Suppr超能文献

在台湾,衰弱对 2 型糖尿病患者 GLP-1 受体激动剂与 SGLT2 抑制剂有效性和安全性的影响:一项回顾性、全国性、纵向研究。

Effect of frailty on effectiveness and safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists versus SGLT2 inhibitors in people with type 2 diabetes in Taiwan: a retrospective, nationwide, longitudinal study.

机构信息

Graduate Institute of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan; School of Pharmacy, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Pharmacy, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.

Department of Health Service Administration, College of Public Health, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.

出版信息

Lancet Healthy Longev. 2024 Sep;5(9):100621. doi: 10.1016/j.lanhl.2024.07.004. Epub 2024 Sep 13.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors are increasingly being used in people with type 2 diabetes on the basis of findings from randomised clinical trials; however, little is known of whether clinical outcomes are affected by frailty in real-world settings. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors in managing type 2 diabetes, with a specific focus on stratifying people by their frailty status.

METHODS

In this retrospective, nationwide, longitudinal study, we identified people (aged ≥20 years) with type 2 diabetes who newly initiated either a GLP-1 receptor agonist or an SGLT2 inhibitor during the period Jan 1, 2017 to Dec 31, 2019 from the Taiwan National Health Insurance database. Individuals were excluded if they had been diagnosed with cancer, received dialysis for kidney failure, or had prescriptions for a GLP-1 receptor agonist or an SGLT2 inhibitor, within 1 year before the index date. Mortality data were collected from the Taiwan National Death Registry. Eligible individuals were categorised into three frailty subgroups-fit, mild frailty, and moderate or severe frailty-on the basis of the multimorbidity frailty index. Propensity score matching (1:1) was used to balance covariates between recipients of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors among each frailty subgroup. Clinical outcomes of interest included three-point major adverse cardiovascular events (non-fatal acute myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and fatal cardiovascular disease), all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure, dialysis or renal transplant, severe diabetic foot complications, retinopathy, hospitalisation for severe hyperglycaemia, and hospitalisation for severe hypoglycaemia. The association between the use of a GLP-1 receptor agonist versus an SGLT2 inhibitor and the risk of the outcomes of interest among each frailty subgroup was examined using a subdistribution hazard model.

FINDINGS

We identified 320 210 people with type 2 diabetes, of whom 280 163 met the eligibility criteria, who initiated either a GLP-1 receptor agonist (n=22 968; mean age 57·7 years [SD 13·9], 11 338 [49·4%] were female, and 11 630 [50·6%] were male) or SGLT2 inhibitor (n=257 195; mean age 58·8 years [12·3], 107 988 [42·0%] were female, and 149 207 [58·0%] were male) during 2017-19. After matching, 11 882, 7210, and 3414 pairs of GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor users were assigned in the fit, mild frailty, and moderate or severe frailty subgroups. All clinical outcomes were comparable between users of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors among each frailty subgroup, except for a higher risk of hospitalisation for severe hyperglycaemia with GLP-1 receptor agonists than with SGLT2 inhibitors in the mild frailty subgroup (subdistribution hazard ratio 1·25 [95% CI 1·13-1·38]; p<0·0001) and a higher risk of dialysis or renal transplant with GLP-1 receptor agonists than with SGLT2 inhibitors in the fit (2·43 [1·82-3·23]; p<0·0001), mild frailty (3·93 [3·03 -5·09]; p<0·0001), and moderate or severe frailty (2·60 [2·03-3·31]; p<0·0001) subgroups.

INTERPRETATION

Formulating clear and updated guidelines on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors according to frailty status could improve management of type 2 diabetes.

FUNDING

Ministry of Education, Taiwan.

摘要

背景

基于随机临床试验的结果,GLP-1 受体激动剂和 SGLT2 抑制剂越来越多地被用于 2 型糖尿病患者;然而,在真实世界环境中,尚不清楚临床结局是否会受到脆弱性的影响。我们旨在比较 GLP-1 受体激动剂和 SGLT2 抑制剂在管理 2 型糖尿病方面的临床效果和安全性,并特别关注根据脆弱性状况对患者进行分层。

方法

在这项回顾性、全国性、纵向研究中,我们从台湾全民健康保险数据库中确定了在 2017 年 1 月 1 日至 2019 年 12 月 31 日期间新开始使用 GLP-1 受体激动剂或 SGLT2 抑制剂的 2 型糖尿病患者(年龄≥20 岁)。如果在指数日期前 1 年内诊断出癌症、接受肾衰竭透析或有 GLP-1 受体激动剂或 SGLT2 抑制剂的处方,则排除个体。从台湾国家死亡登记处收集死亡率数据。根据多因素衰弱指数,将合格个体分为三组:健康、轻度衰弱和中度或重度衰弱。在每个脆弱亚组中,使用倾向评分匹配(1:1)来平衡 GLP-1 受体激动剂和 SGLT2 抑制剂接受者之间的协变量。感兴趣的临床结果包括三点主要不良心血管事件(非致命性急性心肌梗死、非致命性中风和致命性心血管疾病)、全因死亡率、心力衰竭住院、透析或肾移植、严重糖尿病足并发症、视网膜病变、严重高血糖住院和严重低血糖住院。使用亚分布风险模型检查每个脆弱亚组中使用 GLP-1 受体激动剂与感兴趣结局风险之间的关联。

结果

我们确定了 320210 名 2 型糖尿病患者,其中 280163 名符合入选标准,他们开始使用 GLP-1 受体激动剂(n=22968;平均年龄 57.7 岁[标准差 13.9],11338[49.4%]为女性,11630[50.6%]为男性)或 SGLT2 抑制剂(n=257195;平均年龄 58.8 岁[12.3],107988[42.0%]为女性,149207[58.0%]为男性)在 2017-19 年期间。匹配后,在健康、轻度衰弱和中度或重度衰弱亚组中分别分配了 11882、7210 和 3414 对 GLP-1 受体激动剂和 SGLT2 抑制剂使用者。在每个脆弱亚组中,GLP-1 受体激动剂和 SGLT2 抑制剂使用者的所有临床结局均相似,除了轻度衰弱亚组中 GLP-1 受体激动剂的严重高血糖住院风险较高(亚分布风险比 1.25[95%CI 1.13-1.38];p<0.0001)和 GLP-1 受体激动剂的透析或肾移植风险较高外(2.43[1.82-3.23];p<0.0001),在健康(2.43[1.82-3.23];p<0.0001)、轻度衰弱(3.93[3.03-5.09];p<0.0001)和中度或重度衰弱(2.60[2.03-3.31];p<0.0001)亚组中。

解释

根据脆弱性状况制定关于 GLP-1 受体激动剂和 SGLT2 抑制剂使用的明确和更新指南,可以改善 2 型糖尿病的管理。

资金

教育部,台湾。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验