.

Disclosures

Jun Kim received reseach grants from Boston Scientific, Medtronic and Abbott.

The other authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ contributions

JK designed the study and drafted the paper; CHK drafted the paper; YJK and MJK collected and analyzed the data; MJC, MSC, GBN, and KJC reviewed the paper and gave critical suggestion. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

None.

Availability of data and materials.

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available because the Korean NHIS owns the data, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request ([email protected]).

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Asan Medical Center (2019-0917). An anonymized dataset was provided by the NHIS for this study and the requirement for informed consent was waived.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Gerich JE: Role of the kidney in normal glucose homeostasis and in the hyperglycaemia of diabetes mellitus: therapeutic implications. Diabet Med 2010, 27(2):136-142.
Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, Fitchett D, Bluhmki E, Hantel S, Mattheus M, Devins T, Johansen OE, Woerle HJ et al: Empagliflozin, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med 2015, 373(22):2117-2128.
Neal B, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW, de Zeeuw D, Fulcher G, Erondu N, Shaw W, Law G, Desai M, Matthews DR et al: Canagliflozin and Cardiovascular and Renal Events in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med 2017, 377(7):644-657.
Wiviott SD, Raz I, Bonaca MP, Mosenzon O, Kato ET, Cahn A, Silverman MG, Zelniker TA, Kuder JF, Murphy SA et al: Dapagliflozin and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med 2019, 380(4):347-357.
Cannon CP, Pratley R, Dagogo-Jack S, Mancuso J, Huyck S, Masiukiewicz U, Charbonnel B, Frederich R, Gallo S, Cosentino F et al: Cardiovascular Outcomes with Ertugliflozin in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med 2020, 383(15):1425-1435.
Zelniker TA, Wiviott SD, Raz I, Im K, Goodrich EL, Bonaca MP, Mosenzon O, Kato ET, Cahn A, Furtado RHM et al: SGLT2 inhibitors for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials. Lancet 2019, 393(10166):31-39.
Zelniker TA, Wiviott SD, Raz I, Im K, Goodrich EL, Furtado RHM, Bonaca MP, Mosenzon O, Kato ET, Cahn A et al: 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 2019, 139(17):2022-2031.
Benjamin EJ, Muntner P, Alonso A, Bittencourt MS, Callaway CW, Carson AP, Chamberlain AM, Chang AR, Cheng S, Das SR et al: Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2019 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association. Circulation 2019, 139(10):e56-e528.
Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, Arbelo E, Bax JJ, Blomström-Lundqvist C, Boriani G, Castella M, Dan GA, Dilaveris PE et al: 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). European heart journal 2021, 42(5):373-498.
Stewart S, Hart CL, Hole DJ, McMurray JJ: A population-based study of the long-term risks associated with atrial fibrillation: 20-year follow-up of the Renfrew/Paisley study. Am J Med 2002, 113(5):359-364.
Benjamin EJ, Wolf PA, D'Agostino RB, Silbershatz H, Kannel WB, Levy D: Impact of atrial fibrillation on the risk of death: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 1998, 98(10):946-952.
John RM, Michaud GF, Stevenson WG: Atrial fibrillation hospitalization, mortality, and therapy. European heart journal 2018, 39(44):3958-3960.
Wang TJ, Larson MG, Levy D, Vasan RS, Leip EP, Wolf PA, D'Agostino RB, Murabito JM, Kannel WB, Benjamin EJ: Temporal relations of atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure and their joint influence on mortality: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 2003, 107(23):2920-2925.
An Y, Ogawa H, Yamashita Y, Ishii M, Iguchi M, Masunaga N, Esato M, Tsuji H, Wada H, Hasegawa K et al: Causes of death in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation: The Fushimi Atrial Fibrillation Registry. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes 2019, 5(1):35-42.
Zelniker TA, Bonaca MP, Furtado RHM, Mosenzon O, Kuder JF, Murphy SA, Bhatt DL, Leiter LA, McGuire DK, Wilding JPH et al: Effect of Dapagliflozin on Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Insights From the DECLARE-TIMI 58 Trial. Circulation 2020, 141(15):1227-1234.
Li W-j, Chen X-q, Xu L-l, Li Y-q, Luo B-h: SGLT2 inhibitors and atrial fibrillation in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review with meta-analysis of 16 randomized controlled trials. Cardiovascular Diabetology 2020, 19(1):130.
Cheol Seong S, Kim YY, Khang YH, Heon Park J, Kang HJ, Lee H, Do CH, Song JS, Hyon Bang J, Ha S et al: Data Resource Profile: The National Health Information Database of the National Health Insurance Service in South Korea. Int J Epidemiol 2017, 46(3):799-800.
