Evidence Hub

Comparative efficacy and safety of antidiabetic agents for post-transplant diabetes mellitus: a network meta-analysis

Hu S, Lan G

Frontiers in medicine, 2025

7,372 participants

Abstract

Background: Post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) significantly compromises patient and graft outcomes. Although multiple antidiabetic agents are available, their comparative efficacy and safety profiles in this population remain uncertain.

Methods: A systematic literature search was performed across PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify clinical trials comparing antidiabetic therapies in PTDM patients. Risk of bias was assessed, and a network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate relative treatment effects. Treatment ranking probabilities, contribution plots, and funnel plots were used to evaluate hierarchy, study influence, and publication bias, respectively.

Results: Twelve studies-including 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 cohort studies-encompassing 7,372 patients were analyzed. The network meta-analysis evaluated four outcomes: HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and composite major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events (MACE and MAKE). Compared to placebo, insulin produced the greatest reductions in HbA1c (mean difference [MD] - 0.35, 95% CI - 0.90 to 0.20) and FPG (MD - 9.06 mmol/L, 95% CI - 18.66 to 0.53). DPP-4 inhibitors showed the most pronounced decrease in SBP (MD - 3.57 mmHg, 95% CI - 7.29 to 0.16). SGLT2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) demonstrated the strongest tendency to reduce MACE and MAKE events (MD - 1.95, 95% CI - 4.85 to 0.96). SUCRA plots indicated that insulin and SGLT2i ranked…

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: 7,372 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