Comparative Effects of Glucose-Lowering Medications on Kidney Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes: The GRADE Randomized Clinical Trial

Insulin initiation for patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

We examined the initiation of insulin therapy in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), analyzed their glycemic responses, and compared patient profiles based on glycemic outcomes.

METHODS

Patients with T2DM initiated on insulin therapy were retrospectively analyzed. Data were collected from endocrinology clinic before and 3 and 6 months after insulin initiation. The primary outcome was hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level 6 months after commencing insulin treatment. Secondary outcomes included HbA1c levels at 3 months after insulin treatment and fasting blood glucose levels at 3 and 6 months after treatment. We analyzed the effects of insulin initiation and categorized patients based on their 6-month HbA1c levels: below the median of 7.8% (better response) and above 7.8% (worse response). Additionally, we evaluated patients based on HbA1c changes at 6 months, with greater or lesser changes defined by the cohort's median change of -1.4%.

RESULTS

Insulin therapy significantly reduced HbA1c (from 9.8% to 8.2%) and fasting blood glucose levels (from 221.4 to 147.2 mg/dL) within 3 months. After 6 months, HbA1c and fasting blood glucose levels decreased by 2.1% (9.8%-7.7%) and 77.2 mg/dL (221.4-144.2 mg/dL), respectively. Patients who responded better to insulin treatment showed lower fasting blood glucose levels by 6 months after insulin initiation and lower HbA1c levels as soon as 3 months after initiation. Patients with higher baseline glycemic profiles experienced significantly greater HbA1c reductions at 6 months post-treatment.

CONCLUSION

Insulin therapy significantly improved glycemic control in patients with T2DM within 3 months after initiation. Patients with higher baseline glycemic profiles experienced greater responses to insulin therapy.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for people with chronic kidney disease and diabetes

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% of people with diabetes develop kidney failure and experience an accelerated risk of cardiovascular complications. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are glucose-lowering agents that manage glucose and weight control.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the benefits and harms of GLP-1 receptor agonists in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies was searched to 10 September 2024 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled studies were eligible if participants with diabetes and CKD were randomly allocated to a GLP-1 receptor agonist, placebo, standard care or a second glucose-lowering agent. CKD included all stages (from 1 to 5).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the risk of bias assessment tool 2. Pooled analyses using summary estimates of effects were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and/or hazard ratio (HR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. The primary outcomes included death (all-cause and cardiovascular), 3- and 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), kidney failure, composite kidney outcome, and severe hypoglycaemia. The secondary outcomes included non-fatal or fatal myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, non-fatal peripheral arterial events, heart failure, hospitalisation due to heart failure, estimated glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance, doubling of serum creatinine, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, albuminuria progression, vascular access outcomes, body weight, body mass index, fatigue, life participation, peritoneal dialysis infection, peritoneal dialysis failure, adverse events, serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, HbA1c, sudden death, acute MI, ischaemic stroke, and coronary revascularisation. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-two studies involving 48,148 participants were included. All studies were conducted on people with type 2 diabetes, and no studies were carried out on children. The median study age was 66 years. The median study follow-up was 26 weeks. Six studies were conducted in people with CKD stages 1-2, 11 studies in people with CKD stages 3-5, one study in people on dialysis, and the remaining studies included people with both CKD stages 1-2 and 3-5. Risks of bias in the included studies for all the primary outcomes in studies that compared GLP-1 receptor agonists to placebo were low in most methodological domains, except one study that was assessed at high risk of bias due to missing outcome data for death (all-cause and cardiovascular). The overall risk of bias for all-cause and cardiovascular death in studies that reported the treatment effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists compared to standard care, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors were assessed as unclear or at high risk of bias due to deviations from intended interventions or missing data. For GLP-1 receptor agonists compared to insulin or another GLP-1 receptor agonist, the risk of bias for all-cause and cardiovascular death was low or unclear. Compared to placebo, GLP-1 receptor agonists probably reduced the risk of all-cause death (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; I2 = 23%; 8 studies, 17,861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but may have little or no effect on cardiovascular death (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.05; I2 = 42%; 7 studies, 17,801 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, GLP-1 receptor agonists probably decreased 3-point MACE (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.98; I² = 65%; 4 studies, 19,825 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and 4-point MACE compared to placebo (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.89; 1 study, 2,158 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on absolute risks of clinical outcomes, it is likely that GLP-1 receptor agonists prevent all-cause death in 52 people with CKD stages 1-2 and 116 in CKD stages 3-5, cardiovascular death in 34 people with CKD stages 1-2 and 71 in CKD stages 3-5, while 95 CKD stages 1-2 and 153 in CKD stages 3-5 might experience a major cardiovascular event for every 1000 people treated over 1 year. Compared to placebo, GLP-1 receptor agonists probably had little or no effect on kidney failure, defined as starting dialysis or kidney transplant (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.13; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 4,134 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), or on composite kidney outcomes (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.02; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 16,849 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, GLP-1 receptor agonists may have little or no effect on the risk of severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.25; I2 = 44%; 4 studies, 6,292 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists compared to standard care or other hypoglycaemic agents were uncertain. No studies evaluated treatment on risks of fatigue, life participation, amputation or fracture.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

