Next Article in Journal
The Role of Postoperative Radiotherapy in the Management of Dermatofibrosarcoma Protuberans: A Multidisciplinary Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Premature Ventricular Complex Burden on Left Ventricular Global Longitudinal Strain in Patients without Structural Heart Disease
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 13
Issue 6
10.3390/jcm13061797
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Novel Antidiabetic Drugs and the Risk of Diabetic Retinopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

by
Artur Małyszczak
1,
Joanna Przeździecka-Dołyk
2,3,*,
Urszula Szydełko-Paśko
1 and
Marta Misiuk-Hojło
1
1
Department and Clinic of Ophthalmology, Wroclaw Medical University, 50-367 Wroclaw, Poland
2
Ophthalmology Clinical Center SPEKTRUM, Research and Development Center CREO, 53-334 Wroclaw, Poland
3
Department of Optics and Photonics, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, 50-370 Wroclaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(6), 1797; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061797
Submission received: 22 February 2024 / Revised: 13 March 2024 / Accepted: 14 March 2024 / Published: 20 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Ophthalmology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: The aim of this study is to compare the effect of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) on the risk of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in patients with type 2 diabetes (DM2). Methods: We systematically searched the databases Pubmed, Embase, and Clinicaltrials up to October 2, 2023, for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of drugs from the GLP-1RA, SGLT-2i, and DPP-4i groups, with at least 24 weeks duration, including adult patients with DM2 and reported ocular complications. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed to calculate the odds ratio (OR) of DR incidents. Results: Our study included 61 RCTs with a total of 188,463 patients and 2773 DR events. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that included drug groups did not differ in the risk of DR events: GLP1-RA vs. placebo (OR 1.08; CI 95% 0.94, 1.23), DPP-4i vs. placebo (OR 1.10; CI 95% 0.84, 1.42), SGLT2i vs. placebo (OR 1.02; CI 95% 0.76, 1.37). Empagliflozin may be associated with a lower risk of DR, but this sub-analysis included only three RCTs (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.17, 0.88, p = 0.02). Conclusions: Based on currently available knowledge, it is challenging to conclude that the new antidiabetic drugs significantly differ in their effect on DR complications.

1. Introduction

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) stands as one of the leading causes of visual impairment in developed countries [1]. Hyperglycemia plays an important role in the pathophysiology of DR as it affects vascular endothelial function [2]. In recent years, an increasing number of new antidiabetic drugs have become available. Besides their varying abilities to lower blood glucose levels, these drugs also exhibit diverse effects on the vascular endothelium, potentially influencing the onset and progression of DR [3,4,5]. The SUSTAIN 6 trial has indicated a higher incidence of DR complications with the use of Semaglutide compared to placebo [6]. However, some analyses do not support this relationship, suggesting the potential role of the rate of glucose-lowering as a contributing factor, as the magnitude of HbA1C reduction has been associated with increased DR risk in glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) treated population [7,8]. Previous meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have suggested a potential association between the use of GLP-1RA and Canagliflozin and a higher risk of vitreous hemorrhage in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) [9,10]. Nonetheless, conflicting results from other studies challenge these findings [11,12,13,14]. The current body of evidence remains inconclusive. Considering the expected increase in the incidence of diabetes and its complications in the coming years, it is crucial to determine how new antidiabetic drugs may impact the risk of DR [15]. We conducted a pairwise meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomized clinical trials, including patients with DM2, comparing the risk of DR complications between new antidiabetic drugs sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i), GLP-1RA, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), and placebo. The aim of our study was to determine the potential impact of these drugs on the risk of DR complications. The secondary aim was to investigate whether other factors, such as differences in changes of glycated hemoglobin blood concentration (HbA1c) between intervention and control groups, HbA1C at baseline, body mass index (BMI) at baseline, age, and duration of diabetes, might contribute to variations in this risk.

2. Materials and Methods

We conducted our meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 (PRISMA) [16]. The protocol of the systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the registration number CRD42022336459.

2.1. Search Strategy and Study Selection

We systematically searched the databases Pubmed, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov using the search strategy included in Text S1. Studies published up to 2 October 2023, were included. Only trials reported in English were included in our study. Two independent reviewers assessed titles, abstracts, and full texts using the Rayyan online tool [17]. Additionally, we examined the bibliographies of included papers. Inclusion criteria were as follows: a randomized clinical trial of at least 24 weeks duration, adult patients with DM2 reporting ocular complications, drugs from the SGLT-2i, GLP-1RA, and DPP-4i groups (Canagliflozin, Empagliflozin, Ertugliflozin, Dapagliflozin, Sotagliflozin, Luseogliflozin, Linagliptin, Saxagliptin, Teneligliptin, Alogliptin, Omarigliptin, Vildagliptin, Albiglutide, Lixisenatide, Semaglutide, Dulaglutide, Liraglutide, Efpeglenatide, Exenatide). A list of counted DR complications is available in Text S2.

2.2. Data Collection and Risk of Bias Assessment

Two independent reviewers collected data and assessed the risk of bias. In cases of conflicting opinions, a third reviewer resolved the conflict. Data were collected from full articles, protocols, clinical study reports, and ClinicalTrials.gov database. We collected the following data: author, publication year, trial name, intervention, control, mean age, percentage of male participants, number of subjects, follow-up duration, background treatment, characteristics of the patient population, HbA1C levels at baseline and their changes at the study endpoint for each group, BMI, and DR events. For the HbA1C endpoint, we selected the longest time point measurement where at least half of the study’s initial population remained. In the case of missing data, which only occurred for the variables analyzed in the meta-regression, the study was omitted from the calculation. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) [18]. Five domains were analyzed: risk of bias arising from the randomization process, risk of bias due to deviations from the intended interventions (effect of assignment to intervention), missing outcome data, risk of bias in the measurement of the outcome, and risk of bias in the selection of the reported result.

2.3. Certainty Assessment

Certainty in the body of evidence for each outcome was assessed using the GRADE approach (The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) [19]. This method is used to rate the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews through the assessment of five domains: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness of evidence, imprecision of the effect estimates, and risk of publication bias. Evaluation of each domain can lower the level of evidence, as there are four levels: very low, low, moderate, and high.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

We conducted a pairwise meta-analysis using a random effects model to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the risk of diabetic retinopathy events between different drug groups and placebo. Sub-analyses were performed for drugs with three or more RCTs. The results of the meta-analysis were presented as a forest plot. To assess heterogeneity between studies, I2 statistics was used. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were conducted to explore possible causes of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the impact of individual studies on the OR of DR incidents. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plot analysis and Egger regression. Meta-regression was performed to analyze the influence of factors HbA1C change during the trial between intervention and control, HbA1C at baseline, diabetes duration on baseline, BMI on baseline, age on baseline, and OR of DR incidents. Statistical analyses were conducted using Statistica v 13 (TIBCO Software Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA) with plus kit v 5.0.96, under the license for Wroclaw Medical University.

