Evidence Hub

Validation of an algorithm for selection of SGLT2 and DPP4 inhibitor therapies in people with type 2 diabetes across major UK ethnicity groups: a retrospective cohort study

Güdemann LM, Young KG, Cardoso P, Mateen BA, Holman RR, Sattar N, Pearson ER, Hattersley AT et al.

The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2026

114,287 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Background: Routine clinical features of individual patients can potentially be used to guide selection of type 2 diabetes treatments. We aimed to evaluate a recently proposed treatment selection model predicting differences in glycaemic responses to SGLT2-inhibitors and DPP4-inhibitors across major UK ethnicity groups.

Methods: We externally validated the SGLT2i-DPP4i model in UK primary care cohort (CPRD Aurum, 2013-2020) independent of the original model development cohort. Non-insulin treated individuals with type 2 diabetes were identified and categorised by major UK self-reported ethnicity groups: White, Black, South Asian and Mixed/Other. For each ethnicity group, we applied a closed testing procedure to assess whether model recalibration was required. After model updates, we assessed the calibration accuracy of predicted differences in glycaemic response (6-month change in HbA1c) between SGLT2i and DPP4i for each ethnicity group.

Findings: SGLT2i (n = 57,749) and DPP4i (n = 87,807) initiations were identified amongst people of White (n = 114,287; 78.5%), Black (n = 6663; 4.6%), South Asian (n = 20,969; 14.4%) and Mixed/Other (n = 3637; 2.5%) ethnicities. Minor model adjustment was required to adjust for greater observed than predicted glycaemic responses to DPP4i (White-1.6 mmol/mol; Black-3.0 mmol/mol; South Asian-2.6 mmol/mol; Mixed/Other-2.6 mmol/mol). SGLT2i predictions did not require adjustment for non-White ethnicity groups. After model updates, average…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 114,287 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