GLP-1 receptor agonists probably reduced all-cause death but may have little or no effect on cardiovascular death in people with CKD and diabetes. GLP-1 receptor agonists probably lower major cardiovascular events, probably have little or no effect on kidney failure and composite kidney outcomes, and may have little or no effect on the risk of severe hypoglycaemia in people with CKD and diabetes.

American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee, ElSayed NA, McCoy RG, Aleppo G, Balapattabi K, Beverly EA, Briggs Early K, Bruemmer D, Echouffo-Tcheugui JB, Ekhlaspour L, Garg R, Khunti K, Lal R, Lingvay I, Matfin G, Pandya N, Pekas EJ, Pilla SJ, Polsky S, Segal AR, Seley JJ, Stanton RC, Bannuru RR. 11. Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2025

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee, ElSayed NA, McCoy RG, Aleppo G, Bajaj M, Balapattabi K, Beverly EA, Briggs Early K, Bruemmer D, Echouffo-Tcheugui JB, Ekhlaspour L, Gaglia JL, Garg R, Girotra M, Khunti K, Lal R, Lingvay I, Matfin G, Neumiller JJ, Pandya N, Pekas EJ, Pilla SJ, Polsky S, Segal AR, Seley JJ, Stanton RC, Bannuru RR. 9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2025

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Healthcare utilization, mortality, and cardiovascular events following GLP1-RA initiation in chronic kidney disease

Treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) may attenuate kidney disease progression and cardiovascular events but their real-world impact on healthcare utilization and mortality in this population are not well-defined. Here, we emulate a clinical trial that compares outcomes following initiation of GLP1-RA vs Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), as active comparators, in U.S. veterans aged 35 years of older with moderate to advanced CKD during fiscal years 2006 to 2021. Primary outcome was rate of acute healthcare utilization. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and a composite of acute cardiovascular events. After propensity score matching (16,076 pairs) and 2.2 years mean follow-up duration, use of GLP1-RA in patients with moderate to advanced CKD was associated with lower annual rate of acute healthcare utilization and all-cause mortality. There was no significant difference in acute cardiovascular events.

Kidney Outcomes with Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists, Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors, Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors, and Sulfonylureas in Type 2 Diabetes and Moderate Cardiovascular Risk

Key Points

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists were superior to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor and sulfonylurea for preventing kidney complications in patients with type 2 diabetes at moderate cardiovascular disease risk. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor therapy compared favorably with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists for kidney disease outcomes.

Background

CKD is a serious diabetes-related complication. While guidelines recommend use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) therapies to mitigate cardiorenal risk in high-risk patients, the benefit of early initiation of these agents relative to other commonly prescribed glucose-lowering agents in patients at lower baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk remains less clear.

Methods

This retrospective observational study emulated an idealized target trial using claims data from OptumLabs data warehouse to test the comparative association of treatment with a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i), SGLT2i, GLP-1RA, or sulfonylurea (SU) on a primary kidney composite outcome of incident CKD stages 3–5, kidney failure, or need for KRT in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate CVD risk. A secondary composite outcome included all components of the primary composite outcome plus death.

