4.4 Review

Effects of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 on Amputation Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized-Controlled Trials

期刊

PHARMACOLOGY
卷 107, 期 3-4, 页码 123-130

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000520903

关键词

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors; Amputations

资金

  1. National University of Singapore Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine's Junior Academic Faculty Scheme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The systematic review and meta-analysis showed that SGLT2 inhibitors do not increase the risk of amputation events, and there were no significant differences across different types, baseline populations, and duration of use.
Introduction: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are increasingly utilized in the treatment of diabetes mellitus as well as therapeutic extra-glycemic effects. However, there are still concerns over complications such as amputation events, given the results from the Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) trial. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials to investigate the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on amputation events. Methods: Four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and SCOPUS) were searched on November 21, 2020, for articles published from January 1, 2000, up to November 21, 2020, for studies that examined the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on amputation events. Random-effect pair-wise meta-analysis for hazard ratios and fixed-effect Peto odds ratio meta-analysis were utilized to summarize the studies. Results: A total of 15 randomized-controlled trials were included with a combined cohort of 63,716 patients. We demonstrated that there was no significant difference in amputation events across different types of SGLT2 inhibitors, different baseline populations, and different duration of SGLT2 inhibitor use. Discussion/Conclusions: In this meta-analysis, SGLT2 inhibitors were not associated with a significant difference in amputation events.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据