Association of Premorbid GLP-1RA and SGLT-2i Prescription Alone and in Combination with COVID-19 Severity.

INTRODUCTION: People with type 2 diabetes are at heightened risk for severe outcomes related to COVID-19 infection, including hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and mortality. This study was designed to examine the impact of premorbid use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) monotherapy, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) monotherapy, and concomitant GLP1-RA/SGLT-2i therapy on the severity of outcomes in individuals with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. METHODS: Utilizing observational data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative through September 2022, we compared outcomes in 78,806 individuals with a prescription of GLP-1RA and SGLT-2i versus a prescription of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) within 24 months of a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. We also compared concomitant GLP-1RA/SGLT-2i therapy to GLP-1RA and SGLT-2i monotherapy. The primary outcome was 60-day mortality, measured from the positive test date. Secondary outcomes included emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalization, and mechanical ventilation within 14 days. Using a super learner approach and accounting for baseline characteristics, associations were quantified with odds ratios (OR) estimated with targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE). RESULTS: Use of GLP-1RA (OR 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.72) and SGLT-2i (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.57-0.68) were associated with lower odds of 60-day mortality compared to DPP-4i use. Additionally, the OR of ER visits and hospitalizations were similarly reduced with GLP1-RA and SGLT-2i use. Concomitant GLP-1RA/SGLT-2i use showed similar odds of 60-day mortality when compared to GLP-1RA or SGLT-2i use alone (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.81-1.05 and OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76-1.01, respectively). However, lower OR of all secondary outcomes were associated with concomitant GLP-1RA/SGLT-2i use when compared to SGLT-2i use alone. CONCLUSION: Among adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, premorbid use of either GLP-1RA or SGLT-2i is associated with lower odds of mortality compared to DPP-4i. Furthermore, concomitant use of GLP-1RA and SGLT-2i is linked to lower odds of other severe COVID-19 outcomes, including ER visits, hospitalizations, and mechanical ventilation, compared to SGLT-2i use alone. Graphical abstract available for this article.

Kidney function loss and albuminuria progression with GLP-1 receptor agonists versus basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes: real-world evidence.

BACKGROUND: In clinical trials enrolling patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at high cardiovascular risk, many glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) improved albuminuria status and possibly mitigated kidney function loss. However, limited data are available regarding the effects of GLP-1 RAs on albuminuria status and kidney function in real-world settings, including populations with a lower baseline cardiovascular and kidney risk. We assessed the association of GLP-1 RAs initiation with long-term kidney outcomes in the Maccabi Healthcare Services database, Israel. METHODS: Adults with T2D treated with ≥ 2 glucose-lowering agents who initiated GLP-1 RAs or basal insulin from 2010 to 2019 were propensity-score matched (1:1) and followed until October 2021 (intention-to-treat [ITT]). In an as-treated (AT) analysis, follow-up was also censored at study-drug discontinuation or comparator-initiation. We assessed the risk of a composite kidney outcome, including confirmed ≥ 40% eGFR loss or end-stage kidney disease, and the risk of new macroalbuminuria. Treatment-effect on eGFR slopes was assessed by fitting a linear regression model per patient, followed by a t-test to compare the slopes between the groups. RESULTS: Each propensity-score matched group constituted 3424 patients, 45% women, 21% had a history of cardiovascular disease, and 13.9% were treated with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors at baseline. Mean eGFR was 90.6 mL/min/1.73 m2 (SD 19.3) and median UACR was 14.6 mg/g [IQR 0.0-54.7]. Medians follow-up were 81.1 months (ITT) and 22.3 months (AT). The hazard-ratios [95% CI] of the composite kidney outcome with GLP-1 RAs versus basal insulin were 0.96 [0.82-1.11] (p = 0.566) and 0.71 [0.54-0.95] (p = 0.020) in the ITT and AT analyses, respectively. The respective HRs for first new macroalbuminuria were 0.87 [0.75-0.997] and 0.80 [0.64-0.995]. The use of GLP-1 RA was associated with a less steep eGFR slope compared with basal insulin in the AT analysis (mean annual between-group difference of 0.42 mL/min/1.73 m2/year [95%CI 0.11-0.73]; p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Initiation of GLP-1 RAs in a real-world setting is associated with a reduced risk of albuminuria progression and possible mitigation of kidney function loss in patients with T2D and mostly preserved kidney function.

An indirect treatment comparison of the efficacy of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) and insulin glargine/lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on basal insulin.

AIMS: To obtain estimates of the relative treatment effects between insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) and insulin glargine U100/lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled on basal insulin therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from phase 3 trials providing evidence for estimating the relative efficacy and safety of IDegLira vs iGlarLixi in patients uncontrolled on basal insulin-only regimens were used in this analysis. Outcomes of interest were changes in HbA1c, body weight and insulin dose, and rate ratio of hypoglycemia. The indirect comparison of the reported trial findings followed the principles of Bucher et al. RESULTS: IDegLira was estimated to provide a 0.44 [95% CI = 0.17-0.71] %-point reduction in HbA1c compared with iGlarLixi. Body weight was reduced by 1.42 [95% CI = 0.35-2.50] kg with IDegLira compared with iGlarLixi. Insulin dose was comparable between the two interventions. The rate of severe or blood glucose-confirmed (self-measured plasma glucose [SMPG] ≤ 3.1 mmol/L) hypoglycemia with IDegLira was approximately half that of iGlarLixi (rate ratio = 0.51 [95% CI = 0.29-0.90]). However, using the American Diabetes Association definition of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (SMPG ≤3.9 mmol/L) the rate was comparable between the two treatments (rate ratio = 1.07 [95% CI = 0.90-1.28]). LIMITATIONS: The assumptions made in the indirect comparison and differences between the included trials in baseline HbA1c levels, previous use of sulfonylureas, definitions of hypoglycemia, presence or absence of run-in period, the different duration of the trials, and the cross-over design of one of the trials. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this indirect treatment comparison demonstrate that, among patients with T2DM uncontrolled on basal insulin, treatment with IDegLira results in a greater reduction of HbA1c and a greater reduction in body weight compared with iGlarLixi at similar insulin doses.