Liraglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes

Abstract

BACKGROUND The cardiovascular effect of liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue, when added to standard care in patients with type 2 diabetes, remains unknown. METHODS In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk to receive liraglutide or placebo. The primary composite outcome in the time-to-event analysis was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The primary hypothesis was that liraglutide would be noninferior to placebo with regard to the primary outcome, with a margin of 1.30 for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio. No adjustments for multiplicity were performed for the prespecified exploratory outcomes. RESULTS A total of 9340 patients underwent randomization. The median follow-up was 3.8 years. The primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the liraglutide group (608 of 4668 patients [13.0%]) than in the placebo group (694 of 4672 [14.9%]) (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 0.97; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.01 for superiority). Fewer patients died from cardiovascular causes in the liraglutide group (219 patients [4.7%]) than in the placebo group (278 [6.0%]) (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93; P=0.007). The rate of death from any cause was lower in the liraglutide group (381 patients [8.2%]) than in the placebo group (447 [9.6%]) (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.97; P =0.02). The rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure were nonsignificantly lower in the liraglutide group than in the placebo group. The most common adverse events leading to the discontinuation of liraglutide were gastrointestinal events. The incidence of pancreatitis was nonsignificantly lower in the liraglutide group than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS In the time-to-event analysis, the rate of the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus was lower with liraglutide than with placebo. (Funded by Novo Nordisk and the National Institutes of Health; LEADER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01179048.)

Liraglutide Treatment Reduces Endothelial Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress and Insulin Resistance in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus

“…To determine whether ER stress contributes to endothelial dysfunction in the setting of DM, we utilized liraglutide, a GLP‐1 analogue, which has been demonstrated to reduce ER stress in cultured endothelial cells exposed to high glucose17 and to exert favorable effects on cardiovascular function in both preclinical and clinical studies 18, 28, 29…”

Cardiovascular Safety, Long‐Term Noncardiovascular Safety, and Efficacy of Sodium–Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systemic Review and Meta‐Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis

“…Previous guidelines in cardiology did not make a recommendation on the selection of antihyperglycemic drugs in this population 39, 40. However, based on current evidence, antihyperglycemic drugs should be chosen with preference in patients with CVD and type 2 DM, with strong recommendation for use of antidiabetic drugs that improve cardiovascular outcomes, such as SGLT2 inhibitors and several GLP‐1 (glucagon‐like peptide 1) receptor agonists 41, 42. Our analyses, together with those trials, provide strong evidence and could help cardiologists select the preferred glucose‐lowering drugs before guideline revision, which is expected in the next few years.…”

Dietary Approach to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet and risk of renal function decline and all-cause mortality in renal transplant recipients

“…Furthermore, information on dietary intake was assessed at a single time point at baseline, which may not be an accurate reflection of diet longitudinally. It should, however, be noted that most epidemiological studies use single baseline measurements to investigate associations with long‐term outcomes, which is likely to adversely affect strengths of these associations with outcome and therefore likely leads to underestimation of associations between baseline measurements and long‐term outcome rather than overestimation 52, 53…”