Associations of Apixaban Dose With Safety and Effectiveness Outcomes in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Severe Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations for apixaban dosing on the basis of kidney function are inconsistent between the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency for patients with atrial fibrillation. Optimal apixaban dosing in chronic kidney disease remains unknown. METHODS: With the use of deidentified electronic health record data from the Optum Labs Data Warehouse, patients with atrial fibrillation and chronic kidney disease stage 4/5 initiating apixaban between 2013 and 2021 were identified. Risks of bleeding and stroke/systemic embolism were compared by apixaban dose (5 versus 2.5 mg), adjusted for baseline characteristics by the inverse probability of treatment weighting. The Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model was used to account for the competing risk of death. Cox regression was used to examine risk of death by apixaban dose. RESULTS: Among 4313 apixaban new users, 1705 (40%) received 5 mg and 2608 (60%) received 2.5 mg. Patients treated with 5 mg apixaban were younger (mean age, 72 versus 80 years), with greater weight (95 versus 80 kg) and higher serum creatinine (2.7 versus 2.5 mg/dL). Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was not different between the groups (24 versus 24 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2). In inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis, apixaban 5 mg was associated with a higher risk of bleeding (incidence rate 4.9 versus 2.9 events per 100 person-years; incidence rate difference, 2.0 [95% CI, 0.6-3.4] events per 100 person-years; subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.04-2.54]). There was no difference between apixaban 5 mg and 2.5 mg groups in the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (3.3 versus 3.0 events per 100 person-years; incidence rate difference, 0.2 [95% CI, -1.0 to 1.4] events per 100 person-years; subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.59-1.73]), or death (9.9 versus 9.4 events per 100 person-years; incidence rate difference, 0.5 [95% CI, -1.6 to 2.6] events per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.77-1.38]). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with 2.5 mg, use of 5 mg apixaban was associated with a higher risk of bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation and severe chronic kidney disease, with no difference in the risk of stroke/systemic embolism or death, supporting the apixaban dosing recommendations on the basis of kidney function by the European Medicines Agency, which differ from those issued by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and the risk of atrial fibrillation in adults with diabetes: a real-world study.

BACKGROUND: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) have cardiovascular benefits in type 2 diabetes, but none of the cardiovascular trials studied atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF) as a primary endpoint. Data from post-marketing surveillance studies remains sparse. OBJECTIVE: To examine the real-world risk of AF comparing GLP-1RA with other non-insulin glucose-lowering agents. DESIGN: Cohort study using de-identified electronic health record data from the Optum Labs Data Warehouse. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with diabetes who were newly prescribed add-on non-insulin glucose-lowering agents and were on metformin between 2005-2020. EXPOSURES: New users of GLP-1RA were separately compared with new users of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), using 1:1 propensity score matching to adjust for differences in patient characteristics. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was incident AF, defined and captured by diagnosis code for AF. Incidence rate difference (IRD) and hazard ratio (HR) were estimated in the matched cohorts. KEY RESULTS: In the matched cohort of 14,566 pairs of GLP-1RA and DPP4i followed for a median of 3.8 years, GLP-1RA use was associated with a lower risk of AF (IRD, -1.0; 95% CI, -1.8 to -0.2 per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.96). In the matched cohort of 9,424 pairs of patients on GLP-1RA and SGLT2i with a median follow-up of 2.9 years, there was no difference in the risk for AF (IRD, 0.4; 95% CI -0.7 to 1.5 per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.42). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-word study, GLP-1RA was associated with a lower risk of AF compared with DPP4i, but no difference compared with SGLT2i, suggesting that cardiovascular benefits of GLP-1RA use may extend to prevention for AF in patients with diabetes. Our findings call for future randomized controlled trials to focus on the effects of GLP-1RA on AF prevention.

Dihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers and Kidney Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Early trials of dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (DCCBs) suggest a detrimental effect on intraglomerular pressure and an association with albuminuria. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the associations of DCCB initiation with albuminuria and kidney failure with replacement therapy (KFRT) and to determine whether renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade modified these associations. DESIGN: We conducted a target trial emulation study using a new user, active comparator design and electronic health record data from Geisinger Health. PARTICIPANTS: We included patients without severe albuminuria or KFRT who were initiated on a DCCB or thiazide (active comparator) between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2019. MAIN MEASURES: Using inverse probability of treatment weighting, we performed doubly robust Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate the association of DCCB initiation with incident severe albuminuria (urine albumin to creatinine ratio > 300 mg/g) and KFRT, overall and stratified by RAS blocker use. KEY RESULTS: There were 11,747 and 26,758 eligible patients initiating a DCCB and thiazide, respectively, with a weighted baseline mean age of 60 years, systolic blood pressure of 143 mm Hg, and eGFR of 86 mL/min/1.73 m2, and with a mean follow-up of 8 years. Compared with thiazides, DCCBs were significantly associated with the development of severe albuminuria (hazard ratio [HR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.43), with attenuation of risk in the presence of RAS blockade (P for interaction < 0.001). The risk of KFRT was increased among patients without RAS blockade (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.19-2.31), but not with RAS blockade (P for interaction = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: DCCBs were associated with increased risk of albuminuria and, in the absence of RAS blockade, KFRT. These findings suggest coupling DCCB therapy with RAS blockade may mitigate adverse kidney outcomes.

Association of Sevelamer Initiation with Gastrointestinal Bleeding Hospitalization in Individuals Requiring Hemodialysis.

Introduction Case reports have suggested a causative role between sevelamer use and subsequent gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), but no large observational studies have evaluated this association. Methods Using the United States Renal Data System database from 2015 to 2019, we examined the association between initiation of sevelamer (versus non-sevelamer containing phosphate binders) and GIB hospitalization as well as all-cause mortality among individuals on hemodialysis. We emulated a target trial using Cox regression models and inverse probability of treatment weights to estimate the adjusted hazard ratios (HR) across outcomes and subgroups. Results Among 21,354 new users of phosphate binders (11,276 sevelamer and 10,078 non-sevelamer) with baseline lab data (calcium, phosphorus, hemoglobin, and albumin), there were 2,811 GIB hospitalizations and 5,920 deaths after a median follow-up of 1.3 years. Compared with the initiation of non-sevelamer binders, sevelamer was not associated with an increased risk of GIB hospitalization (89 vs. 90 events per 1000 person-years; IPTW-HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 - 1.06) or all-cause mortality (220 vs. 224 events per 1000 person-years; IPTW-HR 0.98 95% CI 0.93 - 1.03). Subgroup analyses (such as diabetes and anti-coagulation use) were generally consistent, and there was no association between sevelamer dose and GIB hospitalization. Conclusion Among patients requiring hemodialysis, sevelamer (vs non-sevelamer) containing phosphate binders was not associated with increased risk of GIB hospitalization.

Prescription medication use among patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States: 1999-2020.

AIMS: We aimed to examine trends in overall prescription medication use among patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States to provide insights for patient care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used nationally representative data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999 to 2020 and included adult patients with type 2 diabetes. We examined the use of prescription drugs, overall and by drug class, polypharmacy (use of ≥5 medications), and number of medications attributed to specific classes. RESULTS: In the period 2015-2020, the mean patient age was 59.6 (51.0-70.0) years, with 46.8% (43.6-49.9) being female and 57.8% (52.8-62.8) being non-Hispanic White. Among 9489 adults with type 2 diabetes, the prevalence of polypharmacy was high and increased from 35.1% (31.6-38.6) in 1999-2002 to 47.2% (43.7-50.7) in 2003-2006, and further to 51.1% (48.3-53.9) in 2015-2020 (p for trend <0.001). Increasing trends of polypharmacy were found across all population subgroups and across the majority of therapeutic classes. Use of non-cardiometabolic medications was common. Among them, the most common were antidepressants (19.8%), proton pump inhibitors (19.0%) and analgesics (16.2%). Among patients with polypharmacy, approximately 40% of medication use was attributed to non-cardiometabolic medications. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription medication burden and complexity increased substantially among patients with type 2 diabetes, with more than 50% of patients with polypharmacy. Attention should be paid to this escalating medication use and regimen complexity, which requires multidisciplinary and coordinated care.

Major cardiovascular events and subsequent risk of kidney failure with replacement therapy: a CKD Prognosis Consortium study.

