SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists were underutilized in patients with IHD and T2D, dispensed to only 37.2% and 10.0% respectively, with significant sex disparity in SGLT2i use (aOR 0.64).
Cross-Sectional (n=14,414)
Yes
14,414 patients with registered prevalent diagnoses of coexisting ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) in primary care in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden. Mean age 74.4 years, 30.6% women.
Dispensed SGLT2 inhibitors (empagliflozin, dapagliflozin, canagliflozin) or GLP-1 receptor agonists (semaglutide, dulaglutide, liraglutide, lixisenatide) during the last 120 days before the index date.
Proportion of patients with dispensed SGLT2i or GLP-1 RA in relation to sex, age and primary healthcare centres (including private vs public ownership)
SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists are underutilized in Swedish primary care patients with coexisting ischemic heart disease and type 2 diabetes, with significant sex disparities and variation across healthcare centers.
Effect estimate: aOR 0.64 (95% CI 0.59-0.70)
Objectives To assess the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) among patients with coexisting ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) in primary care, in relation to European guidelines. Design Cross-sectional observational study. Setting 209 primary healthcare centres in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden (population 1.8 million in 2023). Participants 14 414 patients with registered prevalent diagnoses of coexisting IHD and T2D, September 2023, in QregPV, the regional primary care quality of care register in Region Västra Götaland. Data on dispensed drugs were retrieved from the regional prescribed drug register, Digitalis. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with dispensed SGLT2i or GLP-1 RA in relation to sex, age and primary healthcare centres (including private vs public ownership). The secondary outcome was estimated additional prescription costs. Results SGLT2i was dispensed to 37.2%, less often to women (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.64 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.70)). GLP-1 RA was dispensed to 10.0%, with no sex difference (aOR 1.04 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.18)). Use of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA declined with age (p<0.001). Use across primary healthcare centres (95% central range) varied from 17.1% to 56.4% for SGLT2i and 0.0% to 23.4% for GLP-1 RA, without differences between private versus public primary healthcare centres (SGLT2i: aOR 0.95 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.06); GLP-1 RA: aOR 1.06 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.26)). Variation across primary healthcare centres was substantial (SGLT2i: adjusted median OR (aMOR) 1.29 (95% CI 1.23 to 1.36); GLP-1 RA: aMOR 1.48 (95% CI 1.37 to 1.62)). Treating all patients would increase the annual prescription costs, €3.9 million for SGLT2i and €10.4 million for GLP-1 RA. Conclusion SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA were underutilised in patients with coexisting IHD and T2D. The sex disparity in SGLT2i use warrants attention, as does the substantial variation between primary healthcare centres and the challenges of implementing costly cardioprotective therapies.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Tobias Andersson
National Academy of Medicine
Johan-Emil Bager
Sahlgrenska University Hospital
Margareta Hellgren
University of Gothenburg
BMJ Open
University of Gothenburg
Sahlgrenska University Hospital
Skaraborg Hospital
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Andersson et al. (Sun,) conducted a cross-sectional in Ischaemic heart disease and type 2 diabetes (n=14,414). SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists was evaluated on Proportion of patients with dispensed SGLT2i or GLP-1 RA in relation to sex, age and primary healthcare centres (aOR 0.64, 95% CI 0.59-0.70). SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists were underutilized in patients with IHD and T2D, dispensed to only 37.2% and 10.0% respectively, with significant sex disparity in SGLT2i use (aOR 0.64).
synapsesocial.com/papers/698434cff1d9ada3c1fb3648 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2025-110395