ArticleWorld journal of diabetes2025
Comparison of three types of drugs for cardiovascular and renal benefits in type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Article in World journal of diabetes, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), one of the most common chronic metabolic diseases, is also one of the most significant risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD).
aimTo conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis of cardiovascular (CV) and renal benefits of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (nsMRA) in T2DM patients.
methodsWe searched four databases-PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science- for publications from inception to March 6, 2025. Total 500 participants were enrolled and had an intervention period of at least one year (or 52 weeks). Eligible studies included adult patients with T2DM and interventions with a placebo or another GLP-1RA, SGLT2i, or nsMRA. Data were standardized using Stata 17.0 software. The quality of evidence was assessed using the CINeMA and GRADE approaches.
resultsTotal 14970 articles were retrieved, of which 25 high-quality studies were included for the systematic review and network meta-analysis, covering 189797 patients and three drug classes (14 drugs). Network meta-analysis revealed low heterogeneity, thus ensuring reliable results. Meta-regression analysis indicated that baseline factors, such as comorbidities and blood glucose levels, did not affect our results. Overall, all included drugs demonstrated significant CV and renal benefits compared with the placebo. nsMRA showed the best efficacy in reducing the incidence of major adverse CV events and myocardial infarction. SGLT2i were most effective in reducing all-cause mortality, CV mortality, and the incidence of renal outcomes. GLP-1RA showed the greatest benefits in reducing the incidence of stroke. SC-semaglutide had the most significant effect on reducing major adverse CV events, oral semaglutide was most effective in reducing all-cause mortality and CV mortality, empagliflozin had the strongest effect in reducing composite renal outcomes and renal replacement therapy, canagliflozin was most effective in slowing the progression of proteinuria, and dapagliflozin showed the most significant reduction in end-stage renal disease.
conclusionT2DM, as one of the most common chronic metabolic diseases, is also one of the most significant risk factors for CVD and CKD. GLP-1RA, SGLT2i, and nsMRAs have emerged as novel therapeutic agents to comprehensively manage T2DM-related CVD and CKD. We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of GLP-1RAs, SGLT2i, and nsMRA in patients with T2DM.
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.