Diabetes Trials Unit, Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Oxford, UK (M.A.B., R.A.P., R.R.H.).
Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC (S.R.S., Y.L., R.J.M., A.F.H.).
Circulation. 2020 Apr 28;141(17):1360-1370. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.043353. Epub 2020 Feb 26.
EXSCEL (Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering) assessed the impact of once-weekly exenatide 2 mg versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, while aiming for glycemic equipoise. Consequently, greater drop-in of open-label glucose-lowering medications occurred in the placebo group. Accordingly, we explored the potential effects of their unbalanced use on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke, and all-cause mortality (ACM), given that some of these agents are cardioprotective.
Cox hazard models were performed by randomized treatment for drug classes where >5% open-label drop-in glucose-lowering medication occurred, and for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs; 3.0%) using three methodologies: drop-in visit right censoring, inverse probability for treatment weighting (IPTW), and applying drug class risk reductions.
Baseline glucose-lowering medications for the 14 752 EXSCEL participants (73.1% with previous cardiovascular disease) did not differ between treatment groups. During median 3.2 years follow-up, open-label drop-in occurred in 33.4% of participants, more frequently with placebo than exenatide (38.1% versus 28.8%), with metformin (6.1% versus 4.9%), sulfonylurea (8.7% versus 6.9%), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (10.6% versus 7.5%), SGLT-2i (10.3% versus 8.1%), GLP-1 RA (3.4% versus 2.4%), and insulin (13.8% versus 9.4%). The MACE effect size was not altered meaningfully by right censoring, but the favorable HR for exenatide became nominally significant in the sulfonylurea and any glucose-lowering medication groups, while the ACM HR and p-values were essentially unchanged. IPTW decreased the MACE HR from 0.91 (=0.061) to 0.85 (=0.008) and the ACM HR from 0.86 (=0.016) to 0.81 (=0.012). Application of literature-derived risk reductions showed no meaningful changes in MACE or ACM HRs or values, although simulations of substantially greater use of drop-in cardioprotective glucose-lowering agents demonstrated blunting of signal detection.
EXSCEL-observed HRs for MACE and ACM remained robust after right censoring or application of literature-derived risk reductions, but the exenatide versus placebo MACE effect size and statistical significance were increased by IPTW. Effects of open-label drop-in cardioprotective medications need to be considered carefully when designing, conducting, and analyzing cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering agents under the premise of glycemic equipoise. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01144338.
EXSCEL(Exenatide 降低心血管事件研究)评估了每周一次给予 2mg 艾塞那肽与安慰剂在 2 型糖尿病患者中的疗效,同时旨在达到血糖平衡。因此,安慰剂组中出现了更大比例的开放标签降糖药物停药。因此,我们探讨了这些药物不平衡使用对主要不良心血管事件(MACE)的潜在影响,MACE 定义为心血管死亡、非致死性心肌梗死或非致死性卒中以及全因死亡率(ACM),因为其中一些药物具有心脏保护作用。
通过按随机治疗进行 Cox 风险模型分析,适用于开放标签降糖药物停药比例超过 5%的药物类别,对于胰高血糖素样肽-1 受体激动剂(GLP-1 RAs;3.0%),我们采用了三种方法:停药时右删失、治疗加权逆概率(IPTW)和应用药物类别风险降低。
EXSCEL 研究的 14752 名参与者(73.1%有既往心血管疾病)的基线降糖药物治疗在两组间无差异。在中位 3.2 年的随访期间,33.4%的参与者出现了开放标签降糖药物停药,安慰剂组比艾塞那肽组更为常见(38.1%比 28.8%),停药药物包括:二甲双胍(6.1%比 4.9%)、磺脲类(8.7%比 6.9%)、二肽基肽酶-4 抑制剂(10.6%比 7.5%)、SGLT-2i(10.3%比 8.1%)、GLP-1 RA(3.4%比 2.4%)和胰岛素(13.8%比 9.4%)。右删失并没有显著改变 MACE 的效应大小,但在磺脲类和任何降糖药物组中,艾塞那肽的 HR 变得具有统计学意义,而 ACM 的 HR 和 p 值基本不变。IPTW 将 MACE HR 从 0.91(=0.061)降低至 0.85(=0.008),将 ACM HR 从 0.86(=0.016)降低至 0.81(=0.012)。应用文献中报道的风险降低并未显著改变 MACE 或 ACM 的 HR 或 p 值,但模拟使用更多的开放标签心脏保护降糖药物显著削弱了信号检测。
在右删失或应用文献中报道的风险降低后,EXSCEL 观察到的 MACE 和 ACM 的 HR 仍然可靠,但 IPWT 增加了艾塞那肽与安慰剂相比的 MACE 效应大小和统计学意义。在血糖平衡的前提下,设计、进行和分析降糖药物的心血管结局试验时,需要仔细考虑开放标签降糖药物停药的影响。注册:网址:https://www.clinicaltrials.gov;唯一标识符:NCT01144338。