MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414845976 · doi:10.1111/jdi.70166

Cardiovascular and kidney benefits of <scp>GLP</scp> ‐1 receptor agonists across large randomized placebo‐controlled trials

2025· article· en· W4414845976 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Satoshi Yoshiji, Nobuya Inagaki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Diabetes Investigation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNovo Nordisk PharmaJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceMitsubishi Tanabe Pharma CorporationNovo NordiskBoehringer Ingelheim JapanBroad InstituteEli Lilly JapanMcGill UniversityEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsSemaglutideDiscontinuationType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusHeart failureAdverse effectClinical trialRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple large cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have robustly shown that GLP-1 RAs lower the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in people with type 2 diabetes. Yet, two important knowledge gaps remain. First, previous CVOTs were dominated by injectable agents, leaving uncertainty about whether once-daily oral GLP-1 RAs confer comparable protection. Second, kidney benefits were inferred almost entirely from secondary endpoints of cardiovascular trials rather than from a kidney-specific outcomes study. The latest meta-analysis published by Lee et al.1 in Diabetes Care in 2025 presents the largest meta-analysis to date of cardiovascular and kidney outcomes with long-acting injectable and oral GLP-1 RAs in type 2 diabetes. Their study pools 10 trials (n = 71,351) and incorporates both the SOUL cardiovascular-outcome trial of oral semaglutide2- and the FLOW kidney-outcome trial of once-weekly semaglutide3 (Table 1). In the meta-analysis, across a median 3.2-year follow-up, long-acting GLP-1 RAs reduced three-point MACE by 14% (HR 0.86), hospitalization for heart failure by 14%, composite kidney events by 17%, and all-cause mortality by 12%, without new safety concerns. Earlier meta-analyses were dominated by injectable agents, leaving uncertainty over whether once-daily oral semaglutide could match them. Lee et al.1 found no heterogeneity across administration routes for any efficacy endpoint (between-group heterogeneity P = 0.984). This underscores the potential of oral GLP-1 RA therapy to deliver clinical ‘hard outcome’ benefits comparable with injectables, allowing treatment to be tailored to individual preference. However, the study also highlighted a permanent discontinuation rate of 25% in FLOW (injectable) and 27% in SOUL (oral). Discontinuation is influenced by patient preference, administration route, dosing frequency, convenience, and complexity, among other factors. Because oral semaglutide must be taken on an empty stomach with a small sip of water and followed by a 30-min fast, clinicians need to counsel patients carefully to optimize adherence. FLOW, the first GLP-1 RA trial that used a hard kidney endpoint as its primary outcome, showed a 24% risk reduction in kidney failure–centric events alongside an 18% reduction in MACE. Pooled with the other trials, the class achieved a 17% reduction in composite kidney outcomes, reinforcing GLP-1 RAs as renoprotective agents. The meta-analysis detected no increase in severe hypoglycemia, diabetic retinopathy, pancreatitis, or selected cancers versus placebo, consistent with prior safety reports. Effect sizes mirror those of earlier meta-analysis with fewer individuals or the one that includes SELECT trial4, a CVOT of semaglutide in people with obesity but without diabetes; the present work extends generalizability in three ways: inclusion of chronic kidney disease populations (FLOW); additional evidence that the efficacy of oral therapy is comparable to injectables, now with two oral GLP-1 RA trials (SOUL and PIONEER 6); and evidence that benefits persist against a background of contemporary multi-drug regimens (up to 19% concomitant SGLT2 inhibitor use in SOUL). First, current GLP-1 RA CVOTs are still dominated by participants with established cardiovascular disease. Apart from REWIND (31% with prior cardiovascular disease), every trial enrolled 52–100% patients with prior cardiovascular events. The ongoing ASCEND PLUS trial (NCT05441267) targets people with type 2 diabetes without previous cardiovascular disease and will directly address the question, ‘Can semaglutide prevent a first cardiovascular event?’ that is, primary prevention. Should the results be positive, they could broaden the drug's indication and influence future guidelines and clinical practice. Second, no completed randomized head-to-head cardiovascular or kidney outcome data exist comparing mono-incretin GLP-1 RAs with dual or triple agonists, such as tirzepatide; and evidence awaits SURPASS-CVOT (NCT04255433) and forthcoming trials. Third, we still do not have clinical biomarkers for the cardiovascular or renal benefits of GLP-1 RAs, let alone for dual- or tri-agonists. While we previously showed that HbA1c reduction is a pragmatic biomarker of three-point MACE in the pooled meta-regression analysis of GLP-1 RA CVOTs5, there is substantial heterogeneity at the individual level, potentially due to various reasons, including concurrent treatments, ethnicity, and other baseline characteristics. To move toward personalized treatment tailored to each person's profile, dissecting heterogeneity in the cardiovascular and renal efficacy of GLP-1 RAs warrants further study. By integrating the latest outcome trials, Lee et al.1 deliver robust evidence that long-acting GLP-1 RAs—including an oral option—confer clinically meaningful reductions in cardiovascular events, kidney disease progression, heart failure hospitalization, and death, without emergent safety issues. The availability of an oral formulation lowers practical barriers to earlier use, offering patients a choice of route without compromising cardiorenal protection. Future research will clarify their role in primary prevention, establish how they compare with emerging dual or triagonist therapies, and offer insights into factors influencing the heterogeneity of treatment response. Satoshi Yoshiji is supported by Canadian Institutes of Health Research (no.: 266602), McGill University (no.: 265215), and Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (no.: 202460267). Nobuya Inagaki has received scholarship grants from Sumitomo Pharma, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria for lectures from Novo Nordisk Pharma, Sumitomo Pharma, Eli Lilly Japan, and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma; clinical commissioned/joint research grants from Asken. Satoshi Yoshiji has received consulting fees from the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard through Precision Global Consulting as well as PriveBio, Inc. Approval of the research protocol: None. Informed consent: None. Registry and the registration no. of the study/trial: None. Animal studies: None. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Diabetes InvestigationSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207