SGLT2 Inhibitors' Cardiovascular Benefits in Individuals Without Diabetes, Heart Failure, and/or Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review

Effect of combination pioglitazone with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on outcomes in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and real-world study from an international federated database

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and cardiovascular outcomes of combination pioglitazone with either a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) or a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) by conducting a systematic review, meta-analysis, and analysis of a large international real-world database.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, SCOPUS and Web of Science to identify relevant articles for inclusion (PROSPERO [CRD: 42023483126]). Nineteen studies assessing pioglitazone + SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1RAs versus controls were identified, 16 of which were randomized controlled trials. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane-endorsed tools and quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. We additionally performed a retrospective cohort study of all individuals aged 18 years or over with T2D, using the TriNetX platform. We included propensity-score-matched individuals who were treated for at least 1 year with pioglitazone and a GLP-1RA or pioglitazone and an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared against GLP-1RA and SGLT2 inhibitor monotherapy. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, heart failure, chronic kidney disease and composite stroke and transient ischaemic attack.

RESULTS

The average follow-up in the included studies ranged from 24 to 52 weeks. Combination of pioglitazone with a GLP-1RA reduced glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and weight greater than in controls: mean differences -1% (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.27, -0.74) and -1.19 kg (95% CI -1.80, -0.58), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in systolic blood pressure (SBP) or mortality between groups: mean difference - 1.56 mmHg (95% CI -4.48, 1.35; p = 0.30) and relative risk (RR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.07-1.15; p = 0.08), respectively. Combination of pioglitazone with SGLT2 inhibitors reduced HbA1c, weight and SBP to a greater extent than control treatment: mean differences -0.48% (95% CI -0.67, -0.28), -2.3 kg (95% CI -2.72, -1.88) and -2.4 mmHg (95% CI -4.1, -0.7; p = 0.01), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality between groups (RR 1.81, 95% CI 0.30-10.97; p = 0.52). The included trials demonstrated a reduction in risk of heart failure with combination treatment. Similarly, from the real-world database (n = 25 230 identified), pioglitazone and SGLT2 inhibitor combination therapy was associated with reduced risk of heart failure compared to monotherapy alone (hazard ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.38-0.65; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Both our systematic review/meta-analysis and the real-world dataset show that combination of pioglitazone with either GLP-1RAs or SGLT2 inhibitors is associated with increased weight loss and reduced risk of heart failure compared with monotherapy.

Comparison of Effectiveness Among Different Sodium-Glucose Cotransoporter-2 Inhibitors According to Underlying Conditions: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

To investigate the individual profile of each SGLT2 (sodium-glucose cotransoporter-2) inhibitor in patients with different backgrounds.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study included 21 placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials with a total of 96 196 participants, investigating empagliflozin, ertugliflozin, dapagliflozin, canagliflozin, and sotagliflozin. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of cardiovascular death and hospitalizations for heart failure. The secondary efficacy end points were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, hospitalizations for heart failure, kidney disease progression, and acute kidney injury. We conducted subgroup analyses based on the underlying comorbidities, including diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Safety end points were also assessed among SGLT2 inhibitors in the overall cohort. In the overall cohort, there were no significant differences in the primary efficacy outcome among the SGLT2 inhibitors, while empagliflozin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70 [95% CI, 0.53-0.92]) and dapagliflozin (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.96]) were associated with lower risk of acute kidney injury than sotagliflozin. The presence or absence of diabetes did not alter the results. In patients with chronic kidney disease, there were no differences in the efficacy outcomes among SGLT2 inhibitors, while in patients without chronic kidney disease, empagliflozin was associated with lower risk of the primary outcome compared with ertugliflozin (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60-0.98]). For safety outcomes, no significant differences were observed in amputation, urinary tract infection, genital infection, hypoglycemia, and diabetic ketoacidosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The differences in reducing cardiovascular and kidney outcomes as well as safety profiles across SGLT2 inhibitors were not consistently significant, although empagliflozin might be preferred in patients without chronic kidney disease. Further investigations are needed to better understand the mechanism and clinical effectiveness of each SGLT2 inhibitor in certain populations.