Evidence Hub

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Cardio-Renoprotective Pharmacological Interventions in Chronic Kidney Disease: An Umbrella Review of Network Meta-Analyses and a Multicriteria Decision Analysis

Bellos I, Marinaki S, Lagiou P, Benetou V

Biomolecules, 2024

5 citations

Abstract

Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1a), and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (ns-MRA) are promising treatments for chronic kidney disease. This umbrella review of network meta-analyses evaluated their effects on cardiovascular outcomes, kidney disease progression, and adverse events, using the TOPSIS method to identify the optimal intervention based on P-scores. A total of 19 network meta-analyses and 44 randomized controlled trials involving 86,150 chronic kidney disease patients were included. Compared to placebo, SGLT2i were associated with reduced risks of cardiovascular events [Hazard ratio (HR): 0.776, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.727-0.998], kidney disease progression (HR: 0.679, 95% CI: 0.629-0.733), acute kidney injury (HR: 0.873, 95% CI: 0.773-0.907), and serious adverse events (HR: 0.881, 95% CI: 0.847-0.916). GLP1a and ns-MRA were also associated with significant reductions in cardiovascular and kidney-specific composite outcomes. Indirect evidence showed that SGLT2i demonstrated a lower risk of kidney disease progression compared to GLP1a (HR: 0.826, 95% CI: 0.716-0.952) and ns-MRA (HR: 0.818, 95% CI: 0.673-0.995), representing the best intervention across all endpoints. In conclusion, while SGLT2i, GLP1a, and ns-MRA all reduce cardiovascular and kidney disease risks in chronic kidney disease, SGLT2i appears to provide the most favorable balance of efficacy and safety.

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