Clinical Outcomes with Newer Antihyperglycemic Agents

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
THE ACTION TO CONTROL CARDIOVASCULAR RISK IN DIABETES STUDY (ACCORD)
Advertisements

TNT: Study Design Treating to New Targets 2 5 years 10,001 Patients Clinically evident CHD LDL-C 130  250 mg/dL following up to 8-week washout and 8-week.
Randomized, double-blind, multicenter, controlled trial.
Clinical Outcomes with Newer Antihyperglycemic Agents
Prasugrel vs. Clopidogrel for Acute Coronary Syndromes Patients Managed without Revascularization — the TRILOGY ACS trial On behalf of the TRILOGY ACS.
Aim To determine the effects of a Coversyl- based blood pressure lowering regimen on the risk of recurrent stroke among patients with a history of stroke.
Study Design Scirica BM, Bhatt DL Braunwald et al, Sexagliptin and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med
LIPID: Long-term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischemic Disease Purpose To determine whether pravastatin will reduce coronary mortality and morbidity.
HOPE: Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation study Purpose To evaluate whether the long-acting ACE inhibitor ramipril and/or vitamin E reduce the incidence.
Background There are 12 different types of medications to lower blood sugar levels in patients with type 2 diabetes. It is widely agreed upon that metformin.
ALLHAT 6/5/ CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE OUTCOMES IN HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS STRATIFIED BY BASELINE GLOMERULAR FILTRATION RATE (3 GROUPS by GFR)
1 Pre-Specified Outcomes All primary and secondary outcomes and their components were pre-specified, i.e., they appeared in the protocol, manual of operations.
Clinical Outcomes with Newer Antihyperglycemic Agents FDA-Mandated CV Safety Trials 1.
Long-term Cardiovascular Effects of 4.9 Years of Intensive Blood Pressure Control in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk.
6/5/ CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE OUTCOMES IN HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS STRATIFIED BY BASELINE GLOMERULAR FILTRATION RATE (4 GROUPS by GFR) ALLHAT.
Rosuvastatin 10 mg n=2514 Placebo n= to 4 weeks Randomization 6weeks3 monthly Closing date 20 May 2007 Eligibility Optimal HF treatment instituted.
Enrollment and Outcomes Duckworth W, et al. N Engl J Med 2009;360:
R2. 하효정 / 이상열 교수님 NEJM Jennifer B. Green, M.D., M. Angelyn Bethel, M.D., Paul W. Armstrong, M.D., John B. Buse, M.D., Ph.D., Samuel.
R1. 이정미 / prof. 이상열. INTRODUCTION Type 2 diabetes is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease The presence of both type 2 diabetes and.
Cardiovascular Disease and Antihypertensives The RENAAL Trial Reference Brunner BM, and the RENAAL study group. Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular.
Clinical Outcomes with Newer Antihyperglycemic Agents
Antonio Coca, MD, PhD, FRCP, FESC
Nephrology Journal Club The SPRINT Trial Parker Gregg
Mikhail Kosiborod, MD Professor of Medicine (Cardiology)
The SPRINT Research Group
Reducing Adverse Outcomes after ACS in Patients with Diabetes Goals
Hypertension in the Post SPRINT era
Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials with Antihyperglycemic Agents
LEADER trial: Primary Outcome
Recent Breakthroughs in Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials in T2DM
Health and Human Services National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
Disclosure Consultations and Honoraria Grant Support
HOPE: Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation study
Pravastatin in Elderly Individuals at Risk of Vascular Disease
Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials with Antihyperglycemic Agents
New Insights from EXSCEL
AIM HIGH Niacin plus Statin to prevent vascular events
CANTOS: The Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study
First time a CETP inhibitor shows reduction of serious CV events
SPIRE Program: Studies of PCSK9 Inhibition and the Reduction of Vascular Events Unanticipated attenuation of LDL-c lowering response to humanized PCSK9.
Empagliflozin (Jardiance®)
Diabetes and Risk of CV Outcomes
The following slides highlight a presentation at the Late-Breaking Clinical Trials session of the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, November.
Global Projections for Diabetes:
on behalf of the LEADER Trial Steering Committee and Investigators
on behalf of the ASCOT Investigators *Imperial College London, UK
The following slides highlight a report on a presentation at the Late-breaking Trials Session and a Satellite Symposium of the American Heart Association.
Latest Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials: A Closer Look at the LEADER Results.
EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial design: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) at high risk for CV events were randomized to receive in a 1:1:1 fashion either.
The Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial (HYVET)
T2DM and CV Outcomes Trials: A Deep Dive!
Expert Appraisal of CV Outcome Trial Results in T2DM for the Diabetologist.
Should SGLT2 Inhibitors Be the Primary Agents for CV Risk Reduction in T2DM?
SGLT2 inhibitors, Now Part of the Cardiology Toolkit for Comprehensive CV Risk Management.
A New Chapter for CV Risk Management in Diabetes - Challenges & Opportunities.
Tackling CV Risk in T2DM.
CV Risk Management in T2DM: What Did We Learn from ADA 2016?
LEADER One Year On.
SUSTAIN-6 Trial design: Patients with DM2 at high risk for CV events were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion to either semaglutide 0.5 mg, semaglutide 1 mg,
Antihyperglycemic Therapy
T2DM, CV Risk, and Modulating Risk With Glucose-Lowering Strategies
(p for noninferiority < 0.001)
ARISE Trial Aggressive Reduction of Inflammation Stops Events
Should SGLT2 Inhibitors Be the Primary Agents for CV Risk Reduction in T2DM?
SPIRE Program: Studies of PCSK9 Inhibition and the Reduction of Vascular Events Unanticipated attenuation of LDL-c lowering response to humanized PCSK9.
EMPA-REG OUTCOME: Cumulative incidence of the primary outcome
The benefit of evolocumab treatment is consistent regardless of inflammation level HR %CI ARR 1.6% 1.8%
Evolution of prospectively planned primary end points in completed CVOTs of antihyperglycemic treatments for type 2 diabetes, listed in order of year of.
BRIDGING CVD AND T2DM: LESSONS LEARNED FROM OUTCOME TRIALS
Identification of thresholds for significant renal recovery in relation to patient and renal survival. Identification of thresholds for significant renal.
Presentation transcript:

