MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cardiovascular, Kidney, and Safety Outcomes With GLP-1 Receptor Agonists Alone and in Combination With SGLT2 Inhibitors in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4402066452 on OpenAlexaff
Brendon L. Neuen, Robert A. Fletcher, Lauren Heath, Adam Perkovic, Muthiah Vaduganathan, Sunil V. Badve, Katherine R. Tuttle, Richard E. Pratley, Hertzel C. Gerstein, Vlado Perkovic, Hiddo J.L. Heerspink

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusGlucagon-like peptide 1 receptorPharmacologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineEndocrinologyReceptorAgonist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) receptor agonists and SGLT2 (sodium-glucose cotransporter 2) inhibitors both improve cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on clinical outcomes with and without SGLT2 inhibitors. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase databases from inception until July 12, 2024, for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled outcome trials of GLP-1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes that reported treatment effects by baseline use of SGLT2 inhibitors, with findings supplemented by unpublished data. We estimated treatment effects by baseline SGLT2 inhibitor use using inverse variance-weighted meta-analysis. The main cardiovascular outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death) and hospitalization for heart failure. Kidney outcomes included a composite of ≥50% reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate, kidney failure or death caused by kidney failure, and annualized rate of decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (estimated glomerular filtration rate slope). Serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia were also evaluated. This meta-analysis was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42024565765). RESULTS: We identified 3 trials with 1743 of 17 072 (10.2%) participants with type 2 diabetes receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline. GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events by 21% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79 [95% CI, 0.71–0.87]), with consistent effects in those receiving and not receiving SGLT2 inhibitors at baseline (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.54–1.09] and HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.71–0.87], respectively; P -heterogeneity=0.78). The effect on hospitalization for heart failure was similarly consistent regardless of SGLT2 inhibitor use (HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.36–0.93] and HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.63–0.85]; P -heterogeneity=0.26). Effects on the composite kidney outcome (risk ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.66–0.95]) and estimated glomerular filtration rate slope (0.78 mL/min/1.73 m 2 /y [95% CI, 0.57–0.98]) also did not vary according to SGLT2 inhibitor use ( P -heterogeneity=0.53 and 0.94, respectively). Serious adverse effects and severe hypoglycemia were also similar regardless of SGLT2 inhibitor use ( P -heterogeneity=0.29 and 0.50, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In people with type 2 diabetes, the cardiovascular and kidney benefits of GLP-1 receptor agonists are consistent regardless of SGLT2 inhibitor use.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.040
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations117
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207