3. Results

From the 13,694 preliminary studies found, we selected 966 studies for full-text analysis (Figure S1). Ultimately, 61 RCTs were included in the study (Table 1). A total of 188,463 subjects were included in the meta-analysis, with 2773 diabetic retinopathy events. The mean treatment duration was 1.57 years, and participants had an average diabetes duration of 9.91 years at baseline. On average, 58.4% of the subjects in each RCT were male. Characteristics of included studies are presented in Table 1, and HbA1C data is available in Table S1.

3.1. Risk of Bias

The majority of RCTs included in the study exhibited some concerns or a high risk of bias (50.8% vs. 37.7%, respectively). This was primarily attributed to the measurement methods for diabetic retinopathy complications, missing data, and the methods of analysis used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention. The analyzed RCTs mostly did not perform regular fundoscopy, and some of them did not have pre-defined ocular complications. Most of the studies assessed in domain 2 (effect of assignment to intervention) showed some concerns due to uncertainty about the validity of the method of adverse events analysis. A significant portion of RCTs analyzed adverse events using an as-treated approach. Additionally, six studies had a high risk of bias due to an open-label design. Finally, only seven studies were assessed as low risk. RoB individual study ratings are available in Table S2.

3.2. Certainty Assessment

Assessments of certainty are presented in Table S3. Five out of twelve outcomes were graded as moderate certainty, and the rest were graded as low or very low. Indirectness was rated as serious in every outcome because most of the included RCTs differed in terms of background therapy and ophthalmic events, which were collected from adverse event summaries. Imprecision was assessed based on the absolute effect, as the analyzed trials had large populations and low event rates.

3.3. Pairwise Meta-Analysis

The results of the meta-analysis results did not reveal a significant difference in the risk of DR events between any drug group and placebo (Table 2 and Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure S2). Sub-analysis was performed for drugs with three or more RCTs (Figures S3–S10). Empagliflozin was associated with a lower risk of DR compared to placebo (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.17, 0.88, p = 0.02); however, this sub-analysis included only three RCTs. SGLT-2i was not compared to GLP-1RA or DPP-4i due to the limited number of studies available for each comparison (one and two studies, respectively).

3.4. Heterogeneity Analysis

Strong heterogeneity was identified when comparing GLP-1RA to DPP-4i (I2 = 76.16%, p < 0.00). This is mainly due to the inclusion of the NCT01098539 study, which has an older population and a longer duration of diabetes compared to the other studies in this group (mean age at baseline 63.3 years vs. 55.6 years, mean duration at baseline 11.23 years vs. 7.3 years). The meta-regression results described below indicate that higher values of these two factors are associated with a lower risk of DR incidents with GLP-1RA when compared to DPP-4i. This relationship remains significant even after removing the NCT01098539 study from the analysis. While heterogeneity was also elevated in the Semaglutide vs. placebo comparison, it did not reach statistical significance (I2 = 37.88%, p = 0.12).

3.5. Publication Bias

Based on Egger’s test and visual inspection of the funnel plot, significant publication bias was found in Albiglutide vs. placebo (Egger p = 0.02), Linagliptin vs. placebo (Egger p = 0.24), and Liraglutide vs. placebo (Egger p = 0.28) comparisons. However, it is worth mentioning that these are analyses with a small number of studies (each less than 10 RCTs).

3.6. Sensitivity Analysis

In the sensitivity analysis, we assessed whether the inclusion of individual studies would result in a change in OR of DR incidents. When comparing DPP-4i with placebo, the exclusion of the CARMELINA trial would lead to a higher risk of DR incidents with DPP-4i use compared to placebo (OR 1.26; CI 95% 1.05, 1.53; p = 0.02). Additionally, when comparing Semaglutide vs. placebo, removal of the PIONEER 9 study would have resulted in a statistically significant increased risk of DR complications with Semaglutide, compared with placebo (OR 1.30; CI 95% 1.05, 1.60; p = 0.01). For the sub-analyses of the SGLT2 group, empagliflozin vs. placebo, sensitivity analysis also identified studies whose removal would significantly alter the outcomes. However, these are groups with a small number of studies (three).

3.7. Regression Analysis

A multivariate and univariate meta-regression of 44 RCTs found that there was no effect of the difference in HbA1C change between intervention and placebo, HbA1C on baseline, diabetes duration, age, or BMI on the risk of DR complications (Table S4). In univariate sub-analysis, a higher BMI at baseline was associated with an increased risk of DR complications in GLP-1RA use (Table S5). Additionally, a smaller difference in HbA1C change between DPP-4i and placebo use was linked to a higher risk of DR complications in DPP-4i use (Table S6). SGLT-2 inhibitors showed higher DR risk with higher HbA1C level at the start of the therapy (Table S7), and when comparing GLP-1RA to DPP-4i, older age and longer duration of diabetes at baseline lowered the DR risk in favor of the GLP-1RA group (Tables S8 and S9). Studies with missing data were excluded. Other sub-analyses were not included as they did not show a significant effect of the analyzed variables on the risk of DR incidents.

4. Discussion

Data from 61 RCTs involving a total of 188,463 patients and 2773 DR incidents were analyzed in our study. The analysis did not reveal an increased risk of DR events with the use of any drug group. The use of empagliflozin showed a potential association with a lowered risk of DR, but this finding is based on a sub-analysis involving only three RCTs. Further research with a larger number of studies in this subgroup may alter this observation.

