Trends in Clinical Characteristics and Prescribing Preferences for SGLT2 Inhibitors and GLP-1 Receptor Agonists, 2013–2018

Abstract

There is a paucity of data evaluating recent changes in clinical and prescriber characteristics of patients initiating sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS U.S.-based administrative claims data (July 2013 to June 2018) were used to identify initiators of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA. RESULTSOver 5 years, empagliflozin initiation (as a proportion of SGLT2i) increased by 57.1% (P < 0.001 for trend), while canagliflozin initiation declined by 75.1% (P < 0.001). Empagliflozin was the only agent within SGLT2i with an increase in the proportion of patients with myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure (collectively called CVD-HF) (P < 0.001). Liraglutide initiation (as a proportion of total GLP-1RA) declined by 32.1% (P < 0.001), and dulaglutide initiation increased by 34.1% (P < 0.001); the proportion of patients with CVD-HF increased the most in liraglutide initiators (5.1% increase; P < 0.001). Most prescribers were internists or endocrinologists; cardiologist prescribing remained low (<1%). CONCLUSIONSFor SGLT2i, shifts in preference for empagliflozin followed changes in drug labels and guidelines, while for GLP-1RA, other factors such as price or ease of administration may have led to a preference for dulaglutide over liraglutide.

Real‐world use of cardioprotective glucose‐lowering drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease: A Danish nationwide cohort study, 2012 to 2019

“…Arnold et al reported the real‐world use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP analogues to be 5.2% and 6.0%, respectively, among a study population eligible for participation in the EMPAREG or LEADER trial 34 and similar proportions of cardioprotective GLD users were reported by others 20,23 . Among initiators of cardioprotective GLDs in the period 2013 to 2018, three recent studies observed a relatively stable prevalence of patients with T2DM and CVD, although in the context of absolute increases in cardioprotective GLD use in the same time period 21,22,24 …”

Where Does Metformin Stand in Modern Day Management of Type 2 Diabetes?

“…In addition, the side effect profile of pioglitazone including risk of fluid retention and HF makes it difficult to choose pioglitazone as a first-line agent over metformin [92] There has been an immense proliferation in the evidence suggesting the beneficial cardio-protective effects of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA especially in the last 5 years. Despite all this, the uptake of these medications outside of diabetologists domain remains low [93,94]. It is crucial to avoid therapeutic inertia [95] and therapy beyond metformin is escalated in a timely manner.…”

A post COVID‐19 ‘Marshall Plan’ for type 2 diabetes

“…However, many individuals with the condition are not prescribed these modern and cost-effective therapies, particularly GLP-1 receptor agonists that require injection. 6 Important barriers include: expertise in the use of these newer agents residing mainly in secondary care (the majority of people with type 2 diabetes are cared for in primary care); downward pressure on cost; and inadequate coordination between primary and secondary care. Although there are examples of good practice, including diabetes-focused locally enhanced services, many individuals only receive input from secondary care once they have had the condition for many years and/or have developed complications (e.g.…”

“…Two new drug classes (GLP‐1 receptor agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors) for the first time reliably reduce weight and prevent heart disease and stroke. However, many individuals with the condition are not prescribed these modern and cost‐effective therapies, particularly GLP‐1 receptor agonists that require injection 6 . Important barriers include: expertise in the use of these newer agents residing mainly in secondary care (the majority of people with type 2 diabetes are cared for in primary care); downward pressure on cost; and inadequate coordination between primary and secondary care.…”