Seong SC, Kim YY, Park SK, Khang YH, Kim HC, Park JH, Kang HJ, Do CH, Song JS, Lee EJ et al: Cohort profile: the National Health Insurance Service-National Health Screening Cohort (NHIS-HEALS) in Korea. BMJ Open 2017, 7(9):e016640.
Han SJ, Ha KH, Lee N, Kim DJ: Effectiveness and safety of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes: A nationwide population-based study. Diabetes Obes Metab 2021, 23(3):682-691.
Lip GY, Nieuwlaat R, Pisters R, Lane DA, Crijns HJ: Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor-based approach: the euro heart survey on atrial fibrillation. Chest 2010, 137(2):263-272.
Yeom H, Kang DR, Cho SK, Lee SW, Shin DH, Kim HC: Admission route and use of invasive procedures during hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction: analysis of 2007-2011 National Health Insurance database. Epidemiol Health 2015, 37:e2015022.
Parsons L: Reducing bias in a propensity score matched-pair sample using greedy matching techniques. Proceedings of the twenty-sixth Annual SAS users group international conference 2001 2001.
Xu S, Ross C, Raebel MA, Shetterly S, Blanchette C, Smith D: Use of stabilized inverse propensity scores as weights to directly estimate relative risk and its confidence intervals. Value Health 2010, 13(2):273-277.
Birkeland KI, Jørgensen ME, Carstensen B, Persson F, Gulseth HL, Thuresson M, Fenici P, Nathanson D, Nyström T, Eriksson JW et al: Cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in patients with type 2 diabetes following initiation of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors versus other glucose-lowering drugs (CVD-REAL Nordic): a multinational observational analysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2017, 5(9):709-717.
Kosiborod M, Cavender MA, Fu AZ, Wilding JP, Khunti K, Holl RW, Norhammar A, Birkeland KI, Jørgensen ME, Thuresson M et al: Lower Risk of Heart Failure and Death in Patients Initiated on Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors Versus Other Glucose-Lowering Drugs: The CVD-REAL Study (Comparative Effectiveness of Cardiovascular Outcomes in New Users of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors). Circulation 2017, 136(3):249-259.
Jeon JY, Ha KH, Kim DJ: Cardiovascular Safety of Sodium Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors as Add-on to Metformin Monotherapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Metab J 2020.
Kashiwagi A, Maegawa H: Metabolic and hemodynamic effects of sodium-dependent glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors on cardio-renal protection in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Investig 2017, 8(4):416-427.
Cavaiola TS, Pettus J: Cardiovascular effects of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes 2018, 11:133-148.
Udell JA, Yuan Z, Rush T, Sicignano NM, Galitz M, Rosenthal N: Cardiovascular Outcomes and Risks After Initiation of a Sodium Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitor: Results From the EASEL Population-Based Cohort Study (Evidence for Cardiovascular Outcomes With Sodium Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors in the Real World). Circulation 2018, 137(14):1450-1459.
Santhanakrishnan R, Wang N, Larson MG, Magnani JW, McManus DD, Lubitz SA, Ellinor PT, Cheng S, Vasan RS, Lee DS et al: Atrial Fibrillation Begets Heart Failure and Vice Versa: Temporal Associations and Differences in Preserved Versus Reduced Ejection Fraction. Circulation 2016, 133(5):484-492.
Karnik AA, Gopal DM, Ko D, Benjamin EJ, Helm RH: Epidemiology of Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: A Growing and Important Problem. Cardiol Clin 2019, 37(2):119-129.
Dunlay SM, Givertz MM, Aguilar D, Allen LA, Chan M, Desai AS, Deswal A, Dickson VV, Kosiborod MN, Lekavich CL et al: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America: This statement does not represent an update of the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA heart failure guideline update. Circulation 2019, 140(7):e294-e324.
Blair HA: Dapagliflozin: A Review in Symptomatic Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 2021.
Jariwala P, Jadhav K, Punjani A, Boorugu H, Mari AR: ADDition of DAPAgliflozin, Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitor to Angiotensin Receptor Blocker-Neprilysin Inhibitors Non-Responders in Patient with Refractory Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (ADD DAPA trial). Indian Heart J 2021, 73(5):605-611.
Park J, Kwon S, Choi E-K, Choi Y-j, Lee E, Choe W, Lee S-R, Cha M-J, Lim W-H, Oh S: Validation of diagnostic codes of major clinical outcomes in a National Health Insurance database. International Journal of Arrhythmia 2019, 20(1):5.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the patients according to sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors use

	Overall cohort				IPTW adjustment	Propensity score matched cohort
Characteristics	SGLT2 inhibitors (n=2,977)		No SGLT2 inhibitors (n=37,291)	SMD	SMD	SGLT2 inhibitors (n=2,958)	No SGLT2 inhibitors (n=10,691)	SMD
Age, years	58.80 ± 12.09		66.78 ± 11.82	0.667	0.017	58.89 ± 12.06	60.02 ± 11.91	0.094
Age groups				0.604	0.071			0.061
<65	1,977 (66.4)		15,024 (40.3)			1,958 (66.2)	6,843 (64.0)
65–74	704 (23.6)		11,400 (30.6)			704 (23.8)	2,586 (24.2)
≥75	296 (9.9)		10,867 (29.1)			296 (10.0)	1,262 (11.8)
Male	1,770 (59.5)		20,340 (54.5)	0.099	0.020	1,758 (59.4)	6,265 (58.6)	0.017
Previous cardiovascular disease^*	1,599 (53.7)		20,329 (54.5)	0.016	0.049	1,586 (53.6)	5,507 (51.5)	0.042
Heart failure	303 (10.2)		3,573 (9.6)	0.020	0.023	297 (10.0)	1,015 (9.5)	0.033
Stable angina	601 (20.2)		7,292 (19.6)	0.016	0.007	597 (20.2)	2,088 (19.5)	0.016
Unstable angina	184 (6.2)		2,235 (6.0)	0.008	0.014	183 (6.2)	664 (6.2)	0.001
Myocardial infarction	215 (7.2)		2,207 (5.9)	0.053	0.015	215 (7.3)	821 (7.7)	0.014
Peripheral artery disease	161 (5.4)		1,759 (4.7)	0.032	0.025	160 (5.4)	575 (5.4)	0.001
Hemorrhagic stroke	26 (0.9)		461 (1.2)	0.036	0.001	26 (0.9)	93 (0.9)	0.001
Ischemic stroke	220 (7.4)		4,378 (11.7)	0.131	0.013	220 (7.4)	1,233 (11.5)	0.009
Transient ischemic accident	39 (1.3)		749 (2.0)	0.055	0.007	39 (1.3)	140 (1.3)	0.001
Systemic embolism	30 (1.0)		450 (1.2)	0.019	0.051	29 (1.0)	93 (0.9)	0.012
Hypertension	2,307 (77.5)		28,072 (75.3)	0.052	0.012	2,289 (77.4)	8,163 (76.4)	0.024
Chronic kidney disease	60 (2.0)		981 (2.6)	0.041	0.004	58 (2.0)	220 (2.1)	0.007
CHA₂DS₂-VASc score	2.99 ± 1.27		3.51 ± 1.47	0.376	<0.001	2.99 ± 1.27	3.02 ± 1.32	0.021
CHA₂DS₂-VASc score group				0.274	0.027			0.037
1	266 (8.9)		3095 (8.3)			266 (9.0)	1062 (9.9)
2	922 (31.0)		7,306 (19.6)			915 (30.9)	3,182 (29.8)
≥3	1,789 (60.1)		26,890 (72.1)			1,777 (60.1)	6,447 (60.3)
Charlson comorbidity index	2.37 ± 1.70		1.94 ± 1.65	0.257	0.029	2.35 ± 1.66	2.25 ± 1.80	0.060
GLP-1 receptor agonist	7 (0.2)		18 (0.0)	0.050	0.005	7 (0.2)	15 (0.1)	0.022
Insulin	99 (3.3)		818 (2.2)	0.069	0.013	98 (3.3)	309 (2.9)	0.024
Cardiovascular therapies
Antiplatelet agents	1,146 (38.5)		15,884 (42.6)	0.084	0.029	1,143 (38.6)	4,111 (38.5)	0.004
ACE inhibitors or ARB	1,073 (36.0)		11,246 (30.2)	0.125	0.005	1,065 (36.0)	3,752 (35.1)	0.019
Beta-blocker	1,386 (46.6)		14,539 (39.0)	0.153	0.024	1,376 (46.5)	4,839 (45.3)	0.025
Calcium-channel blocker	1,054 (35.4)		13,111 (35.2)	0.005	0.020	1,046 (35.4)	3,717 (34.8)	0.012
Statin	1,724 (57.9)	16,775 (45.0)		0.261	0.033	1,705 (57.6)	5,894 (55.1)	0.051
Diuretics	1,033 (34.7)	13,358 (35.8)		0.023	0.021	1,027 (34.7)	3,670 (34.3)	0.008
Anticoagulants	828 (27.8)	8,426 (22.6)		0.120	0.022	817 (27.6)	2,779 (26.0)	0.037
Warfarin	326 (11.0)	5,011 (13.4)		0.076	0.003	324 (11.0)	1,196 (11.2)	0.007
NOACs	556 (18.7)	3,961 (10.6)		0.229	0.018	546 (18.5)	1,832 (17.1)	0.035
Insurance type				0.057	0.006			0.019
Health insurance	2,791 (93.8)	34,424 (92.3)				2,774 (93.8)	9,977 (93.3)
Medical aid	186 (6.2)	2,867 (7.7)				184 (6.2)	714 (6.7)
Household income				0.120	0.041			0.034
Medical aid	186 (6.2)	2,867 (7.7)				184 (6.2)	714 (6.7)
1^st quartile	508 (17.1)	6,256 (16.8)				504 (17.0)	1,792 (16.8)
2^nd quartile	554 (18.6)	5,793 (15.5)				548 (18.5)	1,953 (18.3)
3^rd quartile	700 (23.5)	8,055 (21.6)				699 (23.6)	2,429 (22.7)
4^thquartile	990 (33.3)	13,736 (36.8)				984 (33.3)	3,670 (34.3)
Missing	39 (1.3)	584 (1.6)				39 (1.3)	133 (1.2)