4.1. SGLT-2i

The cardiovascular effects of SGLT-2i have garnered substantial attention, particularly through clinical trials like EMPA-REG OUTCOME, CANVAS, and DECLARE-TIMI 58, which demonstrated reductions in cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure during SGLT-2i use [33,36,38]. These benefits are thought to be associated with their diuretic and natriuretic effects [75]. Additionally, SGLT-2i appears to exert protective effects on vascular endothelial function, potentially benefiting retinal health by enhancing glycemic control, managing hypertension and hyperlipidemia, and protecting the blood–retinal barrier and retinal capillaries [76]. Indeed, rodent studies have shown the beneficial effects of SGLT-2i on ophthalmic complications of diabetes, and human studies indicated the ability to reduce diabetic macular edema [77,78,79,80]. However, in our study, we did not observe a lower risk of DR complications with SGLT-2i use. These findings align with the meta-analysis and systematic review by Li et al., which also found no evidence of SGLT-2i providing benefits in reducing DR incidents or total ocular events in patients with type 2 diabetes [11]. The result of the meta-analysis by Zhou et al. partially supports this observation; compared to other antidiabetic drugs or placebo, the use of SGLT-2i was not associated with a reduction in the overall number of ocular complications in DM2 patients. However, subgroup analysis suggested that Ertugliflozin and Empagliflozin may reduce the risk of retinal disease and DR, accordingly. Canagliflozin, on the other hand, may increase the risk of vitreous disease compared to placebo [9]. Our study results are in agreement with the beneficial effect of Empagliflozin use, as the risk of DR complications was lower when compared to placebo. Unlike the aforementioned study published by Zhou et al., DR events were analyzed together and were not grouped, so the lack of effect of Canagliflozin on DR complications remains consistent with the results. It is important to note that our study included only one RCT on Ertugliflozin, so we did not perform a sub-analysis for this drug.

4.2. GLP-1RA

The effect of GLP-1RA extends beyond glycemic control alone, as GLP-1 receptors are present in many tissues, including the brain and heart [81]. Studies have also shown a protective effect on the retina by accelerating its regeneration and inhibiting the progression of DR [82,83]. Puddu et al. and Dorecka et al. detected GLP-1 receptors on the retinal pigment epithelium, suggesting a potential mechanism for the positive effect on reducing DR complications [84,85]. Additionally, Zhou et al. and Fu et al. showed a protective effect of GLP-1RA on retinal ganglion cells under conditions of high glucose levels [86]. However, not all studies agree with the protective effect of GLP-1RA on the diabetic retina. Hebsgaard et al. showed that GLP-1R expression is low in healthy eyes and virtually absent in eyes affected by proliferative diabetic retinopathy [87]. In our study, we did not show a higher risk of DR incidents with GLP-1 RA use compared to placebo. This result is consistent with previously performed meta-analyses of RCTs [12,13,14]. The exception was the study by Avgerinos et al., where the use of GLP-1RA was linked to a higher risk of vitreous hemorrhage [10]. The SUSTAIN 6 trial indicated a significantly higher rate of retinopathy complications in the Semaglutide group compared to placebo [6]. However, when analyzing the SUSTAIN 1–5 and Japanese trials, no significant difference was demonstrated when compared to the control groups. The authors of this analysis suggested that this phenomenon in the SUSTAIN 6 study might be attributed to a rapid reduction in HbA1C during the initial 16 weeks in patients treated with Semaglutide and insulin, particularly those already suffering from retinopathy with poor glycemic control [7]. In our study, we did not observe a higher risk of DR incidents associated with the use of Semaglutide compared to placebo.

4.3. DPP-4i

DPP-4i is suspected to have effects on the cardiovascular system and vascular endothelium [88]. Studies in rodents have indicated that DPP-4i may demonstrate retinoprotective effects [89,90]. Sitagliptin has been shown to have a beneficial effect on endothelial cell function during retinal inflammation [91]. For DPP-4i, their effect after topical administration in the form of eye drops is also being studied. Ramos et al. demonstrated the anti-oxidative and anti-inflammatory effects of topical administration of sitagliptin in diabetic retina [92]. However, some authors disagree on the protective effect of DPP-4i. Studies have suggested that prolonged use of DPP-4 inhibitors may induce vascular leakage, possibly by destabilizing barriers formed by retinal endothelial cells [93,94]. In a cohort study published in 2018, the use of DPP-4i did not result in a higher risk of DR incidents compared to other oral antidiabetic drugs at longer follow-up. Nonetheless, with a shorter duration of use (less than 12 months), the risk of DR complications was higher than in the never-use DPP-4i control group [95]. In a retrospective study, Chung et al. were among the first to show that the use of DPP-4i was an independent inhibitor of DR progression compared to the other antidiabetic drugs included in the study. However, this study included only eighty-two participants [96]. In another larger study, the authors demonstrated that DPP-4i did not increase the risk of DR progression compared to sulphonylureas [97]. In 2020, Taylor et al. published a meta-analysis of 18 studies, including RCTs, to determine the effect of DPP-4i on microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes. Among the data analyzed, there was no significant evidence of a protective effect of DPP-4i on the onset and progression of DR [98]. Consistent with these findings, our study also did not find an association between the use of DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of DR incidents. In 2018, Tang et al. published a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs considering older and new antidiabetic drugs and their impact on DR complications in patients with DM2. Their pairwise meta-analysis indicated that the use of DPP-4i was associated with a higher risk of DR incidents compared to placebo. However, they suggested that this association was largely influenced by the inclusion of the TECOS trial and speculated that with the inclusion of more studies, this relationship might become statistically nonsignificant [99]. In our study, we included a larger number of RCTs and, as predicted by Tang et al., did not confirm this relationship. Our results are consistent concerning the other drug groups studied by the authors, where we also did not find any statistically significant difference in DR risk with the use of any drug group compared to placebo.

4.4. GLP-1RA vs. DPP-4i

We have found no association between GLP1-RA use and the risk of DR incidents when compared to DPP-4i. This result agrees with a cohort study that integrated data from Sweden and Denmark, which compared the risk of DR incidents in patients with a history of DR after their first prescription of GLP1-RA and DPP-4i. The authors found no association between the use of GLP-1RA and DR complications, with DPP-4i as an active comparator [100]. As there is no strong evidence of a higher risk of DR with either drug use, our result appears to be consistent with the available data.

4.5. Meta-Regression Analysis

In our study, the effect of the difference in HbA1C change between intervention and placebo on the risk of DR incidents was only demonstrated with DPP-4i use, where a greater reduction of HbA1C in the intervention group was associated with a lower risk of DR incidents. Previously, the opposite-worsening of DR was related to greater efficacy in lowering HbA1c by GLP-1RA [14]. HbA1C concentration was also significant in SGLT-2i vs. placebo comparison, where higher HbA1C on baseline resulted in higher DR risk in SGLT-2i use. This mechanism highlights the impact of high glycemia on ocular complications. In addition, we have demonstrated that there was also a higher DR risk during GLP-1RA use in patients with higher BMI. The association of BMI with DR complications has been previously described; however, results remain controversial [101,102,103]. GLP-1RA and DPP-4i comparison showed strong heterogeneity. It may be explained by our meta-regression results, which showed that older age and longer duration of diabetes on baseline were related to lower DR risk in the GLP-RA group and higher in DPP-4i. The lack of significant correlations when considering all included RCTs may be attributed to the different mechanisms of action of drug groups or the limited number of studies analyzed.

