Wei Zhiyuan, Xu Wanqian, Wang Yu, Tian Yu, Wang Zhongmin, Jing Shenqi, Liu Weina, Shen Sipeng, Qin Chenlong, Zhang Xin, Li Jingsong, Liu Yun
Department of Medical Informatics, School of Biomedical Engineering and Informatics, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 211166, Jiangsu, China.
Institute of Medical Informatics and Management, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, Jiangsu, China.
Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2025 Aug 20;24(1):343. doi: 10.1186/s12933-025-02892-5.
Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and hypertension are at increased risk of adverse cardiovascular (CV) events. However, real-world evidence comparing the CV effectiveness and safety of major hypoglycemic drug classes remains limited in this population. This multicenter pooled analysis aims to directly compare the CV outcomes and safety profiles of these key agents in patients with T2D and hypertension.
We analyzed electronic health records from two databases in a cohort study of T2D patients with hypertension who had initiated metformin as first-line therapy. Propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the risks of 3-/4-point major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and safety outcomes across drug classes added to metformin: insulin, sulfonylureas (SUs), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is), glinides, acarbose, and sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is).
Compared with insulin, GLP-1 RAs, DPP4is, and glinides were associated with a lower risk of 3-point MACE (HR: 0.48 [0.31-0.76], 0.70 [0.57-0.85], and 0.70 [0.52-0.94], respectively). SUs were associated with a higher risk of 3-point MACE compared with DPP4is (HR: 1.30 [1.06-1.59]). DPP4is, GLP-1 RAs, and glinides showed a lower risk of 3-point MACE compared with acarbose (HR: 0.62 [0.51-0.76], 0.47 [0.29-0.75], and 0.59 [0.43-0.81], respectively). Similar patterns were observed for 4-point MACE. For safety outcomes, DPP4is were associated with a reduced risk of chronic kidney disease, while insulin use was associated with reduced risks of inflammatory polyarthritis and insomnia. However, DPP4is were associated with higher risks of coronary atherosclerotic diseases and hypertensive heart disease.
This study highlights the differential cardiovascular effectiveness and safety profiles of hypoglycemic therapies in real-world settings, providing valuable insights for optimizing T2D management, particularly in patients with comorbid hypertension.
2型糖尿病(T2D)合并高血压患者发生不良心血管(CV)事件的风险增加。然而,在这一人群中,比较主要降糖药物类别对心血管有效性和安全性的真实世界证据仍然有限。这项多中心汇总分析旨在直接比较这些关键药物在T2D合并高血压患者中的心血管结局和安全性。
我们在一项队列研究中分析了来自两个数据库的电子健康记录,该研究对象为开始使用二甲双胍作为一线治疗的T2D合并高血压患者。倾向评分匹配(PSM)和Cox比例风险模型用于比较添加到二甲双胍中的不同药物类别发生3/4点主要不良心血管事件(MACE)的风险和安全性结局,这些药物类别包括胰岛素、磺脲类药物(SUs)、胰高血糖素样肽-1受体激动剂(GLP-1 RAs)、二肽基肽酶-4抑制剂(DPP4is)、格列奈类、阿卡波糖和钠-葡萄糖协同转运蛋白2抑制剂(SGLT2is)。
与胰岛素相比,GLP-1 RAs、DPP4is和格列奈类药物发生3点MACE的风险较低(风险比分别为:0.48 [0.31 - 0.76]、0.70 [0.57 - 0.85]和0.70 [0.52 - 0.94])。与DPP4is相比,SUs发生3点MACE的风险较高(风险比:1.30 [1.06 - 1.59])。与阿卡波糖相比,DPP4is、GLP-1 RAs和格列奈类药物发生3点MACE的风险较低(风险比分别为:0.62 [0.51 - 0.76]、0.47 [0.29 - 0.75]和0.59 [0.43 - 0.81])。4点MACE也观察到类似模式。对于安全性结局,DPP4is与慢性肾病风险降低相关,而使用胰岛素与炎症性多关节炎和失眠风险降低相关。然而,DPP4is与冠状动脉粥样硬化疾病和高血压性心脏病风险较高相关。
本研究突出了在现实环境中降糖治疗在心血管有效性和安全性方面的差异,为优化T2D管理,特别是合并高血压的患者提供了有价值的见解。