SynthesisFrontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare2026
Dapagliflozin & pioglitazone combination therapy in T2DM with or without MASLD - a systematic review and meta-analysis: PRO-2 study.
Synthesis in Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin plus pioglitazone versus comparators on metabolic control and hepatic steatosis in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), with or without metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, Scopus, Web of Science with a search updated through January 2026, following peer review. Eligible studies enrolled adults with T2DM with or without MASLD, receiving dapagliflozin plus pioglitazone in comparison with standard care or monotherapy, or as pooled-arm exploratory estimates. The primary outcome was glycemic control (HbA1c and fasting and postprandial glucose levels). Secondary outcomes included body weight, insulin resistance indices, related liver outcomes (liver fat content, NAFLD activity score [NAS], and steatohepatitis resolution), liver enzymes, non-invasive fibrosis indices, lipid parameters, and safety outcomes. Results: Thirteen studies (n = 1411) met the inclusion criteria. Dapagliflozin-pioglitazone significantly improved glycemic control, with a reduction in HbA1c (mean difference -0.49%; 95% CI -0.64 to -0.34), and Fasting Blood Glucose (-11.96 mg/dL; 95% CI -16.30 to -7.62) and Post-Prandial Glucose (-21.54 mg/dL; 95% CI -30.84 to -12.24). Hepatic outcomes also improved, with reductions in liver fat content (standardized mean difference -0.42; 95% CI -0.61 to -0.22) and NAS (standardized mean difference -0.39; 95% CI -0.56 to -0.22), and higher rates of steatohepatitis resolution (risk ratio 1.48; 95% CI 1.13-1.92). Certainty of evidence was moderate for glycemic and steatosis outcomes and low for histological endpoints. Conclusions: Dapagliflozin-pioglitazone combination therapy was associated with improvements in glycemic control and non-invasive markers of hepatic steatosis in adults with T2DM, with or without MASLD, while maintaining a favorable safety profile. Certainty of evidence was moderate for metabolic and steatosis outcomes and low for histological endpoints. Given the predominance of surrogate hepatic endpoints and limited biopsy-confirmed data, these findings should be interpreted with appropriate caution. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=1117019, identifier CRD420251117019.
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.