Comparative Effectiveness of Empagliflozin vs Liraglutide or Sitagliptin in Older Adults With Diverse Patient Characteristics
Phyo T Htoo,Helen Tesfaye,Sebastian Schneeweiss,Deborah J Wexler,Brendan M Everett,Robert J Glynn,Seoyoung C Kim,Mehdi Najafzadeh,Lisette Koeneman,Soulmaz Fazeli Farsani,Anouk Déruaz-Luyet,Julie M Paik,Elisabetta Patorno
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.37606
2022-10-03
Abstract:Importance: Limited evidence is available on the comparative effectiveness of empagliflozin vs alternative second-line glucose-lowering agents in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) receiving routine care who have a broad spectrum of cardiorenal risk. Objective: To evaluate the association of empagliflozin with cardiovascular outcomes relative to liraglutide and sitagliptin, stratified by age, sex, baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), heart failure (HF), and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective comparative effectiveness cohort study used deidentified Medicare claims data from August 1, 2014, to September 30, 2018, with follow-up from drug initiation until treatment changes, death, or gap in Medicare enrollment (>30 days). Data analysis was performed from October 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries older than 65 years with T2D were included. A total of 45 788 patients (22 894 propensity score-matched pairs initiating treatment with either empagliflozin or liraglutide) were included in cohort 1, and 45 624 patients (22 812 propensity score-matched pairs initiating treatment with either empagliflozin or sitagliptin) were included in cohort 2. Exposures: Empagliflozin vs liraglutide (cohort 1) or empagliflozin vs sitagliptin (cohort 2). Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcomes were (1) modified major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), including a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, and (2) hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). Hazard ratios (HRs) and rate differences (RDs) per 1000 person-years were estimated, adjusting for 143 baseline covariates using 1:1 propensity score matching. Results: Among 45 788 patients in cohort 1, the mean (SD) age was 71.9 (5.1) years; 23 396 patients (51.1%) were female, 22 392 (48.9%) were male, and 38 049 (83.1%) were White. Among 45 624 patients in cohort 2, the mean (SD) age was 72.1 (5.1) years; 21 418 patients (46.9%) were female, 24 206 (53.1%) were male, and 37 814 (82.9%) were White. Relative to patients initiating liraglutide, those initiating empagliflozin had a similar risk of the modified MACE outcome (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79-1.03) and a reduced risk of HHF (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82). Across subgroups, empagliflozin was associated with a lower risk of the modified MACE outcome in patients with a history of ASCVD (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98) and HF (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60-1.00) compared with liraglutide, and potential heterogeneity in estimates was observed by sex (male: HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.71-1.01]; female: HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.94-1.42]; P = .02 for homogeneity). However, reductions in the risk of HHF were observed across most subgroups (eg, ASCVD: HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.51-0.85]; HF: HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.49-0.88]). Compared with sitagliptin, empagliflozin was associated with reduced risks of the modified MACE outcome (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.77) and HHF (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.36-0.56), which were consistent across all subgroups. Absolute benefits of empagliflozin vs sitagliptin were larger in patients with a history of ASCVD (modified MACE: RD, -17.6 [95% CI, -24.9 to -10.4]; HHF: RD, -16.7 [95% CI, -21.7 to -11.9]), HF (modified MACE: RD, -41.1 [95% CI, -59.9 to -22.6]; HHF: RD, -50.4 [95% CI, -67.5 to -33.9]), or CKD (modified MACE: RD, -26.7 [95% CI, -41.3 to -12.3]; HHF: RD, -31.9 [95% CI, -43.5 to -20.8]). Conclusions and relevance: In this comparative effectiveness study of older adults, empagliflozin was associated with a lower risk of HHF (relative to both liraglutide and sitagliptin) and the modified MACE outcome (relative to sitagliptin), with larger absolute benefits in patients with established cardiorenal diseases. These findings suggest that older adults with T2D might benefit more from empagliflozin vs liraglutide or sitagliptin with respect to the risk of HHF; with respect to the risk of MACEs, empagliflozin might be preferable to liraglutide only in patients with cardiovascular disease history and to sitagliptin across all patient subgroups.