Dulaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes (REWIND): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial
Source: View publication →
In patients with type 2 diabetes, a majority of whom did not have established cardiovascular disease, once-weekly dulaglutide significantly reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events over a median follow-up of 5.4 years.
Key Findings
Study Design
Study Limitations
Clinical Significance
The REWIND trial conclusively established the cardiovascular benefit of the GLP-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide across a broad spectrum of patients with type 2 diabetes. Crucially, as the first cardiovascular outcome trial in this drug class to enroll a majority of participants (69%) without established cardiovascular disease, REWIND demonstrated that the cardioprotective effects of GLP-1 RAs extend beyond secondary prevention into primary prevention. This pivotal finding supports contemporary guidelines favoring the use of GLP-1 RAs earlier in the course of diabetes management to mitigate long-term cardiovascular risk.
Historical Context
Following the 2008 FDA mandate requiring cardiovascular safety trials for all novel diabetes therapeutics, earlier GLP-1 RA trials (such as LEADER with liraglutide and SUSTAIN-6 with semaglutide) successfully demonstrated cardiovascular superiority. However, those trials primarily enrolled high-risk patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (secondary prevention). Published in 2019, REWIND shifted the paradigm by focusing heavily on primary prevention patients with multiple risk factors but no prior events. Furthermore, its median follow-up of 5.4 years was the longest of any GLP-1 RA cardiovascular outcome trial at the time, providing robust evidence for sustained efficacy and safety.
Guided Discussion
High-yield insights from every perspective
How does dulaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, exert its cardioprotective effects, and what is the physiological mechanism by which it regulates blood glucose levels?
Key Response
GLP-1 RAs stimulate glucose-dependent insulin secretion, inhibit inappropriate glucagon release, slow gastric emptying, and increase satiety. Their cardioprotective mechanisms extend beyond glycemic control to include direct endothelial benefits, plaque stabilization, weight reduction, and lowering of systemic inflammation and blood pressure.
The REWIND trial is unique among early GLP-1 RA cardiovascular outcomes trials because nearly 70% of participants did not have established cardiovascular disease. How does this primary prevention evidence change your approach to managing a patient with type 2 diabetes and multiple cardiovascular risk factors but no prior MI or stroke?
Key Response
Prior to REWIND, most cardiovascular outcomes trials like LEADER proved secondary prevention benefits. REWIND demonstrated that dulaglutide reduces major adverse cardiovascular events in a predominantly primary prevention cohort, prompting residents to consider prescribing GLP-1 RAs earlier in the disease course for patients with high-risk features, independent of their baseline A1C.
When analyzing the 3-point MACE reduction in the REWIND trial compared to other trials like LEADER or EMPA-REG OUTCOME, what distinct component drove the benefit for dulaglutide, and how does this influence your precision medicine approach for a diabetic patient with high cerebrovascular risk?
Key Response
In REWIND, the MACE reduction was driven significantly by a reduction in non-fatal stroke, whereas SGLT2 inhibitor trials often show benefits driven by heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death. For a patient with a high risk of ischemic stroke, a fellow should specifically consider a GLP-1 RA like dulaglutide or semaglutide to leverage these distinct cerebrovascular benefits.
Given the REWIND trial's long median follow-up of 5.4 years and broad primary prevention cohort, the absolute risk reduction for MACE was relatively modest (12.0% vs 13.4%). How do you balance the statistical significance of this benefit against the number needed to treat, drug cost, and potential gastrointestinal side effects during shared decision-making?
Key Response
The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one MACE over 5.4 years in REWIND was approximately 72. Attendings must contextualize these data for patients, weighing the 12% relative risk reduction against out-of-pocket costs and the risk of nausea or vomiting, ensuring that the decision prioritizes the patient's specific risk profile, quality of life, and financial toxicity.
Scholarly Review
Critical appraisal through the lens of expert reviewers and guideline development
The REWIND trial achieved a median follow-up of 5.4 years, much longer than the 2 to 3 years seen in earlier cardiovascular outcomes trials. How does this extended follow-up duration affect the evaluation of the proportional hazards assumption, and what statistical methodologies should be employed if the biological anti-atherogenic effects take several years to manifest?
Key Response
An extended follow-up allows for the detection of slow-acting anti-atherogenic benefits rather than just acute hemodynamic shifts. However, if the treatment effect increases over time, the proportional hazards assumption is violated. Researchers must use time-varying covariate analyses or restricted mean survival time (RMST) approaches to accurately capture and report the evolving hazard ratio and true long-term treatment effect.
The primary outcome in the REWIND trial yielded a hazard ratio of 0.88 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.79 to 0.99 and a p-value of 0.026. As an editor evaluating the robustness of these findings, what specific sensitivity analyses and methodological checks would you demand to ensure this borderline significant result is not driven by missing data or event adjudication discrepancies?
Key Response
Because the upper bound of the confidence interval is 0.99, the result is highly sensitive to a small number of events. A rigorous editor would demand a fragility index calculation, a detailed accounting of loss to follow-up, and worst-case scenario imputation for missing data to ensure that minor variations in clinical event adjudication do not flip the trial from a positive to a neutral outcome.
Historically, guidelines reserved strong recommendations for GLP-1 RAs to diabetic patients with established ASCVD. Based on the REWIND trial data, how should current ADA and ACC/AHA guidelines be updated regarding patients with type 2 diabetes who have multiple cardiovascular risk factors but no established ASCVD?
Key Response
The REWIND trial provides critical Level 1A evidence for primary prevention. This prompted updates in the ADA Standards of Medical Care and ACC guidelines to recommend GLP-1 RAs with proven cardiovascular benefit for patients with T2DM and high risk for ASCVD (e.g., age over 55 with organ damage or multiple risk factors), regardless of baseline A1C or metformin use, effectively shifting these agents into earlier primary prevention algorithms.
Clinical Landscape
Noteworthy Related Trials
EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial
Tested
Empagliflozin (10 mg or 25 mg daily)
Population
Type 2 diabetes patients with established cardiovascular disease
Comparator
Placebo
Endpoint
3-point MACE
LEADER Trial
Tested
Liraglutide (up to 1.8 mg daily)
Population
Type 2 diabetes patients with high cardiovascular risk
Comparator
Placebo
Endpoint
3-point MACE
SUSTAIN-6 Trial
Tested
Semaglutide (0.5 mg or 1.0 mg weekly)
Population
Type 2 diabetes patients with high cardiovascular risk
Comparator
Placebo
Endpoint
3-point MACE
Tailored to your role
Want this tailored to you?
Add your specialty or training stage to get role-specific takeaways and more questions.
Personalize this analysis