Kim Chungsoo, Bu Fan, Blacketer Clair, Ostropolets Anna, Duarte-Salles Talita, Viernes Benjamin, Falconer Thomas, Pistillo Andrea, Li Jing, Yin Can, Van Zandt Mui, Nagy Paul, Nishimura Akihiko, Minty Evan, You Seng Chan, Sawano Mitsuaki, Sawano Shoko, Jeon Ja Young, Aminorroaya Arya, Dhingra Lovedeep S, Pedroso Aline F, Thangraraj Phyllis, Dorr David A, Pratt Nicole, Man Kenneth K C, Lau Wallis C Y, Morales Daniel R, Khera Rohan, Schuemie Martijn, Ryan Patrick B, Hripcsak George, Krumholz Harlan M, Suchard Marc A, Lu Yuan
Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine.
Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation.
medRxiv. 2025 May 9:2025.05.08.25327248. doi: 10.1101/2025.05.08.25327248.
As prescribing of newer antihyperglycemic agents expands, there remains limited comparative safety data for older adults-a population particularly vulnerable to adverse drug events and underrepresented in clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate the real-world safety of second-line antihyperglycemic agents among older adults with type 2 diabetes.
We conducted a multinational cohort study using nine harmonized electronic health record and claims databases from the U.S. and Europe, applying a consistent analytical framework based on the LEGEND-T2DM initiative. Among adults aged ≥65 years who initiated a second-line agent after metformin monotherapy, we compared safety outcomes across four drug classes: GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs), SGLT2 inhibitors (SGLT2Is), DPP-4 inhibitors (DPP4Is), and sulfonylureas (SUs). We used propensity score adjustment, empirical calibration, and prespecified diagnostics to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for 18 safety outcomes.
In a cohort of 1.8 million older adults, both GLP1RAs and SGLT2Is were linked to significantly lower risks of hypoglycemia (HR 0.21 [95% CI, 0.16-0.27] for GLP1RA vs SU; HR 0.21 [0.13-0.33] for SGLT2I vs SU) and hyperkalemia (HR 0.63 [0.50-0.81] for GLP1RA vs SU; HR 0.75 [0.63-0.90] for SGLT2I vs SU) and peripheral edema (HR 0.81 [0.71-0.92] for GLP1RAs vs. DPP4Is; HR 0.62 [0.46-0.84] for SGLT2Is vs. SU). However, SGLT2Is were associated with a higher risk of diabetic ketoacidosis compared to both GLP1RAs (HR 2.03 [1.38-2.99]) and SUs (HR 1.64 [1.27-2.11]). GLP1RAs had significantly higher risks of nausea (HR 0.63 [0.55-0.72]) and vomiting (HR 0.63 [0.57-0.69]) relative to SGLT2Is. Results were consistent across both on-treatment and intent-to-treat sensitivity analyses.
In older adults with type 2 diabetes, GLP1RAs and SGLT2Is demonstrated more favorable safety profiles than SUs and DPP4Is across multiple clinically relevant outcomes. These results support more informed, safety-conscious prescribing in a population underrepresented in clinical trials yet highly susceptible to adverse effects.
随着新型抗高血糖药物的处方量不断增加,针对老年人这一特别容易发生药物不良事件且在临床试验中代表性不足的人群,可用于比较的安全性数据仍然有限。我们旨在评估二线抗高血糖药物在老年2型糖尿病患者中的真实世界安全性。
我们利用来自美国和欧洲的九个统一的电子健康记录和索赔数据库进行了一项跨国队列研究,应用基于LEGEND-T2DM倡议的一致分析框架。在≥65岁且在二甲双胍单药治疗后开始使用二线药物的成年人中,我们比较了四类药物的安全性结果:胰高血糖素样肽-1受体激动剂(GLP-1RAs)、钠-葡萄糖协同转运蛋白2抑制剂(SGLT2Is)、二肽基肽酶-4抑制剂(DPP4Is)和磺脲类药物(SUs)。我们使用倾向评分调整、经验校准和预先设定的诊断方法来估计18种安全性结果的风险比(HRs)。
在180万老年人群体中,GLP-1RAs和SGLT2Is均与低血糖风险显著降低相关(GLP-1RA与SU相比,HR为0.21[95%CI,0.16-0.27];SGLT2I与SU相比,HR为0.21[0.13-0.33])、高钾血症风险显著降低相关(GLP-1RA与SU相比,HR为0.63[0.50-0.81];SGLT2I与SU相比,HR为0.75[0.6,3-0.90])以及外周水肿风险显著降低相关(GLP-1RAs与DPP4Is相比,HR为0.81[0.71-0.92];SGLT2Is与SU相比,HR为0.62[0.46-0.84])。然而与GLP-1RAs(HR为2.03[1.38-2.99])和SUs(HR为1.64[1.27-2.11])相比,SGLT2Is与糖尿病酮症酸中毒风险较高相关。相对于SGLT2Is,GLP-1RAs出现恶心(HR为0.63[0.55-0.72])和呕吐(HR为0.63[0.57-0.69])的风险显著更高。治疗中分析和意向性分析的敏感性分析结果均一致。
在老年2型糖尿病患者中,在多个临床相关结局方面,GLP-1RAs和SGLT2Is的安全性表现优于SUs和DPP4Is。这些结果支持在临床试验中代表性不足但极易发生不良反应的人群中进行更明智、更注重安全性的处方开具。