AIMS: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) increases risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Less is known about how CVD associates with future risk of kidney failure with replacement therapy (KFRT). METHODS AND RESULTS: The study included 25 903 761 individuals from the CKD Prognosis Consortium with known baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and evaluated the impact of prevalent and incident coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, heart failure (HF), and atrial fibrillation (AF) events as time-varying exposures on KFRT outcomes. Mean age was 53 (standard deviation 17) years and mean eGFR was 89 mL/min/1.73 m2, 15% had diabetes and 8.4% had urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) available (median 13 mg/g); 9.5% had prevalent CHD, 3.2% prior stroke, 3.3% HF, and 4.4% prior AF. During follow-up, there were 269 142 CHD, 311 021 stroke, 712 556 HF, and 605 596 AF incident events and 101 044 (0.4%) patients experienced KFRT. Both prevalent and incident CVD were associated with subsequent KFRT with adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of 3.1 [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.9-3.3], 2.0 (1.9-2.1), 4.5 (4.2-4.9), 2.8 (2.7-3.1) after incident CHD, stroke, HF and AF, respectively. HRs were highest in first 3 months post-CVD incidence declining to baseline after 3 years. Incident HF hospitalizations showed the strongest association with KFRT [HR 46 (95% CI: 43-50) within 3 months] after adjustment for other CVD subtype incidence. CONCLUSION: Incident CVD events strongly and independently associate with future KFRT risk, most notably after HF, then CHD, stroke, and AF. Optimal strategies for addressing the dramatic risk of KFRT following CVD events are needed.

Glucose-Lowering Agents and the Risk of Hypoglycemia: a Real-world Study.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) are increasingly recommended in type 2 diabetes. Hypoglycemia is a serious adverse effect of glucose-lowering agents. Real-world comparison of hypoglycemic risks among SGLT2i, GLP1RA, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i), and sulfonylureas is limited. OBJECTIVE: Quantify the risk of hypoglycemia associated with SGLT2i, GLP1RA, DPP4i, and sulfonylureas (the primary reference group). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study conducted using electronic health records from Geisinger Health, Pennsylvania (2015-2019). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 10,713 patients with type 2 diabetes who newly received SGLT2i (n=1487), GLP1RA (n=1241), DPP4i (n=2938), or sulfonylureas (n=5047). Propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance patient characteristics across four treatment groups simultaneously. MAIN MEASURES: Hypoglycemia was defined as capillary blood glucose <70 mg/dL; severe hypoglycemia was defined as capillary blood glucose <54 mg/dL. A weighted Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate the risk of outcomes for pairwise comparisons of SGTL2i, GLP1RA, DPP4i, and sulfonylureas. KEY RESULTS: Median follow-up was 21.3 months. Compared with sulfonylureas, the risk of hypoglycemia was lower with SGLT2i (hazard ratio 0.60 [95% confidence interval 0.48-0.75]), GLP1RA (0.49 [0.34-0.69]), and DPP4i (0.60 [0.48-0.78]). The risk of severe hypoglycemia was also lower with SGLT2i (0.43 [0.35-0.74]), GLP1RA (0.50 [0.28-0.87]), and DPP4i (0.64 [0.46-0.90]) compared to sulfonylureas. The risks of hypoglycemia and severe hypoglycemia were similar across the SGLT2i, GLP1RA, and DPP4i groups (SGLT2i vs. DPP4i: 0.95 [0.67-1.34]; GLP1RA vs. DPP4i: 0.81 [0.55-1.19]; SGLT2i vs. GLP1RA: 1.17 [0.76-1.82] for hypoglycemia). CONCLUSION: SGLT2i and GLP1RA confer a lower risk of hypoglycemia compared with sulfonylureas and similar risk compared with DPP4i. Given the known cardiovascular benefits associated with SGLT2i and GL1PRA, our results suggesting the safety of SGLT2i and GL1PRA further support their use.

Association of Rosuvastatin Use with Risk of Hematuria and Proteinuria.

BACKGROUND: Despite reports of hematuria and proteinuria with rosuvastatin use at the time of its approval by the US Food and Drug Association (FDA), little postmarketing surveillance exists to assess real-world risk. Current labeling suggests dose reduction (maximum daily dose of 10 mg) for patients with severe CKD. METHODS: Using deidentified electronic health record data, we analyzed 152,101 and 795,799 new users of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin, respectively, from 2011 to 2019. We estimated inverse probability of treatment-weighted hazard ratios (HRs) of hematuria, proteinuria, and kidney failure with replacement therapy (KFRT) associated with rosuvastatin. We reported the initial rosuvastatin dose across eGFR categories and evaluated for a dose effect on hematuria and proteinuria. RESULTS: Overall, we identified 2.9% of patients with hematuria and 1.0% with proteinuria during a median follow-up of 3.1 years. Compared with atorvastatin, rosuvastatin was associated with increased risk of hematuria (HR, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.04 to 1.11), proteinuria (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.25), and KFRT (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.30). A substantial share (44%) of patients with eGFR <30 ml/min per 1.73 m2 was prescribed high-dose rosuvastatin (20 or 40 mg daily). Risk was higher with higher rosuvastatin dose. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with atorvastatin, rosuvastatin was associated with increased risk of hematuria, proteinuria, and KFRT. Among patients with eGFR <30 ml/min per 1.73 m2, 44% were prescribed a rosuvastatin daily dose exceeding the FDA's recommended 10 mg daily dose. Our findings suggest the need for greater care in prescribing and monitoring rosuvastatin, particularly in patients who receive high doses or who have severe CKD.

