Incretin-based drugs and the risk of diabetic retinopathy among individuals with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

AIM: The results from the SUSTAIN-6 trial generated some uncertainty regarding the association between incretin-based drugs [dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs)] and the risk of diabetic retinopathy. Our objective was to synthesize the available evidence from observational studies regarding the use of incretin-based drugs and the risk of diabetic retinopathy among individuals with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systemically searched Cochrane Library, Embase and Medline to identify observational studies of interest. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Data from included studies were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effect model with the Hartung-Knapp extension. RESULTS: We included 14 studies in the systematic review, with 10 examining DPP-4 inhibitors and seven examining GLP-1 RAs. Nine studies investigated incident diabetic retinopathy, six investigated diabetic retinopathy progression and two investigated both outcomes. Seven studies were at moderate risk of bias, four at serious risk of bias and three at critical risk of bias. Data pooled across studies showed no association between the use of DPP-4 inhibitors (risk ratio: 0.98, 95% confidence interval: 0.83, 1.17) or GLP-1 RAs (risk ratio: 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.56, 1.34) and the risk of diabetic retinopathy. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the use of incretin-based drugs is not associated with the risk of diabetic retinopathy among individuals with type 2 diabetes. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution considering the limited quality of some of the available evidence.

Opioid Use and the Risk of Ventricular Arrhythmias: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The association between opioid use and the risk of ventricular arrhythmias (VA) is poorly understood. AIMS: The objective of this study was to synthesize the evidence on the risk of VA associated with opioid use. MATERIALS & METHODS: We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, and CINAHL databases in July 2022. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk for bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and ROBINS-I for observational studies. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: We included 15 studies (12 observational, 2 post hoc analyses of RCTs, 1 RCT). Most studies focused on opioid use for maintenance therapy (n = 9), comparing methadone to buprenorphine (n = 13), and reported QTc prolongation (n = 13). Six observational studies had a critical risk of bias, and one RCT was at high risk of bias. Two studies could not be included in the meta-analysis as they reported a different outcome and studied an opioid antagonist. Meta-analysis of 13 studies indicated that the use of methadone was associated with an increased risk of VA compared to the use of buprenorphine, morphine, placebo, or levacetylmethadol (risk ratio [RR], 2.39; 95% CI, 1.31-4.35; I2 = 60%). The pooled estimate varied greatly between observational studies (RR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.15-3.91; I2 = 62%) and RCTs (RR, 14.09; 95% CI, 1.52-130.61; I2 = 0%), but both indicated an increased risk. CONCLUSION: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that methadone use is associated with more than twice the risk of VA compared to comparators. However, our findings should be interpreted cautiously given the limited quality of the available evidence.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and the risk of venous thromboembolism: A population-based cohort study.

AIMS: The cardiovascular benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2Is) result from their complex impact on coronary and arterial vessels. However, their effect on veins and the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains unclear. Meta-analysis of trials has suggested no significant change in risk, but observational studies on the topic are scarce. Our objective was to determine if the use of SGLT2Is, compared to the use of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4Is), is associated with the risk of VTE among patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to hospitalization and vital statistics databases, we conducted a retrospective cohort study using a prevalent new-user design. SGLT2Is were matched to DPP-4I users on calendar time, diabetes treatment intensity, duration of previous DPP-4I use and time-conditional high-dimensional propensity score. Cox proportional hazard models estimated the hazard ratio (HR) for VTE with SGLT2Is versus DPP-4Is. RESULTS: SGLT2I use was not associated with an increased risk of VTE (HR 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34 to 1.25). This finding was consistent among prevalent (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.42) and incident (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.72) new users. CONCLUSIONS: We found that SGLT2Is were not associated with an increased risk of VTE compared to DPP-4Is. Although we observed a numerically decreased risk of VTE with SGLT2Is, estimates were accompanied by wide 95% CIs. Nonetheless, given the morbidity associated with VTE, our results provide some reassurance regarding the safety of SGLT2Is with respect to VTE.