Values are mean ± standard deviation or n (%).

Previous cardiovascular disease^* was a composite of heart failure, stable angina, unstable angina, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, transient ischemic accidents, or systemic embolism.

ACE, angiotensin-converting enzyme; ARB, angiotensin-receptor blocker; CHA₂DS₂-VASc score, a composite score of congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 (doubled), diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (doubled), vascular disease, age 65–74, sex category (female sex); GLP-1, glucagon-like peptide 1; IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting; NOACs, non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants; SGLT2, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2; SMD, standardized mean difference.

Table 2. Risk of study outcomes according to sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors use in propensity score matched cohort

Outcome	SGLT2 inhibitors		No SGLT2 inhibitors		Hazard ratio (95% CI)^*	P value
	Events – no. (%) (n=2,958)	Events per 100 patient-years	Events – no. (%) (n=10,691)	Events per 100 patient-years
MACE	83 (2.8)	1.86	466 (4.4)	1.92	0.96 (0.76–1.21)	0.72
Cardiovascular mortality	27 (0.9)	0.59	130 (1.2)	0.52	1.21 (0.79–1.84)	0.39
Myocardial infarction	20 (0.7)	0.44	99 (0.9)	0.40	0.98 (0.61–1.58)	0.95
Ischemic stroke	48 (1.6)	1.07	314 (2.9)	1.29	0.82 (0.60–1.12)	0.21
Hospitalization for heart failure	58 (2.0)	1.29	404 (3.8)	1.67	0.70 (0.53–0.93)	0.012
All-cause mortality	58 (2.0)	1.28	471 (4.4)	1.90	0.74 (0.56–0.98)	0.034

MACE was defined as a composite of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke.

Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox proportional hazard model that accounted for the matched nature.

^*Reference as “No SGLT2 inhibitors” group.

Table 3. Risk of study outcomes according to sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors use in initial cohort

Outcome	SGLT2 inhibitors		No SGLT2 inhibitors		Crude Hazard ratio (95% CI)	Hazard ratio (95% CI)^*	P value
	Events – no. (%) (n=2,977)	Events per 100 patient-years	Events – no. (%) (n=37,291)	Events per 100 patient-years
MACE	83 (2.8)	1.85	2,616(7.0)	3.06	0.58 (0.47–0.72)	0.90 (0.75–1.07)	0.226
Cardiovascular mortality	27 (0.9)	0.59	987 (2.6)	1.11	0.56 (0.38–0.82)	0.88 (0.51–1.52)	0.648
Myocardial infarction	20 (0.7)	0.44	352 (0.9)	0.4	1.01 (0.64–1.59)	0.99 (0.63–1.55)	0.953
Ischemic stroke	48 (1.6)	1.06	1,792 (4.8)	2.08	0.48 (0.36–0.64)	0.94 (0.76–1.15)	0.531
Hospitalization for heart failure	58 (1.9)	1.28	1,750 (4.7)	2.03	0.57 (0.44–0.74)	0.77 (0.62–0.97)	0.025
All-cause mortality	58 (1.9)	1.27	2,770(7.4)	3.12	0.43 (0.33–0.56)	0.71 (0.49–1.03)	0.067

MACE was defined as a composite of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke.

Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox proportional hazard model using the inverse probability of treatment weighting.

^*Reference as “No SGLT2 inhibitors” group.

No competing interests reported.

SupplementaryCardiovascularDiabetology.docx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Comparative Effectiveness of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors vs the Other Hypoglycemic Drugs on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events and Hospitalization for Heart Failure in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Atrial Fibrillation

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1