-
Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Aug 2024This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in adults aged 75 and over undergoing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in adults aged 75 and over undergoing acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase and the CENTRAL were searched up to 25 December 2023. The incidence of VTE recurrence and bleeding events was assessed. Employing a frequentist network meta-analysis approach, interventions not directly compared could be indirectly assessed through the 95% confidence interval (CI), enhancing the interpretability of the search results. The surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) was utilized to generate the relative ranking probabilities for each group.
RESULTS
Our study, analysing 6 randomised controlled trials with 3665 patients, compares direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in adults aged 75 and over with acute venous thromboembolism. Edoxaban reduces VTE recurrence risk compared with VKAs (risk ratio [RR] .50, 95% CI 0.27 - .95), while apixaban significantly decreases bleeding risk compared with VKAs (RR .23, 95% CI 0.08 - .69), edoxaban (RR .28, 95% CI 0.09 - .86) and rivaroxaban (RR .28, 95% CI 0.09 - .86). Despite low overall evidence quality, apixaban consistently ranks highest for both efficacy and safety. Findings underscore the nuanced efficacy-safety balance in this population, emphasizing cautious interpretation due to evidence limitations.
CONCLUSION
Apixaban emerges as a favourable choice for acute VTE treatment in the elderly, displaying reduced bleeding risk compared to other treatments while maintaining comparable efficacy. Future studies should explore diverse anticoagulants efficacy and safety in older populations. Additionally, clinical prediction models tailored to geriatric cohorts are crucial for guiding treatment duration decisions.
Topics: Humans; Venous Thromboembolism; Network Meta-Analysis; Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Hemorrhage; Administration, Oral; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome; Recurrence; Age Factors; Female; Male; Aged, 80 and over; Risk Assessment; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Anticoagulants; Acute Disease
PubMed: 38706248
DOI: 10.1177/15385744241253201 -
Basic & Clinical Pharmacology &... Jul 2024This network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aimed to determine whether any individual dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors increase the risk of acute... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aimed to determine whether any individual dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors increase the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online via PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. The primary outcome was AKI. A frequentist network meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to account for heterogeneity. Twenty-nine studies involving 56 117 participants were included. There were 918 cases of AKI (1.63%). The risk of bias was generally considered to be low. The only DPP-4 inhibitor that significantly increased the frequency of AKI when compared with placebo was sitagliptin (risk ratio 1.65, 95% confidence interval 1.22-2.23). However, because one study showed significant outliers in the funnel plot, in a highly heterogeneous population composed solely of patients undergoing surgery for coronary artery bypass graft, we conducted a post-hoc sensitivity analysis to exclude this study. The results showed no statistically significant difference in the risk of AKI between sitagliptin and placebo. Individual DPP-4 inhibitors do not appear to increase the risk of AKI. However, sitagliptin may be associated with AKI in patients with underlying severe cardiovascular disease.
Topics: Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Humans; Acute Kidney Injury; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Sitagliptin Phosphate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Network Meta-Analysis; Risk Factors
PubMed: 38698656
DOI: 10.1111/bcpt.14014 -
The European Respiratory Journal Jun 2024Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) has been described in patients treated with proteasome inhibitors (PIs). Our objective was to evaluate the association between PIs... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) has been described in patients treated with proteasome inhibitors (PIs). Our objective was to evaluate the association between PIs and PAH.
METHODS
Characteristics of incident PAH cases previously treated with carfilzomib or bortezomib were analysed from the French pulmonary hypertension registry and the VIGIAPATH programme from 2004 to 2023, concurrently with a pharmacovigilance disproportionality analysis using the World Health Organization (WHO) global database (VigiBase) and a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
RESULTS
11 incident cases of PI-associated PAH were identified (six with carfilzomib and five with bortezomib) with a female:male ratio of 2.7:1, a median age of 61 years, and a median delay between PI first exposure and PAH of 6 months. Four patients died (two from right heart failure, one from respiratory distress and one from an unknown cause). At diagnosis, six were in New York Heart Association Functional Class III/IV with severe haemodynamic impairment (median mean pulmonary arterial pressure 39 mmHg, cardiac index 2.45 L·min·m and pulmonary vascular resistance 7.2 WU). In the WHO pharmacovigilance database, 169 cases of PH associated with PI were reported since 2013 with significant signals of disproportionate reporting (SDR) for carfilzomib, regardless of the definition of cases or control group. However, SDR for bortezomib were inconsistent. The systematic review identified 17 clinical trials, and carfilzomib was associated with a significantly higher risk of dyspnoea, severe dyspnoea and PH compared with bortezomib.
CONCLUSION
PIs may induce PAH in patients undergoing treatment, with carfilzomib emitting a stronger signal than bortezomib, and these patients should be monitored closely.
