Abstract
Recent type 2 diabetes guidance from the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) proposes offering SGLT2-inhibitor therapy to people with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or heart failure, or at high-risk of cardiovascular disease defined as a 10-year cardiovascular risk of >10% using the QRISK2 algorithm.
We used a contemporary population-representative UK cohort of people with type 2 diabetes to assess the implications of this guidance. 93.1% of people currently on anti-hyperglycaemic treatment are now recommended or considered for SGLT2-inhibitor therapy, with the majority (59.6%) eligible on the basis of QRISK2 rather than established ASCVD or heart failure (33.6%). Applying these results to the approximately 2.20 million people in England currently on anti-hyperglycaemic medication suggests 1.75 million people will now be considered for additional SGLT2-inhibitor therapy.
Given older people, those of non-white ethnic groups, and those at lower cardiovascular disease risk were underrepresented in the clinical trials upon which this guidance was based, careful evaluation of the impact and safety of increased SGLT2-inhibitor prescribing across different populations is urgently required. Evidence of benefit should be weighed against the major cost implications for the NHS.
Competing Interest Statement
All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: APM declares previous research funding from Pfizer and Boehringer-Ingelheim outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Funding Statement
JMD is supported by an Independent Fellowship funded by Research England's Expanding Excellence in England (E3) fund. KGY and RH are supported by Research England's Expanding Excellence in England (E3) fund. BMS is supported by the NIHR Exeter Clinical Research Facility. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The funders had no role in any part of the study or in any decision about publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The NHS Health Research Authority gave ethical approval to CPRD (East Midlands - Derby Research Ethics Committee; REC reference 21/EM/0265). All CPRD studies require scientific approval from the CPRD's Research Data Governance process (formerly ISAC). This work was conducted under ISAC protocol 20_000101.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
CPRD data are available by application, subject to protocol approval through CPRD's Research Data Governance (RDG) Process.