Results

A total of 364,714 adults aged 21 years or older initiating treatment with a DPP-4i (N =78,843), GLP-1RA (N =42,049), SGLT2i (N =45,466), or SU (N =198,356) were identified. Relative to DPP-4i, SGLT2i (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67 to 0.74; P < 0.001) and GLP-1RA (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.92; P < 0.001) treatment was superior for the primary composite outcome. Similarly, SGLT2i (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.73) and GLP-1RA (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.91) treatment was associated with risk reductions for the primary outcome relative to SU treatment. When comparing SGLT2i with GLP-1RA therapy, SGLT2is were superior for the primary composite outcome (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.86; P < 0.001). Similar findings were observed for the secondary composite outcome across all comparisons.

Conclusions

SGLT2is and GLP-1RAs were superior to DPP-4is and SUs for preventing kidney complications in a type 2 diabetes population with moderate baseline CVD risk.

Clinical Trial registry name and registration number:

NCT05214573 .

Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists During Electroconvulsive Therapy: Case Report With Evolving Concerns and Management Considerations

ABSTRACT

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are an emerging class of medications transforming the management of diabetes mellitus and obesity, two highly prevalent and chronic medical conditions associated with significant morbidity and posing serious public health concerns. Although generally well tolerated and relatively safe to use, case reports of patients taking these medications while undergoing elective procedures with general anesthesia describe a potential heightened risk of regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents, deriving from the delayed gastric emptying effect of these agents. Based on increased recognition of this risk, the American Society of Anesthesiologists convened a task force to review available data, resulting in the promulgation of a new procedural management guideline for patients on these drugs and undergoing elective procedures with general anesthesia. However, this guideline pertains mostly to procedures and situations that are distinct from electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). This case report describes the experience of a patient on semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist for obesity, undergoing ECT, provides a general overview of this novel drug class, identifies issues specific to ECT management, and suggests potential adaptations to patient care over different phases of ECT practice.

Metformin for preventing the progression of chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Metformin has been used in the management of diabetes for decades. It is an effective, low-cost intervention with a well-established safety profile. Emerging evidence suggests that metformin targets a number of pathways that lead to chronic kidney damage, and long-term use may, therefore, slow the rate of kidney function decline and chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of metformin therapy on kidney function decline in patients with CKD with or without diabetes mellitus and assess the safety and dose tolerability in this population.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 19 July 2023 with assistance from an Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that reported kidney-related outcomes with a minimum duration of 12 months delivery of the metformin intervention and whose eligibility criteria included adult participants with either i) a diagnosis of CKD of any aetiology and/or ii) those with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Comparisons included placebo, no intervention, non-pharmacological interventions, other antidiabetic medications or any other active control. Studies that included patients on any modality of kidney replacement therapy were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently carried out data extraction using a standard data extraction form. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 11 studies reporting on 8449 randomised participants. Studies were conducted in patient populations with Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease (ADPKD) (four studies) or diabetes mellitus (seven studies). Six studies compared metformin with no active control, four studies compared metformin with active controls (rosiglitazone, glyburide, pioglitazone, or glipizide), and one study included treatment arms that randomised to either metformin, diet and lifestyle modifications, or other antidiabetic therapies. The risk of bias in included studies varied; two studies were abstract-only publications and were judged to have a high risk of bias in most domains. Other included publications were judged to have a low risk of bias in most domains. Across comparisons, GRADE evaluations for most outcomes were judged as low or very low certainty, except for those relating to side effects, tolerance, and withdrawals, which were judged as moderate certainty. The evidence suggests that compared to placebo, metformin may result in i) a slightly smaller decline in kidney function (3 studies, 505 participants: MD 1.92 mL/min, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.51; I2 = 0%; low certainty), ii) very uncertain effects on the incidence of kidney failure (1 study, 753 participants: RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.17 to 8.49), iii) little or no effect on death (3 studies, 865 participants: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty), iv) little or no effect on the incidence of serious adverse events (3 studies, 576 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.72; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty), and v) likely higher incidence of intolerance leading to study withdrawal than placebo (4 studies, 646 participants: RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.27; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty). The certainty of the evidence for proteinuria was very uncertain. Compared to other active controls (rosiglitazone, glyburide, pioglitazone, or glipizide), metformin i) demonstrated very uncertain effects on kidney function decline, ii) may result in little or no difference in death (3 studies, 5608 participants: RR 0.95 95% CI 0.63 to 1.43; I2 = 0%; low certainty), iii) probably results in little or no difference in intolerance leading to study withdrawal (3 studies, 5593 participants: RR 0.92, 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.08; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty), iv) probably results in little or no difference in the incidence of serious adverse events (2 studies, 5545 participants: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty), and v) may increase the urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (2 studies, 3836 participants: MD 14.61, 95% CI 8.17 to 21.05; I2 = 0%; low certainty). No studies reported the incidence of kidney failure.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the lack of RCTs reporting on the effects of metformin on kidney function, particularly in patients with CKD. Future research in this field requires adequately powered RCTs comparing metformin to placebo or standard care in those with CKD. Seven ongoing studies were identified in this review, and future updates, including their findings, may further inform the results of this review.