4.6. Strengths and Limitations

Strengths: The study includes a significant number of 61 RCTs and a large population of 188,463 subjects. In addition, the meta-regression performed allowed us to determine the effect of additional factors on the risk of DR with the use of the studied drug groups. In the subgroup analysis, we determined the risk of DR when using specific drugs, not only whole groups. Limitations: A notable limitation of our study is that the majority of included trials were primarily designed to evaluate the impact of tested drugs on cardiovascular events or glycemic control. Detailed fundoscopic examinations were conducted in only 19 of the included studies. DR endpoints came primarily from adverse events reporting, which may cause the number of DR events to be significantly underreported. Most of the studies did not report data on pre-existing retinopathy, so we could not explore tested drug effects in this population. As we included less than three studies, each comparing SGLT-2i with DPP-4i and GLP-1RA, we were not able to compare these drug groups.

5. Conclusions

In light of currently available knowledge, it is challenging to conclude that the new antidiabetic drugs differ significantly in their effect on diabetic retinopathy complications. The available data suggest a potential decrease in the risk of diabetic retinopathy incidents with empagliflozin use, but more studies are needed to confirm this observation. Controlling glycemia may offer potential benefits in reducing this risk when using incretin-based drugs and SGLT-2i, and using GLP-1RA in older populations may be beneficial compared to using DPP-4i. Studies show potential mechanisms by which these drugs could protect the retina, but most of the available randomized trials do not support these statements and do not include a detailed ophthalmic evaluation. Further RCTs, including detailed ophthalmic evaluation, are required to assess the impact of new antidiabetic drugs on diabetic retinopathy accurately. This is particularly important in light of their increasing use and the growing number of people suffering from diabetes.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm13061797/s1, Text S1: Search strategy; Text S2: Diabetic retinopathy related adverse events; Figure S1: Prisma flow diagram; Table S1: HbA1C on baseline and its change at the end of the study; Table S2: Risk of bias assessment; Table S3: Certainty assessment; Figure S2: Pairwise meta-analysis, GLP-1RA vs. DPP-4i [21,28,29,47,64,72]; Figure S3: Pairwise meta-analysis, Semaglutide vs. placebo [6,20,22,61,62,63,71,73,74]; Figure S4: Pairwise meta-analysis, Liraglutide vs. placebo [25,65,66,69]; Figure S5: Pairwise meta-analysis, Albiglutide vs. placebo [24,26,47]; Figure S6: Pairwise meta-analysis, Lixisenatide vs. placebo [27,30,49,52,55,57]; Figure S7: Pairwise meta-analysis, Linagliptin vs. placebo [37,39,44,56]; Figure S8: Pairwise meta-analysis, Saxagliptin vs. placebo [40,43,45,50]; Figure S9: Pairwise meta-analysis, Canagliflozin vs. placebo [34,38]; Figure S10: Pairwise meta-analysis, Empagliflozin vs. placebo [33,42,70]; Table S4: Meta-regression of prespecified trials characteristics on odds ratio of diabetic retinopathy incidents. Multivariate model; Table S5: Meta-regression of prespecified trials characteristics on odds ratio of diabetic retinopathy incidents. Univariate model. GLP-1RA vs. placebo; Table S6: Meta-regression of prespecified trials characteristics on odds ratio of diabetic retinopathy incidents. Univariate model. DPP-4i vs. placebo; Table S7: Meta-regression of prespecified trials characteristics on odds ratio of diabetic retinopathy incidents. Univariate model. SGLT-2i vs. placebo; Table S8: Meta-regression of prespecified trials characteristics on odds ratio of diabetic retinopathy incidents. Univariate model. GLP-1RA vs. DPP-4i; Table S9: Meta-regression of prespecified trials characteristics on odds ratio of diabetic retinopathy incidents. Univariate model. GLP-1RA vs. DPP-4i; Figure S11: Prisma checklist. Part 1 [16]; Figure S12: Prisma checklist. Part 2 [16].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.M., U.S.-P., J.P.-D. and M.M.-H.; methodology, A.M., J.P.-D. and M.M.-H.; formal analysis A.M., J.P.-D. and U.S.-P.; investigation, A.M. and J.P.-D.; resources, A.M. and J.P.-D.; data curation, A.M., J.P.-D. and U.S.-P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.M.; writing—review and editing, A.M., J.P.-D. and U.S.-P.; visualization, A.M.; supervision, M.M.-H. and J.P.-D.; project administration, A.M.; funding acquisition, A.M., J.P.-D. and M.M.-H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Yau, J.W.Y.; Rogers, S.L.; Kawasaki, R.; Lamoureux, E.L.; Kowalski, J.W.; Bek, T.; Chen, S.-J.; Dekker, J.M.; Fletcher, A.; Grauslund, J.; et al. Global Prevalence and Major Risk Factors of Diabetic Retinopathy. Diabetes Care 2012, 35, 556–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ding, H.; Triggle, C.R. Endothelial dysfunction in diabetes: Multiple targets for treatment. Pflugers Arch. Eur. J. Physiol. 2010, 459, 977–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ayaori, M.; Iwakami, N.; Uto-Kondo, H.; Sato, H.; Sasaki, M.; Komatsu, T.; Iizuka, M.; Takiguchi, S.; Yakushiji, E.; Nakaya, K.; et al. Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors Attenuate Endothelial Function as Evaluated by Flow-Mediated Vasodilatation in Type 2 Diabetic Patients. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2013, 2, e003277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ding, H.; Ye, K.; Triggle, C.R. Impact of currently used anti-diabetic drugs on myoendothelial communication. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 2019, 45, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Menghini, R. GLP-1RAs and cardiovascular disease: Is the endothelium a relevant platform? Acta Diabetol. 2023, 60, 1441–1448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Marso, S.P.; Bain, S.C.; Consoli, A.; Eliaschewitz, F.G.; Jódar, E.; Leiter, L.A.; Lingvay, I.; Rosenstock, J.; Seufert, J.; Warren, M.L.; et al. Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 375, 1834–1844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Vilsbøll, T.; Bain, S.C.; Leiter, L.A.; Lingvay, I.; Matthews, D.; Simó, R.; Helmark, I.C.; Wijayasinghe, N.; Larsen, M. Semaglutide, reduction in glycated haemoglobin and the risk of diabetic retinopathy. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2018, 20, 889–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bethel, M.A.; Diaz, R.; Castellana, N.; Bhattacharya, I.; Gerstein, H.C.; Lakshmanan, M.C. HbA1c Change and Diabetic Retinopathy During GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Cardiovascular Outcome Trials: A Meta-analysis and Meta-regression. Diabetes Care 2021, 44, 290–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhou, B.; Shi, Y.; Fu, R.; Ni, H.; Gu, L.; Si, Y.; Zhang, M.; Jiang, K.; Shen, J.; Li, X.; et al. Relationship Between SGLT-2i and Ocular Diseases in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Front. Endocrinol. 