Evidence Hub

Mechanisms of SGLT inhibitor action and physiological mediators: systematic review and protocol for the MOSAIC collaborative meta-analysis

Kugathasan L, Nardone M, Muskiet MHA, Diaz Martinez JP, Lovblom LE, Orchanian-Cheff A, Nielsen S, Rotbain V et al.

BMJ open, 2026

1,296 participants

Abstract

Introduction: Sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) inhibitors have shown substantial benefit in reducing cardiovascular and kidney events across diverse clinical populations, but the underlying physiological mechanisms remain unclear. However, existing mechanistic studies on renal and cardiovascular haemodynamics show variability in design, have limited statistical power and yield inconsistent outcomes, thus limiting the ability to draw generalisable conclusions. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review and proposed the first meta-analysis to aggregate individual participant-level data from mechanistic studies to identify consistent physiological patterns and enhance understanding of the therapeutic effects of SGLT inhibition.

Methods and analysis: Gold-standard measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) was selected as the primary outcome for this systematic review, which aimed to identify all completed mechanistic studies investigating the effects of SGLT inhibition. Electronic databases including Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched using a detailed search strategy. In total, 24 studies (n=1296) were identified. This systematic review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Key variables including demographics, medical history, concomitant medications, vital signs, mGFR, renal…

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: 1,296 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