Cardiovascular and kidney benefits of SGLT-2is and GLP-1RAs according to baseline blood pressure in type 2 diabetes: a systematic meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Using a systematic meta-analysis, we investigated if patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and with varying baseline blood pressure (BP) differ in the cardiorenal benefits received from sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs). Design: Randomized, placebo-controlled, cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) of SGLT-2is and GLP-1RAs were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to April 2024. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were pooled. The differential treatment effect by baseline BP category within each trial was estimated as the ratio of the HR (RHR) and pooled. Results: Seventeen publications based on 9 unique CVOTs (4 SGLT-2is and 5 GLP-1RAs) were eligible. In participants with normal baseline BP, comparing SGLT-2is with placebo, the HRs (95% CIs) were 0.88 (0.79-0.97) for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), 0.73 (0.59-0.91) for heart failure (HF) hospitalization, 0.78 (0.65-0.94) for composite CVD death/HF hospitalization, and 0.55 (0.41-0.73) for composite renal outcome. The corresponding estimates for participants with higher baseline BP were 0.88 (0.81-0.96), 0.67 (0.57-0.79), 0.73 (0.65-0.82), and 0.61 (0.48-0.77), respectively. In participants with normal baseline BP, GLP-RAs had no strong effect on MACE, stroke and nephropathy, but reduced stroke and nephropathy risk in those with higher baseline BP. Estimated RHRs showed no statistical evidence that baseline BP modified the cardiorenal benefits of SGLT-2is and GLP-1RAs. Conclusions: In patients with T2D, the cardiorenal benefits of treatment with SGLT2-Is and GLP1-RAs were similar in patients with normal baseline BP compared to those with a higher baseline BP.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.038 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".