Use of prescription medications with cardiovascular adverse effects among older adults in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Many commonly used prescription medications have cardiovascular adverse effects, yet the cumulative risk of cardiovascular events associated with the concurrent use of these medications is unknown. We examined the association between the concurrent use of prescription medications with known risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) ("MACE medications") and the risk of such events among older adults. METHODS: A multi-center, population-based study from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study of a cohort of 3669 community-dwelling adults aged 61-86 years with no history of cardiovascular disease who reported the use of at least one medication between September 2006 and August 2013 were followed up until August 2015. Exposure defined as time-varying and time-fixed use of 1, 2 or ≥3 MACE medications with non-MACE medications serving as negative control. Primary outcome was incident MACE defined as coronary artery revascularization, myocardial infarction, fatal coronary heart disease, stroke, cardiac arrest, or death. RESULTS: In fully adjusted models, there was an increased risk of MACE associated with use of 1, 2, or ≥3 MACE medications (1 MACE: hazards ratio [HR], 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.57); 2 MACE: HR 1.89, CI 1.42-2.53; ≥3 MACE: HR 2.22, CI 1.61-3.07) compared to use of non-MACE medications. These associations persisted in propensity score-matched analyses and among new users of MACE medications, never users of cardiovascular medications and subgroups of participants with increased risk of MACE. There was no association between the number of non-MACE medications used and MACE. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this community-based cohort of older adults with no prior cardiovascular disease, the use of MACE medications was independently and consistently associated with an increased risk of such events in a dose-response fashion.

Ambulatory noninsulin treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States, 2015 to 2019.

OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in the noninsulin drug treatment of type 2 diabetes, including first- and second-line therapies on top of metformin, from 2015 to 2019. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We conducted a descriptive analysis of cross-sectional data using the IQVIA National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a nationally representative audit of ambulatory physician practices in the United States. We focused on the use of noninsulin pharmacological treatments for type 2 diabetes among individuals aged 35 years and older between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019. The main outcome was type 2 diabetes visits where a prescription drug was used ("treatment visit"). RESULTS: Ambulatory diabetes visits decreased from 30.1 million treatment visits in 2015 to 29.5 million treatment visits in 2019. Among treatment visits where a single drug was prescribed, the use of metformin declined from 57.0% of monotherapy in 2015 to 46.0% of monotherapy in 2019, while during the same period the share of monotherapy accounted for by glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists increased from 4.3% to 8.5% and the share accounted for by sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors increased from 7.3% to 19.5%. Among treatment visits where metformin plus another drug was prescribed, the share of second-line therapy accounted for by dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors decreased from 21.9% of treatment visits in 2015 to 20.8% of treatment visits in 2019; sulphonylurea use declined from 45.2% to 32.7%, use of SGLT2 inhibitors increased from 14.5% to 21.2% and use of GLP-1 receptor agonists increased from 9.8% to 18.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Significant changes in the landscape of ambulatory care for diabetes have taken place during the past 6 years, including moderate declines in metformin monotherapy, moderate declines in second-line sulphonylurea use, and large increases in SGLT2 use. These changes underscore the dynamic nature of drug utilization for diabetes in the United States, and reflect the effects of emerging evidence, evolving clinical guidelines and evolving regulatory and payment policies.

