Cited by 97Diabetes Treatment and ManagementHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and Research

Trends in clinical characteristics and prescribing preferences for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, 2013-2018.

Open access
Dave, Chintan V., Schneeweiss, Sebastian, Wexler, Deborah J., Brill, Gregory, Patorno, Elisabetta·2020·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE 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. RESULTS Over 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%). CONCLUSIONS For 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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/dc19-1943

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 10 · Cited by 97

Authors
Dave, C. V., Schneeweiss, S., Wexler, D. J., Brill, G., & Patorno, E.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2020-02-10
Volume
43
Issue
4
Pages
921-924
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W3005269555
Cited by
97
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 9
FWCI
12.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR003017)
  • National Institute on Aging (L30 AG069245, K08AG055670)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, empagliflozin, canagliflozin, liraglutide, dulaglutide, prescribing patterns, prescriber specialty, drug pricing, type 2 diabetes
MeSH terms
Liraglutide, Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors, Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists, Adult, Aged, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diabetic Angiopathies, Glucagon-Like Peptides, Female, Heart Failure, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Immunoglobulin Fc Fragments, Male, Middle Aged, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Recombinant Fusion Proteins, History, 21st Century, Patient Preference

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review