SLIDE 11 6/17/2019
PROactive Secondary Endpoint: Significant Difference vs placebo in Time to Death, MI, or Stroke
Kaplan-Meier Event Rate Time From Randomization (mo)
5238 5012 4991 4877 4752 4651 786 (256) 0.10 0.05 0.15 0.0 Placebo Pioglitazone
6 12 18 24 30 36
Adapted from Dormandy JA, et al. Lancet 2005;366:1279–89; proactive-results.com Composite secondary endpoint: all cause mortality, non-fatal MI (excluding silent MI), or stroke
N at risk:
HR 0.84 P 0.027 95% CI 0.72-0.98
2 4 6 8 10 12
Control DM DM DM DM DM +placebo + pio +INS +INS +Rosi * **
* PROactive study Lancet 366:1279, 2005
** Drug insert -- Rosiglitazone
Incidence of heart failure : Control vs DM; placebo vs pioglitazone; insulin vs insulin + rosiglitazone %
Liraglutide and cardiovascular outcomes (Rx 4668; placebo 4672; median followup 3.8 yrs. Primary outcome - cardiovascular death; nonfatal MI; non fatal stroke Primary outcome driven by decrease in CV death. Trend in lower non fatal MI & non fatal stroke Rx group lower systolic BP (1.2mmHg), HbA1c (0.4%), Weight (2.3 kg)
Marso et al N Engl J Med 2016, 375:311
Major adverse cardiac event (CV death, non fatal MI, non fatal stroke Notes Empagliflozin study (n= 7,020) 50% had MI; 75 % CAD; 25 stroke; 20% PVD Hazard ratio 0.86 95% CI 0.74-0.99, p= 0.04 No decrease in non fatal MI, stroke. Decrease CV death. Decrease heart failure. Decrease albuminuria Canagliflozin study (n = 10,142) 72% had CAD, CVD, PVD Hazard ratio 0.86 95% CI 0.75-0.97, p=0.02 No decrease in non fatal MI, stroke. Decrease heart failure. Increase amputation. Decrease albuminuria Dapagliflozin study (n =10,186) 40.6% had CAD, CVD, PVD Hazard ratio 0.93 95% CI 0.84-1.03, p=0.17 Decrease heart failure. Lower progression of renal disease
N Engl J Med 373: 2117 (2015); N Engl J Med 377:644 (2017); N Engl J Med 2019;380:347