Clinical Outcomes with Newer Antihyperglycemic Agents FDA-Mandated CV Safety Trials

TECOS (Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin) Clinical Outcomes with Antihyperglycemic Agents TECOS (Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin)

Clinical Outcomes with Sitagliptin TECOS Study Design Key Results N=14,671 patients with T2D and CVD Randomization Sitagliptin: n=7332 (6972 completed) Placebo: n=7339 (6905 completed) Noninferiority study: 1.3 marginal upper boundary of 2-sided 95% CI Primary composite outcome: cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina Secondary composite outcome: cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Median follow-up: 3.0 years Least squares mean difference in A1C: -0.29% (95% CI -0.32 to -0.27) for sitagliptin vs placebo Noninferior to placebo for cardiovascular outcomes Primary HR: 0.98 (0.88-1.09); P<0.001 Secondary HR: 0.99 (0.89-1.11); P<0.001 No difference between sitagliptin and placebo in incidence of infections, cancer, renal failure, hypoglycemia, or noncardiovascular death CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; TECOS, Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin. Green JB, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:232-242.

Primary and Secondary Outcomes with Sitagliptin TECOS Per Protocol Analysis (n=14,523) Median follow-up: 3.0 years Hazard ratio (95% CI) P value Primary composite endpoint* 0.98 (0.88-1.09) <0.001 (NF) Secondary composite endpoint† 0.99 (0.89-1.11) Acute pancreatitis 1.80 (0.86-3.76) 0.12 Any cancer (except nonmelanoma skin cancer) 0.93 (0.89-1.44) 0.38 Pancreatic cancer 0.91 (0.37-2.25) 0.85 Severe hypoglycemia 1.13 (0.89-1.44) 0.31 Favors sitagliptin *Cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. †Secondary composite: cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. NF, noninferiority; TECOS, Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin. Green JB, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:232-242.

