Presentation (CTI)

OBJECTIVES: To describe real-world cardiovascular diagnosis prevalence following treatment index among obese and/or type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients treated with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) therapies compared with patients not treated with GLP-1s.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of administrative U.S. claims data identified obese and/or T2D patients with claims activity between 2021 and 2024. Patients were classified into two cohorts: GLP-1-treated and non-GLP-1. The GLP-1 index date was defined as the first observed GLP-1 claim. To enable temporal alignment, non-GLP-1 patients were assigned imputed index dates based on the mean time from diagnosis to GLP-1 initiation within demographic strata defined by state, age, and sex. Patients were required to have at least 12 months of post-index claims activity. Cardiovascular diagnoses were identified using ICD-10 ‘I’-codes occurring after the index date. Diagnoses representing fewer than 1% of cohort counts were excluded to improve estimate stability. The prevalence of cardiovascular diseases was calculated within each cohort.
RESULTS: The final study population included 2,518,927 GLP-1-treated patients and 13,966,033 non-GLP-1 patients. Across 76 distinct cardiovascular diagnoses evaluated, prevalence was consistently lower among the GLP-1-treated patients. Notable relative differences were observed for atrial fibrillation (36.5% lower prevalence), heart failure (26.3% lower), peripheral vascular disease (29.9% lower), and atherosclerosis of the aorta (42.8% lower) among GLP-1-treated patients compared with non-GLP-1 patients. Essential hypertension remained highly prevalent in both cohorts, but was modestly lower among GLP-1-treated patients (75.3% vs 74.6%), supporting baseline comparability between treatment groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In a large real-world population of obese and T2D patients, cardiovascular diagnosis prevalence following the index date was consistently lower among GLP-1-treated patients compared with non-GLP-1-treated patients. These descriptive findings provide context for future longitudinal and comparative effectiveness research. Ongoing analyses will further evaluate these associations using adjusted and longitudinal study designs and control for confounding.