Evidence Hub

Assessing the benefit-risk profile of newer glucose-lowering drugs: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized outcome trials

Tang H, Zhang B, Lu Y, Donahoo WT, Singh Ospina N, Kotecha P, Lu Y, Tong J et al.

Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2025

198 participants · 12 citations

Abstract

Aim: To comprehensively evaluate the benefits and risks of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i).

Materials and methods: A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to November 2023 to identify randomized cardiovascular and kidney outcome trials that enrolled adults with type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease and compared DPP4i, GLP-1RAs, or SGLT2i to placebo. Twenty-one outcomes (e.g., major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE], stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure [HHF]) were assessed. Data were pooled using population-averaged odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs.

Results: Twenty-six trials enrolling 198 177 participants were included. GLP-1RAs were most effective in lowering the risks of MACE (OR, 0.85, [95% CI, 0.79 to 0.92]) and stroke (0.84 [0.77, 0.91]), but increased the risk of thyroid cancer (1.58 [1.36, 2.50]). SGLT2i showed the greatest benefits in reducing the risk of HHF (0.68 [0.64, 0.73]) and improving composite renal outcomes (0.67 [0.58, 0.77]), but increased the risk of genital infections (3.11 [2.15, 4.50]). DPP4i were associated with a lower risk of certain psychiatric disorders, Parkinson's disease (0.54 [0.32, 0.92]), and amputation (0.70 [0.86, 0.93]), but an increased risk of neuropathy (1.10 [1.02, 1.18]) and pancreatitis (1.63 [1.40, 1.91]). The…

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: 198 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