Individual Secondary Outcomes with Sitagliptin TECOS Intent to Treat Analysis (n=14,671) Median follow-up: 3.0 years Hazard ratio (95% CI) P value CV death 1.03 (0.89-1.19) 0.71 Hospitalization for unstable angina 0.90 (0.70-1.16) 0.42 Fatal or nonfatal MI 0.95 (0.81-1.11) 0.49 Fatal or nonfatal stroke 0.97 (0.79-1.19) 0.76 Death from any cause 1.01 (0.90-1.14) 0.88 Hospitalization for heart failure 1.09 (0.83-1.20) 0.98 Hospitalization for heart failure or CV death 1.02 (0.90-1.15) 0.74 Favors sitagliptin CV, cardiovascular; MI, myocardial infarction; NF, noninferiority; TECOS, Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin. Green JB, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:232-242.

Clinical Outcomes with Sitagliptin TECOS (n=14,671) TECOS, Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin. Green JB, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:232-242.

Clinical Outcomes with Antihyperglycemic Agents EXAMINE (Examination of Cardiovascular Outcomes with Alogliptin versus Standard of Care)

Clinical Outcomes with Alogliptin EXAMINE Study Design Key Results N=5380 patients with T2D and ACS Randomization Alogliptin: n=2701 Placebo: n=2679 Noninferiority study: prespecified HR margin = 1.3 for primary endpoint Primary composite endpoint: CV death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke Secondary: CV death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, urgent revascularization for unstable angina Median follow-up: 18 months Least squares mean difference in A1C: -0.36% (95% CI -0.43 to -0.28; P<0.001) for alogliptin vs placebo CV outcomes Primary HR: 0.96 (≤1.16); P=0.32 Secondary HR: 0.95 (≤1.14*); P=0.26 No difference between alogliptin and placebo in incidence of acute and chronic pancreatitis, cancer, renal impairment, angioedema, or severe hypoglycemia *Upper boundary of 1-sided repeated CI, alpha level 0.01. CI, confidence interval; CV, cardiovascular; EXAMINE, Examination of Cardiovascular Outcomes with Alogliptin versus Standard of Care; HR, hazard ratio; MI, myocardial infarction. White W, et al. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1327-1335.

Clinical Outcomes with Alogliptin EXAMINE Safety Endpoints (n=5380) Median follow-up: 18 months Hazard ratio (95% CI) P value Primary composite 0.96 (≤1.16)* 0.32 Primary endpoint components CV death 0.79 (0.6-1.04) 0.10 Nonfatal MI 1.08 (0.88-1.33) 0.47 Nonfatal stroke 0.91 (0.55-1.50) 0.71 Primary secondary endpoint† 0.95 (≤1.14)* 0.26 Death from any cause 0.85 (0.66-1.10) 0.21 Favors alogliptin *Upper boundary of 1-sided repeated CI, alpha level 0.01. †CV death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, urgent revascularization for unstable angina. CI, confidence interval; CV, cardiovascular; EXAMINE, Examination of Cardiovascular Outcomes with Alogliptin versus Standard of Care; MI, myocardial infarction. White W, et al. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1327-1335.

Alogliptin CV Outcomes and Mortality EXAMINE CV Death, Nonfatal MI, or Nonfatal Stroke CV Death All-Cause Death EXAMINE, Examination of Cardiovascular Outcomes with Alogliptin versus Standard of Care. White W, et al. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1327-1335.

