Retrospective cohort study identifies differential cardiovascular event risk reduction from GLP-1RA in type 2 diabetes, indicating specific patient benefits.
Introduction and Objective: GLP-1RA have emerged as a mainstay T2DM treatment. These agents reduce cardiovascular risk, but sources of heterogeneous treatment effects are not known. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study, using a new-user, active-comparator target trial emulation approach. The primary exposure was prescription of a GLP-1 RA. The comparator was prescription of any SGLT2i or DPP-IVi. The primary end point was time to first major adverse cardiovascular/cerebrovascular event (MACCE). Propensity score overlap weighting combined with LASSO was used to balance patient characteristics— including medical history, laboratory/physical measures, and social determinants of health— and estimate causal subgroup effects. Results: In total, 506,432 patients without a history of cardiovascular disease were prescribed a GLP-1RA and 648,505 were prescribed a SGLT2i or DPP-IVi. Estimated treatment effects are shown in Figure 1. In summary, GLP-1RA prescription was associated with a reduction in MACCE risk for female patients, patients age 18-44 and 65+, Black patients, non-Hispanic patients, and patients at high PREVENT-estimated CVD risk. Conclusion: While confidence intervals were wide, it is possible that GLP-1RA prescription may be differentially associated with MACCE risk reduction across subgroups, especially for female patients, who derived greater benefits than male patients. Disclosure J.B. Lusk: None. J. Shin: None. L. Wilson: Research Support; Ended; Pfizer Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. C. Powell: None. P. Madala: None. E. OBrien: Research Support; Current; Pfizer Inc. F. Li: None. B. Mac Grory: None. Funding American Heart Association Data Science (25GLP1450119), National Institutes of Health (P30AG072958)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lusk et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: