4.6 Article

Network meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcomes in randomized controlled trials of new antidiabetic drugs

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 254, 期 -, 页码 291-296

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.12.039

关键词

Antidiabetic drugs; Network meta-analysis; Type 2 diabetes mellitus; Cardiovascular risk

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) directly comparing cardiovascular outcomes of new antidiabetic drugs are lacking. We used network meta-analysis to compare new antidiabetic drug classes with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane database, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 30 December 2016 for RCTs involving SGLT-2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in diabetic patients that reported MACE and deaths. Outcomes were compared with frequentist and Bayesian methods using R statistics. Results: Seven RCTs with altogether 62,268 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. The SGLT-2 inhibitor and GLP-1 RAs reduced MACE (OR 0.85, 95%CI 0.73-0.99 and 0.89, 0.82-0.97, respectively) and all-cause mortality (0.67, 0.55-0.81 and 0.89, 0.80-0.99, respectively) compared to placebo. Furthermore, the SGLT-2 inhibitor reduced all-cause mortality compared to GLP-1 RAs (0.76, 0.61-0.94). In contrast, DPP-4 inhibitors did not reduce MACE or mortality compared to placebo and were associated with higher all-cause mortality compared to the SGLT-2 inhibitor (1.53, 1.24-1.89) and GLP-1 RAs (1.16, 1.01-1.33). Conclusions: All-cause mortality and MACE were reduced by the SGLT-2 inhibitor and GLP-1 RAs, but not DPP-4 inhibitors. The SGLT-2 inhibitor had the most beneficial impact on all-cause mortality. DPP-4 inhibitors showed no cardiovascular benefit and were inferior to the other two drug classes in preventing deaths. (c) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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