The FDA Metformin Label Change and Racial and Sex Disparities in Metformin Prescription among Patients with CKD.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) changed labeling regarding metformin contraindications in patients with diabetes and CKD from using serum creatinine-based thresholds to using eGFR-based thresholds. Because race and sex affect serum creatinine levels independently of GFR, the earlier creatinine-based contraindication may have inadvertently caused racial and sex disparities in metformin prescription among patients with low eGFR. METHODS: In an analysis of 15,946 Black and White primary care patients with diabetes and eGFR≥30 ml/min per 1.73 m2 in a large health system (the primary cohort), we assessed the association of race and sex with metformin prescription across eGFR level before and after the FDA label change. For a replication cohort, we meta-analyzed data from 36 cohorts with 1,051,723 patients from OptumLabs Data Warehouse. RESULTS: In the primary cohort, before the label change, Black patients with eGFR of 30-44 ml/min per 1.73 m2 were prescribed metformin less often than White counterparts (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.52 to 0.82); this disparity was significantly attenuated after the label change (aPR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.09; P value for interaction by period =0.04). Results were consistent in the replication cohorts. Men with eGFR of 30-44 ml/min per 1.73 m2 received metformin prescriptions less often than women counterparts before the label change; this was nonsignificantly attenuated after the label change, but we found significant attenuation in the replication cohorts (aPRpre-label change, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.79; aPRpost-label change, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.88; P value for interaction by period <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The metformin label change to an eGFR-based contraindication may have reduced racial and sex disparities in metformin prescription in moderate kidney dysfunction.

Trends in Self-reported Prediabetes and Metformin Use in the USA: NHANES 2005-2014.

BACKGROUND: The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends that treatment with metformin be considered for prevention of type 2 diabetes in persons with prediabetes. However, metformin use outside the setting of diagnosed diabetes in US adults is not well characterized. OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in self-reported prediabetes and treatment with metformin. We also compared characteristics of adults self-reported prediabetes who were vs. were not taking metformin. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Adults ≥ 20 years of age who participated in the 2005-2014 National Health and Nutrition and Examination Survey (NHANES), n = 28,461. APPROACH: We characterized trends in self-reported prediabetes and metformin use in this population. We used multiple logistic regression models to identify predictors of metformin use among adults with self-reported prediabetes. All analyses accounted for the weighted complex survey design to generate nationally representative estimates. KEY RESULTS: The prevalence of self-reported prediabetes increased from 5.1% in 2005-2006 to 7.4% in 2013-2014 (P-for-trend < 0.001). In persons with self-reported prediabetes, metformin use increased, from 2.4 to 8.3% (P-for-trend = 0.013). Adults who were taking metformin were more likely to be obese and to report trying to lose weight in the past year. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported prediabetes has increased in the past decade. Metformin use in the setting of prediabetes has also increased but remains relatively uncommon at 8% in adults who self-report prediabetes, despite current clinical recommendations.

Second-line Glucose-Lowering Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There is consensus that metformin should be the first-line pharmacological therapy for type 2 diabetes. Although new evidence on effective treatments for type 2 diabetes is rapidly evolving, there is uncertainty regarding the optimal choice of second-line therapy. Our aim was to review the current major guidelines for second-line therapy in type 2 diabetes, along with findings from the recent cardiovascular outcome trials, focusing on two particularly promising classes of glucose-lowering drugs, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1 RAs). RECENT FINDINGS: In the recent randomized controlled trials, two SGLT2 inhibitors (i.e., empagliflozin and canagliflozin) and two GLP1 RAs (i.e., liraglutide and albiglutide) reduced cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes, of whom most had established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Some clinical guidelines have changed their recommendations for second-line therapy based on these findings. The first choice for a second-line therapy by the new American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (ADA/EASD) guidelines is SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP1 RAs for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease. For patients without these conditions, the ADA/EASD lists five options of noninsulin second-line therapy without a suggested hierarchy of use. On the other hand, the 2019 consensus statement from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology lists nine hierarchical options, with GLP1 RAs as the first recommended therapy, followed by SGLT2 inhibitors and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, and sulfonylurea as the last option. The American College of Physicians recommends four oral treatment options, which do not include GLP1 RAs. The International Diabetes Federation recommends sulfonylureas, DPP4 inhibitors, or SGLT2 inhibitors as preferred second-line drugs with GLP1 RAs as an alternative in obese patients. The World Health Organization strongly recommends sulfonylureas in low-resource settings. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the UK recommends DPP4 inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, or sulfonylureas, with use of SGLT2 inhibitors only under special circumstances. Clinical guidelines for the choice of second-line therapy in type 2 diabetes are inconsistent. A comprehensive assessment of the risks and benefits of second-line therapy is needed to address knowledge gaps that underlie core clinical practice.