Values, preferences and burden of treatment for the initiation of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors in adult patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review

Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians

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).

Consistent glycaemic efficacy and safety of concomitant use of iGlarLixi and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor therapy for type 2 diabetes: A patient-level pooled analysis of three randomised clinical trials

AIMS

Sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) and/or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) with proven cardio- and reno-protective benefits are recommended in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at high risk of cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and/or heart failure. This pooled analysis compared efficacy and safety outcomes of iGlarLixi with or without SGLT2is in people with T2D.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis evaluated outcomes in participants who were receiving an SGLT2i when initiating iGlarLixi (SGLT2i users) and those who were not (SGLT2i non-users) in a pooled dataset from three trials: LixiLan-G (advancing from a GLP-1 RA), SoliMix and LixiLan ONE CAN (advancing from basal insulin).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were generally similar between 219 users and 746 non-users. Least squares mean changes in HbA1c from baseline to Week 26 were similar for users (-1.2 % [95 % confidence intervals: -1.4 %, -1.1 %]) and non-users (-1.2 % [-1.2 %, -1.1 %]). Changes in body weight, fasting glucose and post-prandial glucose were similar between groups, as were hypoglycaemic events.

CONCLUSIONS

Pooled results from three studies of adults with T2D demonstrated that iGlarLixi provided similar clinically meaningful improvements in glycaemic control without increased hypoglycaemia risk, regardless of concomitant use of SGLT2is.

PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe for the reduction of cardiovascular events: a clinical practice guideline with risk-stratified recommendations

CLINICAL QUESTION

In adults with low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels >1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL) who are already taking the maximum dose of statins or are intolerant to statins, should another lipid-lowering drug be added, either a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor or ezetimibe, to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events? If so, which drug is preferred? Having decided to use one, should we add the other lipid-lowering drug?

CURRENT PRACTICE

Most guidelines emphasise LDL cholesterol targets in their recommendations for prescribing PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe in adults at high risk of experiencing a major adverse cardiovascular event. However, to achieve these goals in very high risk patients with statins alone is almost impossible, so physicians are increasingly considering other lipid-lowering drugs solely for achieving LDL cholesterol treatment goals rather than for achieving important absolute cardiovascular risk reduction. Most guidelines do not systematically assess the cardiovascular benefits of adding PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe for all risk groups across primary and secondary prevention, nor do they report, in accordance with explicit judgments of assumed patients' values and preferences, absolute benefits and harms and potential treatment burdens.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The guideline panel provided mostly weak recommendations, which means we rely on shared decision making when applying these recommendations. For adults already using statins, the panel suggests adding a second lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but recommends against adding it in people at low cardiovascular risk. For adults who are intolerant to statins, the panel recommends using a lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but against adding it in those at low cardiovascular risk. When choosing to add another lipid-lowering drug, the panel suggests ezetimibe in preference to PCSK9 inhibitors. The panel suggests further adding a PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe for adults already taking statins at very high risk and those at very high and high risk who are intolerant to statins.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

An international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel identified four risk groups of patients (low, moderate, high, and very high cardiovascular risk) and primarily applied an individual patient perspective in moving from evidence to recommendations, though societal issues were a secondary consideration. The panel considered the balance of benefits and harms and burdens of starting a PCSK9 inhibitor and/or ezetimibe, making assumptions of adults' average values and preferences. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids accompany multi-layered recommendations, developed in an online authoring and publication platform (www.magicapp.org) that also allows re-use and adaptation.

THE EVIDENCE

A linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (14 trials including 83 660 participants) of benefits found that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe probably reduce myocardial infarctions and stroke in patients with very high and high cardiovascular risk, with no impact on mortality (moderate to high certainty evidence), but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk. PCSK9 inhibitors may have similar effects to ezetimibe on reducing non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke (low certainty evidence). These relative benefits were consistent, but their absolute magnitude varied based on cardiovascular risk in individual patients (for example, for 1000 people treated with PCSK9 inhibitors in addition to statins over five years, benefits ranged from 2 fewer strokes in the lowest risk to 21 fewer in the highest risk). Two systematic reviews on harms found no important adverse events for these drugs (moderate to high certainty evidence). PCSK9 inhibitors require injections that sometimes result in injection site reactions (best estimate 15 more per 1000 in a 5 year timeframe), representing a burden and harm that may matter to patients. The MATCH-IT decision support tool allows you to interact with the evidence and your patients across the alternative options: https://magicevidence.org/match-it/220504dist-lipid-lowering-drugs/.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

The stratification into four cardiovascular risk groups means that, to use the recommendations, physicians need to identify their patient's risk first. We therefore suggest, specific to various geographical regions, using some reliable risk calculators that estimate patients' cardiovascular risk based on a mix of known risk factors. The largely weak recommendations concerning the addition of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors reflect what the panel considered to be a close balance between small reductions in stroke and myocardial infarctions weighed against the burdens and limited harms.Because of the anticipated large variability of patients' values and preferences, well informed choices warrant shared decision making. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids linked to the recommendations can facilitate such shared decisions. The strong recommendations against adding another drug in people at low cardiovascular risk reflect what the panel considered to be a burden without important benefits. The strong recommendation for adding either ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in people at high and very high cardiovascular risk reflect a clear benefit.The panel recognised the key uncertainty in the evidence concerning patient values and preferences, namely that what most people consider important reductions in cardiovascular risks, weighed against burdens and harms, remains unclear. Finally, availability and costs will influence decisions when healthcare systems, clinicians, or people consider adding ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors.

Enhancing Choices Regarding the Administration of Insulin Among Patients With Diabetes Requiring Insulin Across Countries and Implications for Future Care

There are a number of ongoing developments to improve the care of patients with diabetes across countries given its growing burden. Recent developments include new oral medicines to reduce cardiovascular events and death. They also include new modes to improve insulin administration to enhance adherence and subsequent patient management thereby reducing hypoglycaemia and improving long-term outcomes. In the case of insulins, this includes long-acting insulin analogues as well as continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion systems, combined with sensor-augmented pump therapy and potentially hybrid closed-loops. The benefits of such systems have been endorsed by endocrine societies and governments in patients with Type 1 diabetes whose HbA1c levels are not currently being optimised. However, there are concerns with the low use of such systems across higher-income countries, exacerbated by their higher costs, despite studies suggesting their cost-effectiveness ratios are within accepted limits. This is inconsistent in higher-income countries when compared with reimbursement and funding decisions for new high-priced medicines for cancer and orphan diseases, with often limited benefits, given the burden of multiple daily insulin injections coupled with the need for constant monitoring. This situation is different among patients and governments in low- and low-middle income countries struggling to fund standard insulins and the routine monitoring of HbA1c levels. The first priority in these countries is to address these priority issues before funding more expensive forms of insulin and associated devices. Greater patient involvement in treatment decisions, transparency in decision making, and evidence-based investment decisions should help to address such concerns in the future.