Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis
The effect of the sodium-glucose 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors on microvascular complications remains uncertain. We performed a systematic review to determine the efficacy of the SGLT-2 inhibitors on microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.
A comprehensive search was performed using Ovid, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to May 2019. Randomized trials comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors with placebo or other medication for type 2 diabetes for ≥ 4 weeks were included. Diabetes-related microvascular complications such as nephropathy, retinopathy, neuropathy, and peripheral vascular disease were evaluated. A random-effect model using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes was used to synthesize data. PROSPERO (CRD 42017076460).
A total of 40 RCTs with overall moderate quality of evidence were included. SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced the risk of renal-replacement therapy (0.65; 95% CI 0.54–0.79), renal death (0.57; 95% CI 0.49–0.65), and progression of albuminuria (0.69; 95% CI 0.66–0.73). Conversely, they appeared ineffective in maintaining eGFR (0.33; 95% CI − 0.74 to 1.41) or reducing serum creatinine (− 0.07; 95% CI − 0.26 to 0.11), whereas urine albumin–creatinine ratio (− 23.4; 95% CI − 44.6 to − 2.2) was reduced. Risk of amputation was non-significant (1.30; 95% CI 0.93–1.83). No available data were found regarding neuropathy and retinopathy to perform a quantitative analysis.
SGLT-2 inhibitors may reduce the risk of renal patient-important outcomes but fail to improve surrogate outcomes. Apparently, no increased risk of amputations was observed with these medications. No data were available regarding other microvascular complications.
KeywordsSodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors Microvascular complications Type 2 diabetes mellitus Systematic review Meta-analysis
We would like to thank the Research Unit from the School of Medicine of the Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Mexico and the Knowledge and Evaluation Research (KER) Unit from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN for their support and guidance in the conduct of this systematic review.
EGD-T, ADG-C, and RR-G conceived the idea of the study. NA-V and AMF performed the search strategy. EGD-T, BMC-G, FJB-F, VG-N, ADG-C, and GR-T screened potentially eligible articles. EGD-T, BMC-G, and VG-N extracted the data and rated the quality of the evidence. EGDT and NA-V analyzed the data. EGD-T wrote the first manuscript with input of RR-G. RR-G, VMM, and JGG-G critically reviewed, revised, and provided significant contribution to the manuscript. All authors agreed on the final version of the manuscript.
No grant, funding source, or any other kind of financial support was received for the elaboration of this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare having no conflicts of interests or financial disclosures.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
The study does not require an informed consent as no participants were recruited.
- 2.Zimmet P (2003) The burden of type 2 diabetes: are we doing enough. Diabetes Metab 29(4 Pt 2):6s9-18Google Scholar
- 6.Glycemic Targets: < em > standards of medical care in diabetes—2018 </em > . Diabetes Care. 2018;41(Supplement 1):S55–S64Google Scholar
- 16.Cherney DZI, Zinman B, Inzucchi SE et al (2017) Effects of empagliflozin on the urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease: an exploratory analysis from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 5(8):610–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Julian PTH, Sally G (2008) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/. Accessed 8 May 2019
- 24.Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration [computer program]. The Netherlands 2014Google Scholar
- 33.Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade M, Cook D (2002) Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice, vol 706. AMA Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- 44.Araki E, Onishi Y, Asano M, Kim H, Yajima T (2017) Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin over 1 year as add-on to insulin therapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: the DAISY (Dapagliflozin added to patients under insulin therapy) trial. Diabetes Obes Metab 19(4):562–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 47.Barnett AH, Mithal A, Manassie J et al (2014) Efficacy and safety of empagliflozin added to existing antidiabetes treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2(5):369–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 48.Cho KY, Nakamura A, Omori K et al (2019) Effect of switching from pioglitazone to the sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor dapagliflozin on body weight and metabolism-related factors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: an open-label, prospective, randomized, parallel-group comparison trial. Diabetes Obes Metab 21(3):710–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 49.Dagogo-Jack S, Liu J, Eldor R et al (2018) Efficacy and safety of the addition of ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with metformin and sitagliptin: the VERTIS SITA2 placebo-controlled randomized study. Diabetes Obes Metab 20(3):530–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 60.Jabbour SA, Frias JP, Hardy E et al (2018) Safety and efficacy of exenatide once weekly plus dapagliflozin once daily versus exenatide or dapagliflozin alone in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy: 52-week results of the duration-8 randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 41(10):2136–2146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 68.Lu CH, Min KW, Chuang LM, Kokubo S, Yoshida S, Cha BS (2016) Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ipragliflozin in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and inadequate glycemic control with metformin: results of a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial. J Diabetes Investig 7(3):366–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 70.Perkovic V, Jardine MJ, Neal B, et al. Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 0(0):nullGoogle Scholar
- 71.Perna S, Mainardi M, Astrone P, et al. (2018) 12-month effects of incretins versus SGLT2-Inhibitors on cognitive performance and metabolic profile. A randomized clinical trial in the elderly with type-2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Pharmacol. 10:141–151Google Scholar
- 73.Shimizu M, Suzuki K, Kato K et al (2019) Evaluation of the effects of dapagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor, on hepatic steatosis and fibrosis using transient elastography in patients with type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Diabetes Obes Metab 21(2):285–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 74.Softeland E, Meier JJ, Vangen B, Toorawa R, Maldonado-Lutomirsky M, Broedl UC (2017) Empagliflozin as add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with linagliptin and metformin: a 24-week randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial. Diabetes Care 40(2):201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar