Evidence Hub

Network meta-analysis on the effects of finerenone versus SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease

Zhang Y, Jiang L, Wang J, Wang T, Chien C, Huang W, Fu X, Xiao Y et al.

Cardiovascular diabetology, 2022

51,496 participants · 64 citations

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the cardiovascular and renal benefits of finerenone, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) in patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) with network meta-analysis.

Methods: Systematic literature searches were conducted of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Medline and Embase covering January 1, 2000 to December 30, 2021. Randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing finerenone, SGLT-2i and GLP-1 RA in diabetics with CKD were selected. We performed a network meta-analysis to compare the two drugs and finerenone indirectly. Results were reported as risk ratio (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results: 18 RCTs involving 51,496 patients were included. Finerenone reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), renal outcome and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) (RR [95% CI]; 0.88 [0.80-0.97], 0.86 [0.79-0.93], 0.79 [0.67,0.92], respectively). SGLT-2i were associated with reduced risks of MACE (RR [95% CI]; 0.84 [0.78-0.90]), renal outcome (RR [95% CI]; 0.67 [0.60-0.74], HHF (RR [95% CI]; 0.60 [0.53-0.68]), all-cause death (ACD) (RR [95% CI]; 0.89 [0.81-0.91]) and cardiovascular death (CVD) (RR [95% CI]; 0.86 [0.77-0.96]) compared to placebo. GLP-1 RA were associated with a lower risk of MACE (RR [95% CI]; 0.86 [0.78-0.94]). SGLT2i had significant effect in comparison to finerenone (finerenone vs SGLT2i: RR…

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. Reported size: 51,496 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