Evidence Hub

Cardiovascular, mortality, and kidney outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials

S. Kristensen, R. Rørth, P. Jhund, K. Docherty, N. Sattar, D. Preiss, L. Køber, M. Petrie et al.

The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, 2019

56 participants · 1,368 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists differ in their structure and duration of action and have been studied in trials of varying sizes and with different patient populations, with inconsistent effects on cardiovascular outcomes reported. We aimed to synthesise the available evidence by doing a systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials of these drugs.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for eligible placebo-controlled trials reporting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; ie, cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction) up to June 15, 2019. We did a meta-analysis using a random-effects model to estimate overall hazard ratios (HRs) for MACE, its components, death from any cause, hospital admission for heart failure, kidney outcomes, and key safety outcomes (severe hypoglycaemia, pancreatitis, and pancreatic cancer). We also examined MACE in several subgroups based on patient characteristics (history of cardiovascular disease, BMI, age, baseline HbA1c, and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate), trial duration, treatment dosing interval, and structural homology.

FINDINGS

Of 27 publications screened, seven trials, with a combined total of 56 004 participants, were included: ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide), Harmony Outcomes (albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), and PIONEER 6 (oral…

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: 56 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