Department of Epidemiology, Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, IN, Indianapolis, 46202, USA.
Cardiology Professional Services of Berkshire Medical Center, 777 North St, MB, Pittsfield, 01201, USA.
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2022 Aug;78(8):1205-1216. doi: 10.1007/s00228-022-03327-w. Epub 2022 Jun 7.
We aimed to explore possible contributors to discrepancies between randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world observational studies (OS) in cardiovascular benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients.
We searched PubMed and EMBASE to identify meta-analyses of RCTs and OS on cardiovascular effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in T2D patients. Cardiovascular outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, cardiovascular mortality (CVM), all-cause mortality (ACM), hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), and atrial fibrillation (AF). We examined the summary relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each endpoint from meta-analyses of RCTs.
We identified and included 15 eligible meta-analyses, 13 for RCTs and 2 for OS, with moderately strong evidence. The results revealed a significant discrepancy between RCTs and OS for MI (RR, 95% CI 1.05, 0.82-1.38; I = 91.5% versus odds ratio (OR), 95% CI 0.77, 0.73-0.81; I = 15.0%), stroke (RR, 95% CI 0.99, 0.76-1.29; I = 93.4% versus OR, 95% CI 0.75, 0.72-0.78; I = 23.0%), and AF (RR, 95% CI 0.72, 0.62-0.85; I = 0.0% versus OR, 95% CI 0.92, 0.83-1.02; I = 0.0%).
OS presented significant benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors both on primary and secondary preventions of MACE, MI, stroke, ACM, CVM, and HHF; RCTs did not. Given the spectrum of T2D patient characteristics and the strength of overall evidence, our review underscored the importance of constant integration of all available information and critical interpretation of all inconsistencies to optimize evidence-based diabetes care.
本研究旨在探讨钠-葡萄糖共转运蛋白 2(SGLT2)抑制剂在 2 型糖尿病(T2D)患者心血管获益方面,随机对照试验(RCT)与真实世界观察性研究(OS)结果差异的可能原因。
我们检索了 PubMed 和 EMBASE,以确定关于 SGLT2 抑制剂在 T2D 患者心血管影响的 RCT 和 OS 的荟萃分析。心血管结局包括主要不良心血管事件(MACE)、心肌梗死(MI)、卒中和心血管死亡率(CVM)、全因死亡率(ACM)、心力衰竭住院(HHF)和心房颤动(AF)。我们检查了 RCT 荟萃分析中每个终点的汇总相对风险(RR)和 95%置信区间(CI)。
我们确定并纳入了 15 项符合条件的荟萃分析,其中 13 项为 RCT,2 项为 OS,证据强度中等偏强。结果表明,MI(RR,95%CI 1.05,0.82-1.38;I = 91.5% vs. 比值比(OR),95%CI 0.77,0.73-0.81;I = 15.0%)、卒中和 AF(RR,95%CI 0.99,0.76-1.29;I = 93.4% vs. OR,95%CI 0.75,0.72-0.78;I = 23.0%)的 RCT 和 OS 结果之间存在显著差异。
OS 显示 SGLT2 抑制剂在 MACE、MI、卒中和 ACM、CVM 和 HHF 的一级和二级预防中具有显著获益;而 RCT 并未显示。鉴于 T2D 患者特征的范围和整体证据的强度,我们的综述强调了不断整合所有可用信息和批判性解释所有不一致之处以优化基于证据的糖尿病治疗的重要性。