2022, 13, 907340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Avgerinos, I.; Karagiannis, T.; Malandris, K.; Liakos, A.; Mainou, M.; Bekiari, E.; Matthews, D.R.; Tsapas, A. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2019, 21, 188–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, C.; Zhou, Z.; Neuen, B.L.; Yu, J.; Huang, Y.; Young, T.; Li, J.; Li, L.; Perkovic, V.; Jardine, M.J.; et al. Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibition and ocular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2021, 23, 252–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Zhang, X.; Shao, F.; Zhu, L.; Ze, Y.; Zhu, D.; Bi, Y. Cardiovascular and microvascular outcomes of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled cardiovascular outcome trials with trial sequential analysis. BMC Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2018, 19, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Wei, J.; Yang, B.; Wang, R.; Ye, H.; Wang, Y.; Wang, L.; Zhang, X. Risk of stroke and retinopathy during GLP-1 receptor agonist cardiovascular outcome trials: An eight RCTs meta-analysis. Front. Endocrinol. 2022, 13, 1007980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Gargiulo, P.; Savarese, G.; D’Amore, C.; De Martino, F.; Lund, L.; Marsico, F.; Dellegrottaglie, S.; Marciano, C.; Trimarco, B.; Perrone-Filardi, P. Efficacy and safety of glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists on macrovascular and microvascular events in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis. Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2017, 27, 1081–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Teo, Z.L.; Tham, Y.-C.; Yu, M.; Chee, M.L.; Rim, T.H.; Cheung, N.; Bikbov, M.M.; Wang, Y.X.; Tang, Y.; Lu, Y.; et al. Global Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy and Projection of Burden through 2045. Ophthalmology 2021, 128, 1580–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ouzzani, M.; Hammady, H.; Fedorowicz, Z.; Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2016, 5, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sterne, J.A.C.; Savović, J.; Page, M.J.; Elbers, R.G.; Blencowe, N.S.; Boutron, I.; Cates, C.J.; Cheng, H.Y.; Corbett, M.S.; Eldridge, S.M.; et al. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019, 366, l4898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Schumemann, H.; Brożek, J.; Guyatt, G.; Oxman, A. (Eds.) GRADE Handbook for Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations; Updated October 2013. 2013. Available online: http://guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook (accessed on 9 January 2024).
  20. Husain, M.; Birkenfeld, A.L.; Donsmark, M.; Dungan, K.; Eliaschewitz, F.G.; Franco, D.R.; Jeppesen, O.K.; Lingvay, I.; Mosenzon, O.; Pedersen, S.D.; et al. Oral Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 381, 841–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rosenstock, J.; Allison, D.; Birkenfeld, A.L.; Blicher, T.M.; Deenadayalan, S.; Jacobsen, J.B.; Serusclat, P.; Violante, R.; Watada, H.; Davies, M. Effect of Additional Oral Semaglutide vs Sitagliptin on Glycated Hemoglobin in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled with Metformin Alone or with Sulfonylurea: The PIONEER 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2019, 321, 1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zinman, B.; Bhosekar, V.; Busch, R.; Holst, I.; Ludvik, B.; Thielke, D.; Thrasher, J.; Woo, V.; Philis-Tsimikas, A. Semaglutide once weekly as add-on to SGLT-2 inhibitor therapy in type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 9): A randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019, 7, 356–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Gerstein, H.C.; Colhoun, H.M.; Dagenais, G.R.; Diaz, R.; Lakshmanan, M.; Pais, P.; Probstfield, J.; Riesmeyer, J.S.; Riddle, M.C.; Rydén, L.; et al. Dulaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes (REWIND): A double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2019, 394, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Nauck, M.A.; Stewart, M.W.; Perkins, C.; Jones-Leone, A.; Yang, F.; Perry, C.; Reinhardt, R.R.; Rendell, M. Efficacy and safety of once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist albiglutide (HARMONY 2): 52 week primary endpoint results from a randomised, placebo-controlled trial in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with diet and exercise. Diabetologia 2016, 59, 266–2744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Marso, S.P.; Daniels, G.H.; Brown-Frandsen, K.; Kristensen, P.; Mann, J.F.E.; Nauck, M.A.; Nissen, S.E.; Pocock, S.; Poulter, N.R.; Ravn, L.S.; et al. Liraglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 375, 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hernandez, A.F.; Green, J.B.; Janmohamed, S.; D’Agostino, R.B.; Granger, C.B.; Jones, N.P.; Leiter, L.A.; Rosenberg, A.E.; Sigmon, K.N.; Somerville, M.C.; et al. Albiglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Harmony Outcomes): A double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2018, 392, 1519–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pinget, M.; Goldenberg, R.; Niemoeller, E.; Muehlen-Bartmer, I.; Guo, H.; Aronson, R. Efficacy and safety of lixisenatide once daily versus placebo in type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled on pioglitazone (GetGoal-P). Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2013, 15, 1000–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ji, L.; Dong, X.; Li, Y.; Li, Y.; Lim, S.; Liu, M.; Ning, Z.; Rasmussen, S.; Skjøth, T.V.; Yuan, G.; et al. Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus once-daily sitagliptin as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes in SUSTAIN China: A 30-week, double-blind, phase 3a, randomized trial. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2021, 23, 404–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pratley, R.E.; Nauck, M.; Bailey, T.; Montanya, E.; Cuddihy, R.; Filetti, S.; Thomsen, A.B.; Søndergaard, R.E.; Davies, M. Liraglutide versus sitagliptin for patients with type 2 diabetes who did not have adequate glycaemic control with metformin: A 26-week, randomised, parallel-group, open-label trial. Lancet 2010, 375, 1447–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pfeffer, M.A.; Claggett, B.; Diaz, R.; Dickstein, K.; Gerstein, H.C.; Køber, L.V.; Lawson, F.C.; Ping, L.; Wei, X.; Lewis, E.F.; et al. Lixisenatide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Acute Coronary Syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 373, 2247–2257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Son, C.; Makino, H.; Kasahara, M.; Tanaka, T.; Nishimura, K.; Taneda, S.; Nishimura, T.; Kasama, S.; Ogawa, Y.; Miyamoto, Y.; et al. Comparison of efficacy between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor and sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor on metabolic risk factors in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: Results from the CANTABILE study. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2021, 180, 109037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Rodbard, H.W.; Rosenstock, J.; Canani, L.H.; Deerochanawong, C.; Gumprecht, J.; Lindberg, S.Ø.; Lingvay, I.; Søndergaard, A.L.; Treppendahl, M.B.; Montanya, E.; et al. Oral Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled on Metformin: The PIONEER 2 Trial. Diabetes Care 2019, 42, 2272–2281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Zinman, B.; Wanner, C.; Lachin, J.M.; Fitchett, D.; Bluhmki, E.; Hantel, S.; Mattheus, M.; Devins, T.; Johansen, O.E.; Woerle, H.J.; et al. Empagliflozin, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 373, 2117–2128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Perkovic, V.; Jardine, M.J.; Neal, B.; Bompoint, S.; Heerspink, H.J.; Charytan, D.M.; Edwards, R.; Agarwal, R.; Bakris, G.; Bull, S.; et al. Canagliflozin and Renal Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes and Nephropathy. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 380, 2295–2306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Cannon, C.P.; Pratley, R.; Dagogo-Jack, S.; Mancuso, J.; Huyck, S.; Masiukiewicz, U.; Charbonnel, B.; Frederich, R.; Gallo, S.; Cosentino, F.; et al. Cardiovascular Outcomes with Ertugliflozin in Type 2 Diabetes. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 383, 1425–1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Wiviott, S.D.; Raz, I.; Bonaca, M.P.; Mosenzon, O.; Kato, E.T.; Cahn, A.; Silverman, M.G.; Zelniker, T.A.; Kuder, J.F.; Murphy, S.A.; et al. Dapagliflozin and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 380, 347–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rosenstock, J.; Perkovic, V.; Johansen, O.E.; Cooper, M.E.; Kahn, S.E.; Marx, N.; Alexander, J.H.; Pencina, M.; Toto, R.D.; Wanner, C.; et al. Effect of Linagliptin vs Placebo on Major Cardiovascular Events in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes and High Cardiovascular and Renal Risk: The CARMELINA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2019, 321, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Neal, B.; Perkovic, V.; Mahaffey, K.W.; De Zeeuw, D.; Fulcher, G.; Erondu, N.; Shaw, W.; Law, G.; Desai, M.; Matthews, D.R. Canagliflozin and Cardiovascular and Renal Events in Type 2 Diabetes. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 377, 644–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ledesma, G.; Umpierrez, G.E.; Morley, J.E.; Lewis-D’Agostino, D.; Keller, A.; Meinicke, T.; van der Walt, S.; von Eynatten, M. Efficacy and safety of linagliptin to improve glucose control in older people with type 2 diabetes on stable insulin therapy: A randomized trial. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2019, 21, 2465–2473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Barnett, A.H.; Charbonnel, B.; Donovan, M.; Fleming, D. Effect of saxagliptin as add-on therapy in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes on insulin alone or insulin combined with metformin. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2012, 28, 513–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. White, W.B.; Cannon, C.P.; Heller, S.R.; Nissen, S.E.; Bergenstal, R.M.; Bakris, G.L.; Perez, A.T.; Fleck, P.R.; Mehta, C.R.; Kupfer, S.; et al. Alogliptin after Acute Coronary Syndrome in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 369, 1327–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kovacs, C.S.; Seshiah, V.; Merker, L.; Christiansen, A.V.; Roux, F.; Salsali, A.; Kim, G.; Stella, P.; Woerle, H.-J.; Broedl, U.C. Empagliflozin as Add-on Therapy to Pioglitazone with or without Metformin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Clin. Ther. 2015, 37, 1773–1788.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dou, J.; Ma, J.; Liu, J.; Wang, C.; Johnsson, E.; Yao, H.; Zhao, J.; Pan, C. Efficacy and safety of saxagliptin in combination with metformin as initial therapy in C hinese patients with type 2 diabetes: R esults from the START study, a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 trial. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2018, 20, 590–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yki-Järvinen, H.; Rosenstock, J.; Durán-Garcia, S.; Pinnetti, S.; Bhattacharya, S.; Thiemann, S.; Patel, S.; Woerle, H.-J. Effects of Adding Linagliptin to Basal Insulin Regimen for Inadequately Controlled Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2013, 36, 3875–3881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Chen, Y.; Liu, X.; Li, Q.; Ma, J.; Lv, X.; Guo, L.; Wang, C.; Shi, Y.; Li, Y.; Johnsson, E.; et al. Saxagliptin add-on therapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by insulin with or without metformin: Results from the SUPER study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2018, 20, 1044–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Frias, J.P.; Choi, J.; Rosenstock, J.; Popescu, L.; Niemoeller, E.; Muehlen-Bartmer, I.; Baek, S. Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Efpeglenatide Monotherapy Versus Placebo in Type 2 Diabetes: The AMPLITUDE-M Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Care 2022, 45, 1592–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Ahrén, B.; Johnson, S.L.; Stewart, M.; Cirkel, D.T.; Yang, F.; Perry, C.; Feinglos, M.N. HARMONY 3: 104-Week Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo- and Active-Controlled Trial Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Albiglutide Compared with Placebo, Sitagliptin, and Glimepiride in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Taking Metformin. Diabetes Care 2014, 37, 2141–2148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bhatt, D.L.; Szarek, M.; Pitt, B.; Cannon, C.P.; Leiter, L.A.; McGuire, D.K.; Lewis, J.B.; Riddle, M.C.; Inzucchi, S.E.; Kosiborod, M.N.; et al. Sotagliflozin in Patients with Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 384, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Riddle, M.C.; Aronson, R.; Home, P.; Marre, M.; Niemoeller, E.; Miossec, P.; Ping, L.; Ye, J.; Rosenstock, J. Adding Once-Daily Lixisenatide for Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled by Established Basal Insulin. Diabetes Care 2013, 36, 2489–2496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Scirica, B.M.; Bhatt, D.L.; Braunwald, E.; Steg, P.G.; Davidson, J.; Hirshberg, B.; Ohman, P.; Frederich, R.; Wiviott, S.D.; Hoffman, E.B.; et al. Saxagliptin and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 369, 1317–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Gerstein, H.C.; Sattar, N.; Rosenstock, J.; Ramasundarahettige, C.; Pratley, R.; Lopes, R.D.; Lam, C.S.; Khurmi, N.S.; Heenan, L.; Del Prato, S.; et al. Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes with Efpeglenatide in Type 2 Diabetes. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 385, 896–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Seino, Y.; Min, K.W.; Niemoeller, E.; Takami, A.; on behalf of the EFC10887 GETGOAL-L Asia Study Investigators. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the once-daily GLP -1 receptor agonist lixisenatide in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled on basal insulin with or without a sulfonylurea (GetGoal -L-Asia). Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2012, 14, 910–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Gantz, I.; Chen, M.; Suryawanshi, S.; Ntabadde, C.; Shah, S.; O’neill, E.A.; Engel, S.S.; Kaufman, K.D.; Lai, E. A randomized, placebo-controlled study of the cardiovascular safety of the once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor omarigliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cardiovasc. Diabetol. 2017, 16, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Green, J.B.; Bethel, M.A.; Armstrong, P.W.; Buse, J.B.; Engel, S.S.; Garg, J.; Josse, R.; Kaufman, K.D.; Koglin, J.; Korn, S.; et al. Effect of Sitagliptin on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 373, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Rosenstock, J.; Hanefeld, M.; Shamanna, P.; Min, K.W.; Boka, G.; Miossec, P.; Zhou, T.; Muehlen-Bartmer, I.; Ratner, R.E. Beneficial effects of once-daily lixisenatide on overall and postprandial glycemic levels without significant excess of hypoglycemia in Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on a sulfonylurea with or without metformin (GetGoal-S). J. Diabetes Its Complicat. 2014, 28, 386–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Owens, D.R.; Swallow, R.; Dugi, K.A.; Woerle, H.J. Efficacy and safety of linagliptin in persons with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by a combination of metformin and sulphonylurea: A 24-week randomized study1: Linagliptin added to metformin plus sulphonylurea in Type 2 diabetes. Diabet. Med. 2011, 28, 1352–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Ahrén, B.; Leguizamo Dimas, A.; Miossec, P.; Saubadu, S.; Aronson, R. Efficacy and Safety of Lixisenatide Once-Daily Morning or Evening Injections in Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled on Metformin (GetGoal-M). Diabetes Care 2013, 36, 2543–2550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Holman, R.R.; Bethel, M.A.; Mentz, R.J.; Thompson, V.P.; Lokhnygina, Y.; Buse, J.B.; Chan, J.C.; Choi, J.; Gustavson, S.M.; Iqbal, N.; et al. Effects of Once-Weekly Exenatide on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 377, 1228–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Matthews, D.R.; Paldánius, P.M.; Proot, P.; Chiang, Y.; Stumvoll, M.; Del Prato, S. Glycaemic durability of an early combination therapy with vildagliptin and metformin versus sequential metformin monotherapy in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (VERIFY): A 5-year, multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial. Lancet 2019, 394, 1519–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sugawara, M.; Fukuda, M.; Sakuma, I.; Wakasa, Y.; Funayama, H.; Kondo, A.; Itabashi, N.; Maruyama, Y.; Kamiyama, T.; Utsunomiya, Y.; et al. Overall Efficacy and Safety of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitor Luseogliflozin Versus Dipeptidyl-Peptidase 4 Inhibitors: Multicenter, Open-Label, Randomized-Controlled Trial (J-SELECT study). Diabetes Ther. 2023, 14, 1517–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Davies, M.; Færch, L.; Jeppesen, O.K.; Pakseresht, A.; Pedersen, S.D.; Perreault, L.; Rosenstock, J.; Shimomura, I.; Viljoen, A.; Wadden, T.A.; et al. Semaglutide 2·4 mg once a week in adults with overweight or obesity, and type 2 diabetes (STEP 2): A randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2021, 397, 971–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Zinman, B.; Aroda, V.R.; Buse, J.B.; Cariou, B.; Harris, S.B.; Hoff, S.T.; Pedersen, K.B.; Tarp-Johansen, M.J.; Araki, E.; Fikry, S.; et al. Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Oral Semaglutide Versus Placebo Added to Insulin with or without Metformin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: The PIONEER 8 Trial. Diabetes Care 2019, 42, 2262–2271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Aroda, V.R.; Rosenstock, J.; Terauchi, Y.; Altuntas, Y.; Lalic, N.M.; Villegas, E.C.M.; Jeppesen, O.K.; Christiansen, E.; Hertz, C.L.; Belkacem, K.; et al. PIONEER 1: Randomized Clinical Trial of the Efficacy and Safety of Oral Semaglutide Monotherapy in Comparison with Placebo in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2019, 42, 1724–1732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Seino, Y.; Terauchi, Y.; Osonoi, T.; Yabe, D.; Abe, N.; Nishida, T.; Zacho, J.; Kaneko, S. Safety and efficacy of semaglutide once weekly vs sitagliptin once daily, both as monotherapy in Japanese people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2018, 20, 378–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. On behalf of the Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes 5 (LEAD-5) met+SU Study Group; Russell-Jones, D.; Vaag, A.; Schmitz, O.; Sethi, B.K.; Lalic, N.; Antic, S.; Zdravkovic, M.; Ravn, G.M.; Simó, R. Liraglutide vs insulin glargine and placebo in combination with metformin and sulfonylurea therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus (LEAD-5 met+SU): A randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia 2009, 52, 2046–2055. [Google Scholar]