Comparative effectiveness of second line oral antidiabetic treatments among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: emulation of a target trial using routinely collected health data

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of three commonly prescribed oral antidiabetic drugs added to metformin for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus requiring second line treatment in routine clinical practice.

DESIGN

Cohort study emulating a comparative effectiveness trial (target trial).

SETTING

Linked primary care, hospital, and death data in England, 2015-21.

PARTICIPANTS

75 739 adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who initiated second line oral antidiabetic treatment with a sulfonylurea, DPP-4 inhibitor, or SGLT-2 inhibitor added to metformin.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was absolute change in glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) between baseline and one year follow-up. Secondary outcomes were change in body mass index (BMI), systolic blood pressure, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at one year and two years, change in HbA1c at two years, and time to ≥40% decline in eGFR, major adverse kidney event, hospital admission for heart failure, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and all cause mortality. Instrumental variable analysis was used to reduce the risk of confounding due to unobserved baseline measures.

RESULTS

75 739 people initiated second line oral antidiabetic treatment with sulfonylureas (n=25 693, 33.9%), DPP-4 inhibitors (n=34 464 ,45.5%), or SGLT-2 inhibitors (n=15 582, 20.6%). SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than DPP-4 inhibitors or sulfonylureas in reducing mean HbA1c values between baseline and one year. After the instrumental variable analysis, the mean differences in HbA1c change between baseline and one year were -2.5 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.7 to -1.3) for SGLT-2 inhibitors versus sulfonylureas and -3.2 mmol/mol (-4.6 to -1.8) for SGLT-2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors. SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than sulfonylureas or DPP-4 inhibitors in reducing BMI and systolic blood pressure. For some secondary endpoints, evidence for SGLT-2 inhibitors being more effective was lacking-the hazard ratio for MACE, for example, was 0.99 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.62) versus sulfonylureas and 0.91 (0.51 to 1.63) versus DPP-4 inhibitors. SGLT-2 inhibitors had reduced hazards of hospital admission for heart failure compared with DPP-4 inhibitors (0.32, 0.12 to 0.90) and sulfonylureas (0.46, 0.20 to 1.05). The hazard ratio for a ≥40% decline in eGFR indicated a protective effect versus sulfonylureas (0.42, 0.22 to 0.82), with high uncertainty in the estimated hazard ratio versus DPP-4 inhibitors (0.64, 0.29 to 1.43).

CONCLUSIONS

This emulation study of a target trial found that SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than sulfonylureas or DPP-4 inhibitors in lowering mean HbA1c, BMI, and systolic blood pressure and in reducing the hazards of hospital admission for heart failure (v DPP-4 inhibitors) and kidney disease progression (v sulfonylureas), with no evidence of differences in other clinical endpoints.

Emerging evidence for glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists in slowing chronic kidney disease progression

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Diabetic kidney disease continues to increase, and several novel therapeutic agents have been shown to slow the progression of chronic kidney disease in those with diabetes. This review summarizes more recent data on the role of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and kidney outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Posthoc analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials, as well as several retrospective studies, demonstrate benefits of GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy for chronic kidney disease progression in diabetics. Although limited randomized clinical trials evidence assessing the effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on kidney outcomes in diabetic chronic kidney disease patients have been published, FLOW-CKD trial was halted based on interim data for efficacy, and results are awaited.

SUMMARY

GLP-1 receptor agonism is a promising therapy for slowing the progression of diabetic chronic kidney disease. Recent studies support kidney benefits GLP-1 receptor agonists over insulin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4-inhibitors, and the FLOW-CKD trial would inform the potential benefits for reducing the need for dialysis and kidney-disease related mortality in those with kidney disease.

Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

Newer diabetes medications may have beneficial effects on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal outcomes.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, and long-acting insulins as monotherapy or combination therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2010 through January 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

RCTs lasting at least 52 weeks that included at least 500 adults with T2DM receiving eligible medications and reported any outcomes of interest.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE) were done.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 130 publications from 84 RCTs were identified. CoE was appraised using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria for direct, indirect, and network meta-analysis (NMA); the highest CoE was reported. Compared with usual care, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (high CoE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (moderate to high CoE), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure hospitalizations and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke (high CoE), and SGLT2 inhibitors reduce serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia (high CoE). The threshold for minimally important differences, which was predefined with the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee, was not met for these outcomes. Compared with usual care, insulin, tirzepatide, and DPP4 inhibitors do not reduce all-cause mortality (low to high CoE). Compared with insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (low to moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors, GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors and sulfonylurea (SU), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce MACE (moderate to high CoE). Compared with SU and insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce severe hypoglycemia (low to high CoE).

LIMITATIONS

Infrequent direct comparisons between drugs of interest; sparse data for NMA on most outcomes; possible incoherence due to differences in baseline patient characteristics and usual care; insufficient data on predefined subgroups, including demographic subgroups, patients with prior cardiovascular disease, and treatment-naive persons.

CONCLUSION

In adults with T2DM, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists (but not DPP4 inhibitors, insulin, or tirzepatide) reduce all-cause mortality and MACE compared with usual care. SGLT2 inhibitors reduce CKD progression and heart failure hospitalization and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke compared with usual care. Serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia are less frequent with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists than with insulin or SU.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022322129).

Lessons learned from early-stage clinical trials for diabetic nephropathy

INTRODUCTION

The evolution of treatment for diabetic nephropathy illustrates how basic biochemistry and physiology have led to new agents such as SGLT2 inhibitors and mineralocorticoid blockers. Conversely, clinical studies performed with these agents have suggested new concepts for investigational drug development. We reviewed currently available treatments for diabetic nephropathy and then analyzed early clinical trials of new agents to assess the potential for future treatment modalities.

AREAS COVERED

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for new agents under study for diabetic nephropathy in the past decade. Once we have identified investigation trials of new agents, we then used search engines and Pubmed.gov to find publications providing insight on these drugs. Current treatments have shown benefit in both cardiac and renal disease. In our review, we found 51 trials and 43 pharmaceuticals in a number of drug classes: mineralocorticoid blockers, anti-inflammatory, anti-fibrosis, nitric oxide stimulatory, and podocyte protection, and endothelin inhibitors.

EXPERT OPINION

It is difficult to predict which early phase treatments will advance to confirmatory clinical trials. Current agents are thought to improve hemodynamic function. However, the coincident benefit of both myocardial function and the glomerulus argues for primary effects at the subcellular level, and we follow the evolution of agents which modify fundamental cellular processes.

The Current Place of DPP4 Inhibitors in the Evolving Landscape of Type 2 Diabetes Management: Is It Time to Bid Adieu?

During the last decade, the landscape of type 2 diabetes (T2D) management has been completely transformed, moving from a glucose-centric perspective to a holistic approach that also takes into account weight control and organ protection. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) are oral agents that have been used for the treatment of T2D for almost 20 years. Although they present an excellent safety profile, including the risk of hypoglycemia, they lack the spectacular cardiorenal benefits and weight-loss effects of the newer antidiabetic agents. This poses the question of whether they still deserve a place in the arsenal of drugs against T2D. In this article, we use a hypothetical case scenario to illustrate possible patient profiles where DPP4i could prove useful in the clinical setting. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the category, focusing on glycemic control, weight management, and cardiorenal protection, which are the pillars of modern T2D management, also considering its safety profile and cost-effectiveness. We conclude that in most cases, DPP4i present a more favorable risk-benefit ratio compared to sulfonylureas, which are still widely prescribed throughout the world. We also suggest that future research should clarify the reasons behind the contradictory findings between human and animal studies on cardiorenal effects of the class and identify subgroups of patients who would derive most benefit with DPP4i treatment.