Department of Medicine K2, Karolinska Institutet, Solnavägen 1, Stockholm SE171 77, Sweden.
Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, 237 Barton Street East, Hamilton, ON L8L 2X2, Canada.
Eur Heart J. 2021 Jul 8;42(26):2565-2573. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa777.
Recent European Guidelines for Diabetes, Prediabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases introduced a shift in managing patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for or established cardiovascular (CV) disease by recommending GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial glucose-lowering therapy. This is questioned since outcome trials of these drug classes had metformin as background therapy. In this post hoc analysis, the effect of dulaglutide on CV events was investigated according to the baseline metformin therapy by means of a subgroup analysis of the Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly Incretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial.
Patients in REWIND (n = 9901; women: 46.3%; mean age: 66.2 years) had type 2 diabetes and either a previous CV event (31%) or high CV risk (69%). They were randomized (1:1) to sc. dulaglutide (1.5 mg/weekly) or placebo in addition to standard of care. The primary outcome was the first of a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and death from cardiovascular or unknown causes. Key secondary outcomes included a microvascular composite endpoint, all-cause death, and heart failure. The effect of dulaglutide in patients with and without baseline metformin was evaluated by a Cox regression hazard model with baseline metformin, dulaglutide assignment, and their interaction as independent variables. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by a Cox regression model with adjustments for factors differing at baseline between people with vs. without metformin, identified using the backward selection.
Compared to patients with metformin at baseline (n = 8037; 81%), those without metformin (n = 1864; 19%) were older and slightly less obese and had higher proportions of women, prior CV events, heart failure, and renal disease. The primary outcome occurred in 976 (12%) participants with baseline metformin and in 281 (15%) without. There was no significant difference in the effect of dulaglutide on the primary outcome in patients with vs. without metformin at baseline [HR 0.92 (CI 0.81-1.05) vs. 0.78 (CI 0.61-0.99); interaction P = 0.18]. Findings for key secondary outcomes were similar in patients with and without baseline metformin.
This analysis suggests that the cardioprotective effect of dulaglutide is unaffected by the baseline use of metformin therapy.
最近的欧洲糖尿病、前期糖尿病和心血管疾病指南建议将 GLP-1 受体激动剂和 SGLT-2 抑制剂作为 2 型糖尿病高危或已发生心血管(CV)疾病患者的初始降糖治疗药物,这标志着对 2 型糖尿病患者的治疗策略发生了重大转变。之所以提出这种建议,是因为这些药物类别的临床试验结果均以二甲双胍作为背景治疗。在这项事后分析中,通过对心血管事件风险降低的每周递增肠促胰岛素治疗研究(REWIND)试验的亚组分析,根据基线时的二甲双胍治疗情况,研究了度拉糖肽对心血管事件的影响。
REWIND 试验(n=9901;女性:46.3%;平均年龄:66.2 岁)中的患者患有 2 型糖尿病,且有既往心血管事件(31%)或高心血管风险(69%)。他们被随机(1:1)接受皮下注射度拉糖肽(1.5mg/周)或安慰剂联合标准治疗。主要复合终点为非致死性心肌梗死、非致死性卒中和心血管或不明原因死亡的首次发生。主要次要终点包括微血管复合终点、全因死亡和心力衰竭。采用 Cox 回归风险模型,以基线时的二甲双胍、度拉糖肽分配以及两者的相互作用为自变量,评估度拉糖肽在基线时使用和不使用二甲双胍的患者中的效果。采用 Cox 回归模型,根据基线时与使用或不使用二甲双胍的人群存在差异的因素进行调整,并采用后向选择法确定这些因素。调整后的风险比(HR)和 95%置信区间(CI)采用 Cox 回归模型进行估计。
与基线时使用二甲双胍的患者(n=8037;81%)相比,基线时不使用二甲双胍的患者(n=1864;19%)年龄更大、体重略轻、女性、既往心血管事件、心力衰竭和肾脏疾病的比例更高。在基线时使用二甲双胍的患者中,主要终点发生在 976 例(12%)患者中,而在基线时不使用二甲双胍的患者中,有 281 例(15%)患者发生了主要终点事件。在基线时使用和不使用二甲双胍的患者中,度拉糖肽对主要终点的影响无显著差异[HR 0.92(95%CI 0.81-1.05)比 0.78(95%CI 0.61-0.99);交互 P=0.18]。在基线时使用和不使用二甲双胍的患者中,关键次要终点的结果相似。
该分析提示,度拉糖肽的心脏保护作用不受基线二甲双胍治疗的影响。