4.7 Article

Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors Could Help Delay Renal Impairment in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Real-World Clinical Setting

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11185259

关键词

antidiabetic drug; renoprotective effect; sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor; diabetic kidney disease (DKD)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the renoprotective effects of SGLT2 inhibitors and DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes. The results showed that the SGLT2 inhibitors group had a lower rate of renal events, a slower decline in eGFR, and lower levels of SUA. Therefore, SGLT2 inhibitors may help delay renal impairment in patients with type 2 diabetes.
This study compared the renoprotective effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We performed a retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records of patients with T2DM. The primary outcome was the first occurrence of an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <45 mL/min/1.73 m(2) after the index date. We analyzed changes in repeatedly measured laboratory data, such as eGFR and serum uric acid (SUA). We included 2396 patients (1198 patients in each group) in the present study. The rate of renal events was significantly lower in the SGLT2 inhibitors group than that in the DPP-4 inhibitors group (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.72; p = 0.0007). The annual mean change in the eGFR was significantly smaller in the SGLT2 inhibitors group than that in the DPP-4 inhibitors group, with a between-group difference of 0.86 +/- 0.18 mL/min/1.73 m(2) per year (95% CI, 0.49 to 1.23; p < 0.0001). Moreover, the mean change in SUA was lower in the SGLT2 inhibitors group. Considering the lower incidence of renal impairment, the slower decline in eGFR, and reduced SUA, SGLT2 inhibitors could help delay renal impairment in patients with T2DM.

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

4.7
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