Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Mar 10;22(1):54.
doi: 10.1186/s12933-023-01784-w.

Cardiovascular outcomes with SGLT2 inhibitors versus DPP4 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction

Jimmy Gonzalez  1   2   3 , Benjamin A Bates  3   4 , Soko Setoguchi  3   4 , Tobias Gerhard  1   3 , Chintan V Dave  5   6
Affiliations

Cardiovascular outcomes with SGLT2 inhibitors versus DPP4 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction

Jimmy Gonzalez et al. Cardiovasc Diabetol. .

Abstract

Background: No study has compared the cardiovascular outcomes for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) head-to-head against other glucose-lowering therapies, including dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DDP4i) or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA)-which also have cardiovascular benefits-in patients with heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction.

Methods: Medicare fee-for-service data (2013-2019) were used to create four pair-wise comparison cohorts of type 2 diabetes patients with: (1a) HFrEF initiating SGLT2i versus DPP4i; (1b) HFrEF initiating SGLT2i versus GLP-1RA; (2a) HFpEF initiating SGLT2i versus DPP4i; and (2b) HFpEF initiating SGLT2i versus GLP-1RA. The primary outcomes were (1) hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and (2) myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke hospitalizations. Adjusted hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CIs were estimated using inverse probability of treatment weighting.

Results: Among HFrEF patients, initiation of SGLT2i versus DPP4i (cohort 1a; n = 13,882) was associated with a lower risk of HHF (adjusted Hazard Ratio [HR (95% confidence interval)], 0.67 (0.63, 0.72) and MI or stroke (HR: 0.86 [0.75, 0.99]), and initiation of SGLT2i versus GLP-1RA (cohort 1b; n = 6951) was associated with lower risk of HHF (HR: 0.86 [0.79, 0.93]), but not MI or stroke (HR: 1.02 [0.85, 1.22]). Among HFpEF patients, initiation of SGLT2i versus DPP4i (cohort 2a; n = 17,493) was associated with lower risk of HHF (HR: 0.65 [0.61, 0.69]) but not MI or stroke (HR: 0.90 [0.79, 1.02]), and initiation of SGLT2i versus GLP-1RA (cohort 2b; n = 9053) was associated with lower risk of HHF (0.89 [0.83, 0.96]), but not MI or stroke (HR: 0.97 [0.83, 1.14]). Results were robust across range of secondary outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality) and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: Bias from residual confounding cannot be ruled out. Use of SGLT2i was associated with reduced risk of HHF against DPP4i and GLP-1RA, reduced risk of MI or stroke against DPP4i within the HFrEF subgroup, and comparable risk of MI or stroke against GLP-1RA. Notably, the magnitude of cardiovascular benefit conferred by SGLT2i was similar among patients with HFrEF and HFpEF.

Keywords: Cardiovascular outcomes; Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists; Heart failure; Hospitalization for heart failure; Major adverse cardiovascular events; Myocardial infarction; Sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors; Stroke.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

    1. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015;386(9995):743–800. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dunlay SM, Givertz MM, Aguilar D, et al. Type 2 diabetes mellitus and heart failure: a scientific statement From the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America: This statement does not represent an update of the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA heart failure guideline update. Circulation. 2019;140(7):e294–e324. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000691. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Glovaci D, Fan W, Wong ND. Epidemiology of diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2019;21(4):1–8. doi: 10.1007/s11886-019-1107-y. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Aroor AR, Mandavia CH, Sowers JR. Insulin resistance and heart failure: molecular mechanisms. Heart Fail Clin. 2012;8(4):609–617. doi: 10.1016/j.hfc.2012.06.005. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Neal B, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW, et al. Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(7):644–657. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611925. - DOI - PubMed

Substances