ArticleCardiovascular diabetology2025
Benefits of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists versus pioglitazone for cardio-hepatic outcomes: a territory-wide target trial emulation.
Article in Cardiovascular diabetology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Is there still room for pioglitazone in contemporary type 2 diabetes management?Cardiovascular diabetology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBoth glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP1RA) and pioglitazone are associated with cardiovascular and hepatic benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, studies that directly compare their cardio-hepatic effects are lacking. We emulated a target trial to compare their effects on adverse liver and cardiovascular outcomes in T2D patients.
methodsWe adopted an "active comparator, new user" design involving T2D patients newly prescribed GLP1RA or pioglitazone between January 2008 and December 2022. The primary outcomes were major adverse liver outcomes (MALO) and cardiovascular events (MACE), with their individual outcomes and heart failure (HF) as secondary outcomes. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) via intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses.
resultsA total of 8922 patients (N = 4461 each group) were included. Compared to pioglitazone users, GLP1RA users had comparable risks of incident MALO (ITT: HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66-1.34; PP: HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.60-2.15) and MACE (ITT: HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80-1.22; PP: HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.77-1.58). The risk of HF was significantly lower in GLP1RA users in ITT analysis (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51-0.83). The results were consistent across most subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsThe effects on incident major adverse liver and cardiovascular outcomes were comparable between GLP1RA and pioglitazone, although the risk of incident HF was lower with GLP1RA. Treatment decisions for T2D patients at risk of adverse cardio-hepatic events should be individualized, considering HF risk and the need for weight loss, which if present, GLP1RA may be preferred.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.