Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
To the Editor: Lin and colleagues performed a real-world study [1] aiming to evaluate the risks of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events in people with diabetes treated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs) vs sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is). The authors concluded that in people with diabetes, GLP1RAs were associated with significantly reduced risks of major adverse limb events (MALE) compared with SGLT2is. Moreover, this relative effectiveness was especially obvious in patients with diabetic neuropathy [1]. These findings are interesting and clinically relevant, but we want to share some additional comments.
First, we advise that care should be taken in the interpretation of results when many statistical tests are performed. In Table 2 of their paper, Lin et al evaluated a total of ten MALE and cardiovascular outcomes, and in Fig. 3 they report a total of ten subgroup analyses [1]. If the Bonferroni method was applied to account for the multiple testing [2], the threshold for significance should be calculated as: α′=0.05/10=0.005. Based on this threshold, several of Lin et al’s findings would not reach statistical significance. We acknowledge that the authors have clearly specified a primary endpoint for their study (composite outcome for MALE) and therefore strict correction for multiple testing is not necessary [3], but we would still encourage readers to take this into consideration when interpreting these results.
The second noteworthy thing is that the findings regarding the two outcomes of heart failure hospitalisation (HFH) and stroke in Lin et al’s article [1] are substantially different to the evidence derived from RCTs and previous observational studies. A traditional meta-analysis based on RCTs [4] showed that GLP1RAs reduced HFH by 11% (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.82, 0.98) and reduced stroke by 17% (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.76, 0.92) in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with placebo. Another traditional meta-analysis based on RCTs [5] showed that SGLT2is reduced HFH by 32% (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.61, 0.76) and yielded similar risk of stroke (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.87, 1.07) in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with placebo. These two traditional meta-analyses [4, 5] seem to suggest that SGLT2is could reduce more HFH events than GLP1RAs, whereas GLP1RAs could reduce more stroke events than SGLT2is. A network meta-analysis based on RCTs [5] confirmed the aforementioned inference by revealing that SGLT2is significantly reduced risk of HFH (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.65, 0.85) but significantly increased risk of stroke (OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.03, 1.41) compared with GLP1RAs in patients with type 2 diabetes. Consistent with this network meta-analysis [6], an updated meta-analysis based on large cohort studies [7] identified that SGLT2is vs GLP1RAs were associated with lower risk of HFH (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.71, 0.88) and higher risk of stroke (HR 1.10; 95% CI 1.01, 1.19) in patients with type 2 diabetes. Taken together, the evidence from both RCTs and previous cohort studies support that among patients with type 2 diabetes, SGLT2is are superior to GLP1RAs in reducing HFH risk, whereas GLP1RAs are superior to SGLT2is in reducing stroke risk. However, Lin et al’s study [1] showed that GLP1RAs vs SGLT2is had similar risks of HFH (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.61, 1.09) and stroke (HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.81, 1.07) in patients with diabetes. These discrepancies need further explanation.
Moreover, a commentary study [8] on the basis of a network meta-analysis [6] of 764 RCTs identified that SGLT2is vs GLP1RAs significantly reduced the risk of all-cause death (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79, 0.98) in patients with type 2 diabetes. Similarly, a meta-analysis of cohort studies [9] identified that SGLT2is vs GLP1RAs were associated with lower risk of all-cause death (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.85, 0.99) in patients with type 2 diabetes. On the contrary, in Lin et al’s study [1], GLP1RAs were observed to modestly reduce the risk of all-cause death (HR, 0.90; 95% CI 0.80, 1.00) compared with SGLT2is in patients with diabetes. This discrepancy also needs further explanation.
Abbreviations
- GLP1RA:
-
Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist
- HFH:
-
Heart failure hospitalisation
- MALE:
-
Major adverse limb events
- SGLT2i:
-
Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor
References
Lin DS, Yu AL, Lo HY, Lien CW, Lee JK, Chen WJ (2022) Major adverse cardiovascular and limb events in people with diabetes treated with GLP-1 receptor agonists vs SGLT2 inhibitors. Diabetologia https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-022-05772-9
Bland JM, Altman DG (1995) Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. BMJ 310(6973):170. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.310.6973.170
Bender R, Lange S (2001) Adjusting for multiple testing--when and how? J Clin Epidemiol 54(4):343–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00314-0
Sattar N, Lee M, Kristensen SL et al (2021) Cardiovascular, mortality, and kidney outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 9(10):653–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00203-5
McGuire DK, Shih WJ, Cosentino F et al (2021) Association of SGLT2 inhibitors with cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiol 6(2):148–158. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2020.4511
Palmer SC, Tendal B, Mustafa RA et al (2021) Sodium-glucose cotransporter protein-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 372:m4573. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4573
Du L, Qin J, Wang D, Zhao Y, Xu N, Wu C (2022) Commentary: SGLT2is vs. GLP1RAs reduce cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Front Cardiovasc Med 9:987025. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.987025
Tanner M (2021) In type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitors reduce all-cause, but not cardiovascular, mortality vs. GLP-1 RAs. Ann Intern Med 174(6):C67. https://doi.org/10.7326/ACPJ202106150-067
Qiu M, Wei XB, Wei W (2021) SGLT2is vs. GLP1RAs reduce cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Front Cardiovasc Med 8:791311. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.791311
Authors’ relationships and activities
The authors declare that there are no relationships or activities that might bias, or be perceived to bias, their work.
Contribution statement
All authors wrote the manuscript. LD and PW revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by the Key Laboratory of Neuroimaging, Longhua District, Shenzhen (Shen Long Hua Ke Chuang Ke Ji Zi [2022] No. 7), Shenzhen Fundamental Research Program (Natural Science Foundations) and General Program for Fundamental Research (Grant No. JCYJ20210324142404012).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Du, L., Wang, P., Chen, H. et al. GLP1RAs vs SGLT2is were associated with lower risk of major adverse limb events and similar risks of heart failure hospitalisation and stroke?. Diabetologia 66, 605–606 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-022-05835-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-022-05835-x