Shin Sooyoung, Kim Hyunah
College of Pharmacy, Ajou University, Suwon, Republic of Korea.
College of Pharmacy, Sookmyung Women's University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2016 Mar 15;12:435-44. doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S105285. eCollection 2016.
A 2013 postmarketing study suggested a possible link between saxagliptin use and hospital admission for heart failure. Cardiovascular (CV) effects of sitagliptin, the most commonly prescribed antidiabetic in the same class as saxagliptin, have not been evaluated much in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes. This study sought to ascertain the CV safety of sitagliptin in Korean patients.
A retrospective cohort study of 4,860 patients who were classified into the sitagliptin and metformin groups was conducted using electronic patient data retrieved from a major tertiary care medical center in Korea. Primary composite end points included CV death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. Secondary composite end points included the aforementioned individual primary outcomes plus hospitalization due to unstable angina, heart failure, or coronary revascularization. A Cox proportional-hazards model was used to compare CV risk associated with drug exposure.
Following propensity score (PS) matching in a 1:2 ratio, 1,620 patients in the sitagliptin group and 3,240 patients in the metformin group were identified for cohort entry. The PS-matched hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for sitagliptin relative to metformin were, respectively, 0.831 and 0.536-1.289 (P=0.408) for primary end point and 1.140 and 0.958-1.356 (P=0.139) for secondary end point. Heart failure hospitalization rates did not differ significantly between the two groups, with the PS-matched HR of 0.762 and 95% CI of 0.389-1.495 (P=0.430). When only those patients at high risk of ischemic heart disease were included for analysis, no excess CV risk was observed with sitagliptin compared with metformin. Overall, there were no substantial between-group differences in rates of adverse events, such as hypoglycemia and incident pancreatic disease.
Sitagliptin was not associated with elevated risk of CV complications including myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, heart failure, and coronary revascularization, compared to metformin therapy among Korean patients with type 2 diabetes.
2013年的一项上市后研究表明,使用沙格列汀与因心力衰竭住院之间可能存在关联。与沙格列汀属于同一类别的最常用抗糖尿病药物西格列汀的心血管(CV)效应,在亚洲2型糖尿病患者中尚未得到充分评估。本研究旨在确定西格列汀在韩国患者中的心血管安全性。
使用从韩国一家大型三级医疗中心检索到的电子患者数据,对4860例患者进行回顾性队列研究,这些患者被分为西格列汀组和二甲双胍组。主要复合终点包括心血管死亡、心肌梗死和缺血性中风。次要复合终点包括上述个体主要结局加上因不稳定型心绞痛、心力衰竭或冠状动脉血运重建而住院。采用Cox比例风险模型比较与药物暴露相关的心血管风险。
按照1:2的比例进行倾向评分(PS)匹配后,确定西格列汀组有1620例患者和二甲双胍组有3240例患者进入队列。西格列汀相对于二甲双胍的PS匹配风险比(HR)和95%置信区间(CI),主要终点分别为0.831和0.536 - 1.289(P = 0.408),次要终点分别为1.140和0.958 - 1.356(P = 0.139)。两组之间心力衰竭住院率无显著差异,PS匹配的HR为0.762,95%CI为0.389 - 1.495(P = 0.430)。当仅纳入那些有缺血性心脏病高风险的患者进行分析时,与二甲双胍相比,未观察到西格列汀有额外的心血管风险。总体而言,低血糖和新发胰腺疾病等不良事件发生率在组间无实质性差异。
在韩国2型糖尿病患者中,与二甲双胍治疗相比,西格列汀与心肌梗死、缺血性中风、心力衰竭和冠状动脉血运重建等心血管并发症风险升高无关。