Topics: Humans; Middle Aged; Bortezomib; France; Oligopeptides; Pharmacovigilance; Proteasome Inhibitors; Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Registries
PubMed: 38697649
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02158-2023 -
Thrombosis Research Jun 2024Recommendations about proper anticoagulation in obese patients, body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m2, are not yet clearly defined. Obese patients were included in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Obese patients with atrial fibrillation are more efficiently protected from thrombosis under warfarin or xabans compared to non-obese patients; a systematic review and Meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials.
INTRODUCTION
Recommendations about proper anticoagulation in obese patients, body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m2, are not yet clearly defined. Obese patients were included in randomized controlled trials comparing new anticoagulants (NOACs) with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation or thromboembolism.
METHODS
We performed a medline search entering proper criteria and finally 6 post-hoc analysis of RCTs, reporting outcome according to BMI, were included in this meta-analysis. Two major outcomes were considered end points in our meta-analysis; thrombosis, including ischemic cerebral events (transient or not) and venous thrombosis (DVD) /pulmonary embolism (PE) and bleeding, including major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding.
RESULTS
In the NOACs treated group, thrombosis occurred less frequently in obese vs non-obese patients; RR and 95 % CI 0,75 (0,58-0,97), p = 0,03, while low heterogeneity was observed (I 40 %). In the warfarin treated subgroup there was statistically significant difference with less thrombotic events occurring in the obese vs non-obese patients; RR and (95 % CI) 0,80 (0,66-0,98), p = 0,03, and heterogeneity was low (I = 24 %). This protective effect called the obesity paradox is limited to obese patients anticoagulated for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF); RR (95 % CI) was 0,70 (0,58-0,85) p = 0,03 and I = 24 %. Bleeding events were similar under both NOACs and warfarin in obese vs non-obese analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Obese patients anticoagulated for NVAF with either standard dose of xabans or INR guided warfarin are more efficiently protected against thrombosis compared to non-obese patients.
Topics: Humans; Atrial Fibrillation; Warfarin; Obesity; Anticoagulants; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thrombosis; Hemorrhage; Factor Xa Inhibitors
PubMed: 38696925
DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2024.04.022 -
Clinical Cardiology May 2024The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is associated with complex hemostatic changes. Systemic anticoagulation is initiated to prevent clotting in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is associated with complex hemostatic changes. Systemic anticoagulation is initiated to prevent clotting in the ECMO system, but this comes with an increased risk of bleeding. Evidence on the use of anti-Xa-guided monitoring to prevent bleeding during ECMO support is limited. Therefore, we aimed to analyze the association between anti-factor Xa-guided anticoagulation and hemorrhage during ECMO.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed (up to August 2023).
PROSPERO
CRD42023448888.
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies comprising 2293 patients were included in the analysis, with six works being part of the meta-analysis. The mean anti-Xa values did not show a significant difference between patients with and without hemorrhage (standardized mean difference -0.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.19; 0.28, p = .69). We found a positive correlation between anti-Xa levels and unfractionated heparin dose (UFH; pooled estimate of correlation coefficients 0.44; 95% CI: 0.33; 0.55, p < .001). The most frequent complications were any type of hemorrhage (pooled 36%) and thrombosis (33%). Nearly half of the critically ill patients did not survive to hospital discharge (47%).
CONCLUSIONS
The most appropriate tool for anticoagulation monitoring in ECMO patients is uncertain. Our analysis did not reveal a significant difference in anti-Xa levels in patients with and without hemorrhagic events. However, we found a moderate correlation between anti-Xa and the UFH dose, supporting its utilization in monitoring UFH anticoagulation. Given the limitations of time-guided monitoring methods, the role of anti-Xa is promising and further research is warranted.
Topics: Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Humans; Hemorrhage; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Anticoagulants; Blood Coagulation; Factor Xa; Risk Factors
PubMed: 38693831
DOI: 10.1002/clc.24273 -
American Journal of TherapeuticsNirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is an oral antiviral drug used to treat mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients aged 12 years or older at high...
BACKGROUND
Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is an oral antiviral drug used to treat mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients aged 12 years or older at high risk of progression to severe disease (eg, hospitalization and death). Despite being the preferred option for outpatient treatment in the majority of countries worldwide, NMV/r is currently underutilized in real-world clinical practice.
AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY
As numerous real-world studies have described patient outcomes following treatment with NMV/r, this systematic literature review provides a comprehensive summary of evidence on NMV/r effectiveness against hospitalization and mortality further organized by clinically meaningful categories, such as acute versus longer-term follow-up, age, underlying health conditions, and vaccination status, to help inform health care decision making.
DATA SOURCES
We searched Embase and PubMed (December 22, 2021-March 31, 2023) and congress abstracts (December 1, 2021-December 31, 2022) for reports describing NMV/r effectiveness.
THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES
In total, 18 real-world studies met final selection criteria. The evidence showed that NMV/r significantly reduced postinfection risk of all-cause and COVID-19-related hospitalization and mortality in both acute (≤30 days) (21%-92%) and longer-term (>30 days) (1%-61%) follow-up. The reduction in postinfection risk was higher when treatment was received within 5 days of symptom onset. Real-world effectiveness of NMV/r treatment was observed regardless of age, underlying high-risk conditions, and vaccination status.
CONCLUSION
The systematic literature review findings demonstrated the effectiveness of NMV/r against hospitalization and mortality during the Omicron period among individuals at high risk of progression to severe COVID-19 disease.
Topics: Humans; Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Drug Combinations; Hospitalization; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38691664
DOI: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001744 -
American Journal of Cardiovascular... May 2024The efficacy and safety of bivalirudin when used concurrently with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) is uncertain. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
The efficacy and safety of bivalirudin when used concurrently with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) is uncertain. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and to explore the impact of differential use (greater and balanced) of GPI.
METHODS
Online databases were queried from inception to March 2023 to identify eight randomized controlled trials (n = 22,483) for inclusion. The primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major bleeding, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and net adverse clinical events (NACE). Secondary efficacy endpoints included cardiac death, reinfarction, stent thrombosis (ST), and stroke. Data were pooled using a random-effects model to derive risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
When compared to heparin, bivalirudin was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.72-0.97; P = 0.02), major bleeding (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.57-0.93; P = 0.01), cardiac death (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.66-0.94; P = 0.01), and NACE (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.72-0.89; P < 0.0001). However, while the bivalirudin arm showed an increased likelihood of ST in the greater GPI subgroup (RR 1.70; 95% CI 1.13-2.56; P = 0.01), it was associated with a decreased likelihood of ST in the balanced GPI subgroup (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.24-0.65; P = 0.0003).
CONCLUSION
Overall, our findings suggest that bivalirudin may be a more efficacious intervention than heparin for reducing certain adverse events in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI.
Topics: Humans; Hirudins; ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction; Peptide Fragments; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Recombinant Proteins; Platelet Glycoprotein GPIIb-IIIa Complex; Heparin; Antithrombins; Hemorrhage; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38683263
DOI: 10.1007/s40256-024-00636-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2024Guidelines suggest that adults with diabetes and kidney disease receive treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers...
BACKGROUND
Guidelines suggest that adults with diabetes and kidney disease receive treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2006.
OBJECTIVES
We compared the efficacy and safety of ACEi and ARB therapy (either as monotherapy or in combination) on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in adults with diabetes and kidney disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplants Register of Studies to 17 March 2024 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies evaluating ACEi or ARB alone or in combination, compared to each other, placebo or no treatment in people with diabetes and kidney disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
One hundred and nine studies (28,341 randomised participants) were eligible for inclusion. Overall, the risk of bias was high. Compared to placebo or no treatment, ACEi may make little or no difference to all-cause death (24 studies, 7413 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; I = 23%; low certainty) and with similar withdrawals from treatment (7 studies, 5306 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.19; I = 0%; low certainty). ACEi may prevent kidney failure (8 studies, 6643 participants: RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.94; I = 0%; low certainty). Compared to placebo or no treatment, ARB may make little or no difference to all-cause death (11 studies, 4260 participants: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16; I = 0%; low certainty). ARB have uncertain effects on withdrawal from treatment (3 studies, 721 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.26; I = 2%; low certainty) and cardiovascular death (6 studies, 878 participants: RR 3.36, 95% CI 0.93 to 12.07; low certainty). ARB may prevent kidney failure (3 studies, 3227 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94; I = 0%; low certainty), doubling of serum creatinine (SCr) (4 studies, 3280 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97; I = 32%; low certainty), and the progression from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria (5 studies, 815 participants: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.85; I = 74%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi, ARB had uncertain effects on all-cause death (15 studies, 1739 participants: RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.88; I = 0%; low certainty), withdrawal from treatment (6 studies, 612 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.28; I = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (13 studies, 1606 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.98; I = 0%; low certainty), kidney failure (3 studies, 837 participants: RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.07; I = 0%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (2 studies, 767 participants: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.48; I = 0%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi plus ARB, ACEi alone has uncertain effects on all-cause death (6 studies, 1166 participants: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.40; I = 20%; low certainty), withdrawal from treatment (2 studies, 172 participants: RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.86; I = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (4 studies, 994 participants: RR 3.02, 95% CI 0.61 to 14.85; low certainty), kidney failure (3 studies, 880 participants: RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.32; I = 0%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (2 studies, 813 participants: RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.85; I = 0%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi plus ARB, ARB alone has uncertain effects on all-cause death (7 studies, 2607 participants: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.37; I = 0%; low certainty), withdrawn from treatment (3 studies, 1615 participants: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.24; I = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (4 studies, 992 participants: RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.62 to 14.93; low certainty), kidney failure (4 studies, 2321 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.95; I = 29%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (3 studies, 2252 participants: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.64; I = 0%; low certainty). Comparative effects of different ACEi or ARB and low-dose versus high-dose ARB were rarely evaluated. No study compared different doses of ACEi. Adverse events of ACEi and ARB were rarely reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
ACEi or ARB may make little or no difference to all-cause and cardiovascular death compared to placebo or no treatment in people with diabetes and kidney disease but may prevent kidney failure. ARB may prevent the doubling of SCr and the progression from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria compared with a placebo or no treatment. Despite the international guidelines suggesting not combining ACEi and ARB treatment, the effects of ACEi or ARB monotherapy compared to dual therapy have not been adequately assessed. The limited data availability and the low quality of the included studies prevented the assessment of the benefits and harms of ACEi or ARB in people with diabetes and kidney disease. Low and very low certainty evidence indicates that it is possible that further studies might provide different results.
