MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

SGLT2 Inhibitors vs. GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Reducing Heart Failure Hospitalizations in Type-2 Diabetes. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4403324763 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fnu Asifa, Ahsan Ullah, MD Parbej Allam, Govind Singh Mann, Shivangi Jha, Binay Panjiyar

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsType 2 diabetesMeta-analysisMedicineHeart failureDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineGlucagon-like peptide 1 receptorPharmacologyReceptorEndocrinologyAgonist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cardiovascular comparisons between glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors in type 2 diabetes(T2D) remain an area of interest. Thus, the purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the impact of these two drug classes on major CV outcomes, such as heart failure hospitalization(HHF), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), CV mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, with an emphasis on heart failure hospitalizations. Methods: PubMed (including MEDLINE), Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Library, PLOSONE, and Science Direct databases were searched for studies that compared GLP-1 RAs and SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes. Six cohort studies were selected for the analysis. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI were calculated and a random-effects model was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) of the studies. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger’s test. Results: Pooled analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in heart failure hospitalizations with SGLT-2 inhibitors compared to GLP-1 RAs (HR: 0.78 [0.62–0.98], I² = 87%, p < 0.01). Cardiovascular mortality was also significantly reduced by SGLT-2 inhibitors (HR: 0.74 [0.31–1.67], I² = 87%, p < 0.01), and a modest reduction was observed for all-cause mortality (HR: 0.85 [0.44–1.64], I² = 17%, p = 0.27). While SGLT-2 inhibitors appeared to slightly reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (HR: 0.83 [0.74–0.92], I² = 0%, p = 0.85), no significant difference was observed for MACE (HR: 0.91 [0.82–1.01], I² = 0%, p = 0.70) or stroke (HR: 0.88 [0.77–1.00], I² = 0%, p = 0.85). Conclusions: Compared to GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective in lowering heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. It was also found that all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction were moderately reduced using oral agents. However, the differences were not significant for MACE or stroke. These results imply that SGLT-2 inhibitors may potentially provide better cardiovascular benefits, especially with respect to heart failure and cardiovascular mortality, than GLP-1 RA. Further research should be conducted to determine the effects of the long-term use of these therapies on stroke and other cardiovascular events.

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)0.020
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.040
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.org→Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→