Clinical Outcomes with Antihyperglycemic Agents SAVOR-TIMI (Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction)

Clinical Outcomes with Saxagliptin SAVOR-TIMI Study Design Key Results N=16,492 patients with T2D and CVD or CVD risk Randomization Saxagliptin: n=8280 Placebo: n=8212 Superiority study with provision to test for noninferiority Primary composite endpoint: CV death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal ischemic stroke Secondary: CV death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal ischemic stroke, hospitalization for HF, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina Median follow-up: 2.1 years Endpoint A1C Saxagliptin: 7.7% ± 1.4% (P<0.001 vs placebo) Placebo: 7.9% ± 1.5% CV outcomes Primary HR: 1.00 (0.89-1.27); P=0.99 Secondary HR: 1.02 (0.94-1.11); P=0.66 Higher incidence of HF hospitalization in saxagliptin group No difference between groups in incidence of acute or chronic pancreatitis; fewer cases of pancreatic cancer in saxagliptin group; more cases of nonfatal angioedema in saxagliptin group (8 vs 1) CI, confidence interval; CV, cardiovascular; HF, heart failure; HR, hazard ratio; MI, myocardial infarction; SAVOR-TIMI, Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction. Scirica BM, et al. N Engl J Med. 2013;369,1317-1326.

Clinical Outcomes with Saxagliptin SAVOR-TIMI Prespecified Composite Endpoints and Mortality (n=16,492) Median follow-up: 2.1 years Hazard ratio (95% CI) P value Primary composite endpoint* 1.00 (0.89-1.27) 0.99 Secondary composite endpoint† 1.02 (0.94-1.11) 0.66 Death from any cause 1.11 (0.96-1.27) 0.15 CV death 1.03 (0.87-1.22) 0.52 Favors saxagliptin *CV death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal ischemic stroke; †CV death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal ischemic stroke, hospitalization for HF, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina. CI, confidence interval; CV, cardiovascular; HF, heart failure; MI, myocardial infarction; SAVOR-TIMI, Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction. Scirica BM, et al. N Engl J Med. 2013;369,1317-1326.

Individual Secondary Outcomes with Saxagliptin SAVOR-TIMI Prespecified Individual Endpoints (n=16,492) Median follow-up: 2.1 years Hazard ratio (95% CI) P value Myocardial infarction 0.95 (0.80-1.12) 0.52 Ischemic stroke 1.11 (0.80-1.12) 0.38 Hospitalization for unstable angina 1.19 (0.89-1.60) 0.24 Hospitalization for heart failure 1.27 (1.07-1.51) 0.007 Hospitalization for coronary revascularization 0.91 (0.80-1.04) 0.18 Renal endpoint* 1.08 (0.88-1.32) 0.46 Hospitalization for hypoglycemia 1.22 (0.82-1.83) 0.33 Favors saxagliptin *Doubling of creatinine, initiation of dialysis, renal transplantation, or creatinine >6.0 mg/dL CI, confidence interval; CV, cardiovascular; SAVOR-TIMI, Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction. Scirica BM, et al. N Engl J Med. 2013;369,1317-1326.

SAVOR-TIMI Post-hoc Analysis Baseline Characteristics and Risk of HF Hospitalization With Saxagliptin SAVOR-TIMI Post-hoc Analysis (n=16,492) Hazard ratio (95% CI) P value eGFR ≤60 mL/min 1.36 (1.07-1.71) 0.03 eGFR >60 mL/min 1.16 (0.89-1.51) 0.27 No prior heart failure 1.30 (1.03-1.65) Prior heart failure 1.23 (0.94-1.59) 0.13 No risk factors* 1.15 (0.81-1.63) 1 risk factor 1.35 (1.06-1.72) 0.02 2 risk factors 1.22 (0.86-1.73) Q4 NT-proBNP (333-46,627 pg/mL) 1.31 (1.04-1.66) Favors saxagliptin *eGFR ≤60 mL/min or history of previous HF. HF, heart failure; NT-proBNP, N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide; Q, quartile; SAVOR-TIMI, Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction. Scirica BM, et al. Circulation. 2014;130:1579-1588.

Risk of HF Hospitalization with Saxagliptin vs Placebo SAVOR-TIMI Post-hoc Analysis (n=16,492) eGFR (mL/min) HF history No. HF risk factors† NT-proBNP quartiles (pg/mL) No. excess HHF events in patients treated with saxagliptin vs placebo per 1000 pt-y (5-64) (65-141) (142-333) (334-46,647) n = 11637 4855 14387 2105 10418 5188 866 3076 3073 1 5 6 4 9 7 Absolute risk difference* *Saxagliptin vs placebo. †eGFR ≤60 mL/min or history of previous HF. HF, heart failure; HHF, hospitalizations for heart failure. Scirica BM, et al. Circulation. 2014;130:1579-1588.

Clinical Outcomes with Antihyperglycemic Agents EMPA-REG outcome (Empagliflozin cardiovascular Outcome event trial in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients)

Clinical Outcomes with Empagliflozin EMPA-REG OUTCOME Study Design Key Results N=7020 patients with T2D and CVD Randomization Empagliflozin: n=4687 Placebo: n=2333 Noninferiority study: prespecified HR margin = 1.3 for primary endpoint Primary endpoint: composite of CV death, nonfatal MI (excluding silent MI), or nonfatal stroke Secondary endpoint: composite of CV death, nonfatal MI (excluding silent MI), nonfatal stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina Median follow-up: 3.1 years Week 206 A1C, difference from placebo Empagliflozin 10 mg: -0.24% (95% CI, -0.40% to -0.08%) Empagliflozin 25 mg: -0.36% (95% CI, -0.51% to -0.20%) CV outcomes (pooled analysis) Primary: HR 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.99); P=0.04 for superiority Secondary HR: 0.89 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.01); P<0.001 for noninferiority and P=0.08 for superiority Significantly lower rates of all-cause death, CV death, and HF hospitalization with empagliflozin Increased rates of genital infections in empagliflozin-treated patients CI, confidence interval; CV, cardiovascular; HF, heart failure; HR, hazard ratio; MI, myocardial infarction. Zinman B, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2117-2128.

Clinical Outcomes with Empagliflozin EMPA-REG OUTCOME Pooled Analysis (N=7020) Median follow-up: 3.1 years Hazard ratio (95% CI) P value Primary composite endpoint* 0.86 (0.74-0.99) 0.04 Secondary composite endpoint† 0.89 (0.78-1.01) 0.08 Death from any cause 0.68 (0.57-0.82) <0.001 CV death 0.62 (0.49-0.77) Fatal or nonfatal MI 0.87 (0.70-1.09) 0.23 Hospitalization for HF 0.65 (0.50-0.85) 0.002 Hospitalization for HF or CV death 0.66 (0.55-0.79) Favors empagliflozin *CV death, nonfatal MI (excluding silent MI), or nonfatal stroke; †CV death, nonfatal MI (excluding silent MI), nonfatal stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina. CI, confidence interval; CV, cardiovascular; HF, heart failure; HR, hazard ratio; MI, myocardial infarction. Zinman B, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2117-2128.

Clinical Outcomes with Empagliflozin EMPA-REG OUTCOME Pooled Analysis (N=7020) *CV death, nonfatal MI (excluding silent MI), or nonfatal stroke; †CV death, nonfatal MI (excluding silent MI), nonfatal stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina. CI, confidence interval; CV, cardiovascular; HF, heart failure; HR, hazard ratio; MI, myocardial infarction. Zinman B, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2117-2128.

Microvascular and Renal Outcomes with Empagliflozin EMPA-REG RENAL (N=7020) Median follow-up: 3.1 years Hazard ratio (95% CI) P value Composite microvascular endpoint* 0.62 (0.54-0.70) <0.001 Incident or worsening nephropathy or CV death 0.61 (0.55-0.69) Incident or worsening nephropathy 0.61 (0.53-0.70) Progression to microalbuminuria 0.62 (0.54-0.72) Doubling of SCr plus eGFR ≤45 mL/min/1.73 m2 0.56 (0.39-0.79) Initiation of renal replacement therapy 0.45 (0.21-0.97) 0.04 Severe renal outcomes† 0.54 (0.40-0.75) Incident albuminuria in patients with normal albumin at baseline 0.95 (0.87-1.04) 0.25 Favors empagliflozin *In patients with normal albuminuria at baseline. CI, confidence interval; CV, cardiovascular; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate in mL/min/1.73 m2; HR, hazard ratio; SCr, serum creatinine. Wanner C, et al. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:323-334.

