Evidence Hub

Cardiovascular outcomes of SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes and a history of myocardial infarction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Ren Y, Yang H, Zhang S, Hu T, Tan Q, Wang J, Xu Y

Frontiers in endocrinology, 2026

Abstract

Background: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and a history of myocardial infarction (MI) face a high risk of recurrent cardiovascular events. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) reduce cardiovascular risk, but no head-to-head trials exist. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to indirectly compare their cardiovascular efficacy in this high-risk population.

Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to February 1, 2026, were systematically searched and evaluated. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE); secondary outcomes included hospitalization for heart failure (HFH), MI, and cardiovascular death (CV death). A frequentist NMA was used as the primary comparative analysis, complemented by Bucher interaction tests as sensitivity analyses. Evidence certainty was assessed with GRADE.

Results: Eleven RCTs were included; after exclusion of overlapping populations, the final analyses comprised 7 studies for MACE (2 SGLT2i, 5 GLP-1 RA), 6 for HFH (2 SGLT2i, 4 GLP-1 RA), 4 for MI (1 SGLT2i, 3 GLP-1 RA), and 6 for CV death (2 SGLT2i, 4 GLP-1 RA). Both drug classes significantly reduced MACE compared to placebo (SGLT2i HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77-0.97; GLP-1 RA HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77-0.89). The NMA indirect comparison for MACE yielded an HR of 1.05 (95% CI 0.92-1.20, p = 0.44), indicating no statistically significant difference between classes. For…

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