Evidence Hub

Prescribing Paradigm Shift? Applying the 2019 European Society of Cardiology-Led Guidelines on Diabetes, Prediabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease to Assess Eligibility for Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors or Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists as First-Line Monotherapy (or Add-on to Metformin Monotherapy) in Type 2 Diabetes in Scotland

Caparrotta TM, Blackbourn LAK, McGurnaghan SJ, Chalmers J, Lindsay R, McCrimmon R, McKnight J, Wild S et al.

Diabetes care, 2020

265,774 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In 2019, the European Society of Cardiology led and released new guidelines for diabetes cardiovascular risk management, reflecting recent evidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) reduction with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) and some glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) in type 2 diabetes (T2D). A key recommendation is that all those with T2D who are (antihyperglycemic) drug naïve or on metformin monotherapy should be CVD risk stratified and an SGLT-2i or a GLP-1RA initiated in all those at high or very high risk, irrespective of glycated hemoglobin. We assessed the impact of these guidelines in Scotland were they introduced as is.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using a nationwide diabetes register in Scotland, we did a cross-sectional analysis, using variables in our register for risk stratification at 1 January 2019. We were conservative in our definitions, assuming the absence of a risk factor where data were not available. The risk classifications were applied to people who were drug naïve or on metformin monotherapy and the anticipated prescribing change calculated.

RESULTS: Of the 265,774 people with T2D in Scotland, 53,194 (20.0% of those with T2D) were drug naïve, and 56,906 (21.4%) were on metformin monotherapy. Of these, 74.5% and 72.4%, respectively, were estimated as at least high risk given the guideline risk definitions.

CONCLUSIONS: Thus, 80,830 (30.4%) of all those with T2D (n = 265,774) would start one of these…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 265,774 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free