Evidence Hub

Sex differences in trial representation and the cardiovascular effectiveness of newer glucose-lowering agents in patients with and without type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials

Zawadka M, Taguiam E, Lê ML, Sanjanwala R, Liu S, Shah AH, Kunutsor SK

Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2026

2 citations

Abstract

Aims: The extent to which the cardiovascular benefits of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) differ by sex remains unclear. This systematic meta-analysis aimed to investigate sex differences in trial representation and the cardiovascular and kidney efficacy of SGLT-2is and GLP-1RAs in patients with and without type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Materials and methods: Cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) were identified through searches in MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL, and manual search of ClinicalTrials.gov up to August 2025. Sex-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Sex-differential treatment effects were assessed using the ratio of HRs and meta-regression.

Results: Across 47 articles from 25 unique CVOTs (n > 185 000) published between 2015 and 2025, women were less represented (approximately one-third of trial participants). SGLT-2is and GLP-1RAs significantly reduced cardio-kidney outcomes in both men and women. In individuals with T2D, SGLT-2is significantly reduced risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) 0.87 (0.80-0.95) and composite cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure 0.73 (0.64-0.83) in men, with broadly similar results for women and also for both sexes in individuals without T2D. In individuals with T2D, GLP-1RAs reduced MACE risk in men 0.89 (0.82-0.96) and women 0.83 (0.77-0.91). Pooled ratio…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free