Topics: Humans; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Bias; Cause of Death; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetic Nephropathies; Disease Progression; Drug Therapy, Combination; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38682786
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006257.pub2 -
Journal of Investigative Medicine : the... May 2024Advances in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment, including combination antiretroviral therapy (cART), have transformed HIV into a chronic condition. Kidney... (Review)
Review
Advances in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment, including combination antiretroviral therapy (cART), have transformed HIV into a chronic condition. Kidney diseases cause morbidity and mortality in patients living with HIV (PLWH), though cART has permitted kidney transplants with acceptable post-transplant graft and patient survival. Risk of allograft rejection remains high, which may be related to interactions between cART, specifically protease inhibitors (PI), and immunosuppressants prescribed post-transplant. This systematic review evaluates renal transplant outcomes in PLWH treated with PI- vs non-PI-based cART. A search strategy was generated with terms related to renal transplant, HIV, and cART and run on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane. Studies were evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines on Covidence by two reviewers and then evaluated for bias. Of 803 studies, 9 were included. Included papers were prospective or retrospective cohort studies or chart reviews of adult patients. Outcome measures included acute graft rejection, graft survival, and patient survival. One study had significant results demonstrating that PI-based therapy was correlated with increased graft rejection rates. Two studies demonstrated significant graft survival benefit to non-PI-based therapy, while one demonstrated significant benefit to PI-based therapy. Two studies found significant patient survival benefit to non-PI-based therapy. For each outcome measure, remaining data suggested improved outcomes with non-PI-based therapies without achieving statistical significance. The results demonstrate superior outcomes in PLWH taking non-PI-based cART, though the paucity of significant results suggests that PLWH who require PI-based cART for virological control may continue their regimen safely post-kidney transplant.
PubMed: 38666448
DOI: 10.1177/10815589241252595 -
Annals of Internal Medicine May 2024Newer diabetes medications may have beneficial effects on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Newer diabetes medications may have beneficial effects on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal outcomes.
PURPOSE
To evaluate the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, and long-acting insulins as monotherapy or combination therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2010 through January 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
RCTs lasting at least 52 weeks that included at least 500 adults with T2DM receiving eligible medications and reported any outcomes of interest.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE) were done.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of 130 publications from 84 RCTs were identified. CoE was appraised using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria for direct, indirect, and network meta-analysis (NMA); the highest CoE was reported. Compared with usual care, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (high CoE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (moderate to high CoE), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure hospitalizations and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke (high CoE), and SGLT2 inhibitors reduce serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia (high CoE). The threshold for minimally important differences, which was predefined with the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee, was not met for these outcomes. Compared with usual care, insulin, tirzepatide, and DPP4 inhibitors do not reduce all-cause mortality (low to high CoE). Compared with insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (low to moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors, GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors and sulfonylurea (SU), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce MACE (moderate to high CoE). Compared with SU and insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce severe hypoglycemia (low to high CoE).
LIMITATIONS
Infrequent direct comparisons between drugs of interest; sparse data for NMA on most outcomes; possible incoherence due to differences in baseline patient characteristics and usual care; insufficient data on predefined subgroups, including demographic subgroups, patients with prior cardiovascular disease, and treatment-naive persons.
CONCLUSION
In adults with T2DM, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists (but not DPP4 inhibitors, insulin, or tirzepatide) reduce all-cause mortality and MACE compared with usual care. SGLT2 inhibitors reduce CKD progression and heart failure hospitalization and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke compared with usual care. Serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia are less frequent with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists than with insulin or SU.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022322129).
Topics: Humans; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors; Hypoglycemic Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Insulin; Adult; Cardiovascular Diseases; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Hypoglycemia; Drug Therapy, Combination
PubMed: 38639549
DOI: 10.7326/M23-1490