Renal Outcomes with Empagliflozin EMPA-REG RENAL (N=7020) Incident or Worsening Nephropathy Post-hoc Renal Composite Outcome* *Doubling of SCr + eGFR ≤45 mL/min/1.73 m2, initiation of renal replacement therapy, or death from renal disease. CI, confidence interval; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; SCr, serum creatinine. Wanner C, et al. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:323-334.

Renal Outcomes with Empagliflozin Over 3.2 Years EMPA-REG RENAL (N=7020) 39% P<0.001 44% P<0.001 Patients (%) Patients (%) 38% P<0.001 Patients (%) Arrows = relative risk reduction. *Doubling of SCr + eGFR ≤45 mL/min/1.73 m2, initiation of renal replacement therapy, or death from renal disease. CI, confidence interval; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; SCr, serum creatinine. Wanner C, et al. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:323-334.

Clinical Outcomes with Antihyperglycemic Agents LEADER (Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results)

Clinical Outcomes with Liraglutide LEADER Study Design Key Results N=9340 patients with T2D and high CV risk Randomization Liraglutide: n=4672 Placebo: n=4668 Noninferiority study: prespecified margin = 1.3 for upper bound of 95% CI of the HR for the primary endpoint Primary endpoint: composite of CV death, nonfatal MI (including silent MI), or nonfatal stroke Secondary endpoint: composite of CV death, nonfatal MI (including silent MI), nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for unstable angina or HF Median follow-up: 3.5 years Difference from placebo at 36 months A1C: −0.40% (95% CI, −0.45% to −0.34%) Weight: −2.3 kg (95% CI, −2.0 to −2.5 kg) SBP: −1.2 mm Hg (95% CI, −0.5 to −1.9 mm Hg) CV outcomes Primary: HR 0.87 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.97); P=0.01 for superiority Secondary HR: 0.88 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.96); P=0.005 for superiority Significantly lower rates of all-cause death and CV death with liraglutide Increased rates of gastrointestinal events in liraglutide-treated patients Lower numerical incidence of pancreatitis in liraglutide group (not statistically significant) CI, confidence interval; CV, cardiovascular; HF, heart failure; HR, hazard ratio; MI, myocardial infarction. Marso SP, et al. N Engl J Med. 2016:375:311-322.

Clinical Outcomes with Liraglutide LEADER (N=9340) Median follow-up: 3.5 years Hazard ratio (95% CI) P value Primary composite endpoint* 0.87 (0.78-0.97) 0.01 Expanded composite endpoint† 0.88 (0.81-0.96) 0.005 Death from any cause 0.85 (0.74-0.97) 0.02 CV death 0.78 (0.66-0.93) 0.007 Fatal or nonfatal MI 0.86 (0.73-1.00) 0.046 Nephropathy 0.78 (0.67-0.92) 0.003 Favors liraglutide *CV death, nonfatal MI (including silent MI), or nonfatal stroke; †CV death, nonfatal MI (including silent MI), nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for unstable angina or HF. CI, confidence interval; CV, cardiovascular; MI, myocardial infarction. Marso SP, et al. N Engl J Med. 2016:375:311-322.

Clinical Outcomes with Liraglutide LEADER (N=9340) *CV death, nonfatal MI (including silent MI), or nonfatal stroke. CI, confidence interval; CV, cardiovascular; HF, heart failure; HR, hazard ratio; MI, myocardial infarction. Marso SP, et al. N Engl J Med. 2016:375:311-322.