Evidence Hub

Wound healing outcomes in diabetic kidney disease patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitor therapy: a prospective propensity score-matched cohort study

Rong-rong Zhang, Siyue Huang, Xinjie Wang, Xiao-Qi Li

Frontiers in Endocrinology, 2026

247 participants

Abstract

Background The remarkable cardiorenal benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have positioned these agents as cornerstone therapies for diabetic kidney disease (DKD). However, theoretical concerns regarding glycosuria-mediated effects on tissue perfusion have left clinicians uncertain about their safety in patients with active wounds. We conducted a prospective cohort study to characterize wound healing outcomes in this vulnerable population. Methods Between January 2018 and December 2023, we prospectively enrolled 247 adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 30–90 mL/min/1.73m², and wounds requiring medical attention at a tertiary wound care center. Participants receiving SGLT2 inhibitors (dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, or canagliflozin) for ≥30 days were matched 1:1 with unexposed controls using propensity scores derived from 15 baseline covariates. The primary endpoint was the time to complete epithelialization; secondary endpoints included wound infection and renal progression at six months. Results Following propensity score matching, 204 patients (102 per cohort) with excellent covariate balance (all standardized mean differences <0.10) were analyzed. Wound healing trajectories were virtually identical between the cohorts: median healing time was 33 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 22–52) with SGLT2 inhibitors versus 34 days (24–62) in controls (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 247 participants or records.

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