Evidence Hub

Safety, efficacy, and cardiovascular benefits of combination therapy with SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Asma Mousavi, S. Shojaei, H. Soleimani, Davood Semirani-Nezhad, Pouya Ebrahimi, Ali Zafari, Rasoul Ebrahimi, Khatere Roozbehi et al.

Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome, 2025

42,651 participants · 31 citations

Abstract

The potential benefits and risks of combination therapy with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) versus monotherapy remain a subject of debate to optimize metabolic and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This study aims to systematically review and meta-analyze the available evidence from randomized controlled trials. A comprehensive search identified relevant randomized controlled trials comparing combination therapy with SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA to monotherapy or treatment as usual (TAU). The main outcome was the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure. Other outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction), changes in metabolic parameters, and adverse events. Random-effects meta-analysis estimated risk ratios (RRs), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the risk of bias in included studies using the Cochrane ROB 2.0 tool. The meta-analysis included 10 randomized controlled trials with 42,651 participants, of which 2,820 were on combination therapy and the rest on SGLT-2i (37.1%), GLP-1RA (20.1%) monotherapies or TAU (42.8%). Combination therapy had a lower risk of hospitalization for heart failure versus GLP-1RA monotherapy (RR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.22; 0.65), SGLT-2i monotherapy (RR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.19; 0.75), and TAU (RR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.24;…

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: 42,651 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