  66. Seino, Y.; Kaneko, S.; Fukuda, S.; Osonoi, T.; Shiraiwa, T.; Nishijima, K.; Bosch-Traberg, H.; Kaku, K. Combination therapy with liraglutide and insulin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A 36-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial. J. Diabetes Investig. 2016, 7, 565–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Wang, W.; Yan, X.; Cheng, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, R.; Deng, Y.; Ma, J.; Zhu, D. Efficacy and safety of adding once-weekly dulaglutide to basal insulin for inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes in Chinese patients (AWARD-CHN3): A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2023, 25, 3690–3699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Yang, W.; Han, P.; Min, K.; Wang, B.; Mansfield, T.; T’Joen, C.; Iqbal, N.; Johnsson, E.; Ptaszynska, A. Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes after metformin failure: A randomized controlled trial. J. Diabetes 2016, 8, 796–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Seino, Y.; Rasmussen, M.F.; Nishida, T.; Kaku, K. Glucagon-like peptide-1 analog liraglutide in combination with sulfonylurea safely improves blood glucose measures vs sulfonylurea monotherapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: Results of a 52-week, randomized, multicenter trial: Liraglutide plus SU vs SU alone. J. Diabetes Investig. 2011, 2, 280–286. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  70. Rosenstock, J.; Jelaska, A.; Zeller, C.; Kim, G.; Broedl, U.C.; Woerle, H.J. Impact of empagliflozin added on to basal insulin in type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin: A 78-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2015, 17, 936–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Yamada, Y.; Katagiri, H.; Hamamoto, Y.; Deenadayalan, S.; Navarria, A.; Nishijima, K.; Seino, Y.; Fukushima, Y.; Hisatomi, A.; Ide, Y.; et al. Dose-response, efficacy, and safety of oral semaglutide monotherapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (PIONEER 9): A 52-week, phase 2/3a, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020, 8, 377–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pieber, T.R.; Bode, B.; Mertens, A.; Cho, Y.M.; Christiansen, E.; Hertz, C.L.; Wallenstein, S.O.R.; Buse, J.B.; Akın, S.; Aladağ, N.; et al. Efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide with flexible dose adjustment versus sitagliptin in type 2 diabetes (PIONEER 7): A multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3a trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019, 7, 528–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Mosenzon, O.; Blicher, T.M.; Rosenlund, S.; Eriksson, J.W.; Heller, S.; Hels, O.H.; Pratley, R.; Sathyapalan, T.; Desouza, C.; Abramof, R.; et al. Efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate renal impairment (PIONEER 5): A placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3a trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019, 7, 515–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Rodbard, H.W.; Lingvay, I.; Reed, J.; de la Rosa, R.; Rose, L.; Sugimoto, D.; Araki, E.; Chu, P.-L.; Wijayasinghe, N.; Norwood, P. Semaglutide Added to Basal Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN 5): A Randomized, Controlled Trial. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2018, 103, 2291–2301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lopaschuk, G.D.; Verma, S. Mechanisms of Cardiovascular Benefits of Sodium Glucose Co-Transporter 2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors. JACC Basic Transl. Sci. 2020, 5, 632–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Sha, W.; Wen, S.; Chen, L.; Xu, B.; Lei, T.; Zhou, L. The Role of SGLT2 Inhibitor on the Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy. Pohlmann D, editor. J. Diabetes Res. 2020, 2020, 8867875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Luo, Q.; Leley, S.P.; Bello, E.; Dhami, H.; Mathew, D.; Bhatwadekar, A.D. Dapagliflozin protects neural and vascular dysfunction of the retina in diabetes. BMJ Open Diabetes Res. Care 2022, 10, e002801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gong, Q.; Zhang, R.; Wei, F.; Fang, J.; Zhang, J.; Sun, J.; Sun, Q.; Wang, H. SGLT2 inhibitor-empagliflozin treatment ameliorates diabetic retinopathy manifestations and exerts protective effects associated with augmenting branched chain amino acids catabolism and transportation in db/db mice. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2022, 152, 113222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Tatsumi, T.; Oshitari, T.; Takatsuna, Y.; Ishibashi, R.; Koshizaka, M.; Shiko, Y.; Baba, T.; Yokote, K.; Yamamoto, S. Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter 2 Inhibitors Reduce Macular Edema in Patients with Diabetes mellitus. Life 2022, 12, 692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hu, Y.; Xu, Q.; Li, H.; Meng, Z.; Hao, M.; Ma, X.; Lin, W.; Kuang, H. Dapagliflozin Reduces Apoptosis of Diabetic Retina and Human Retinal Microvascular Endothelial Cells Through ERK1/2/cPLA2/AA/ROS Pathway Independent of Hypoglycemic. Front. Pharmacol. 2022, 13, 827896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Zhao, X.; Wang, M.; Wen, Z.; Lu, Z.; Cui, L.; Fu, C.; Xue, H.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y. GLP-1 Receptor Agonists: Beyond Their Pancreatic Effects. Front. Endocrinol. 2021, 12, 721135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Pang, B.; Zhou, H.; Kuang, H. The potential benefits of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists for diabetic retinopathy. Peptides 2018, 100, 123–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Cai, X.; Li, J.; Wang, M.; She, M.; Tang, Y.; Li, J.; Li, H.; Hui, H. GLP-1 Treatment Improves Diabetic Retinopathy by Alleviating Autophagy through GLP-1R-ERK1/2-HDAC6 Signaling Pathway. Int. J. Med. Sci. 2017, 14, 1203–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Puddu, A.; Sanguineti, R.; Montecucco, F.; Viviani, G.L. Retinal Pigment Epithelial Cells Express a Functional Receptor for Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1). Mediat. Inflamm. 2013, 2013, 975032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Dorecka, M.; Siemianowicz, K.; Francuz, T.; Garczorz, W.; Chyra, A.; Klych, A.; Romaniuk, W. Exendin-4 and GLP-1 decreases induced expression of ICAM-1, VCAM-1 and RAGE in human retinal pigment epithelial cells. Pharmacol. Rep. 2013, 65, 884–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Zhou, H.R.; Ma, X.F.; Lin, W.J.; Hao, M.; Yu, X.Y.; Li, H.X.; Xu, C.Y.; Kuang, H.Y. Neuroprotective Role of GLP-1 Analog for Retinal Ganglion Cells via PINK1/Parkin-Mediated Mitophagy in Diabetic Retinopathy. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 11, 589114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Hebsgaard, J.B.; Pyke, C.; Yildirim, E.; Knudsen, L.B.; Heegaard, S.; Kvist, P.H. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor expression in the human eye. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2018, 20, 2304–2308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Mulvihill, E.E.; Drucker, D.J. Pharmacology, Physiology, and Mechanisms of Action of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors. Endocr. Rev. 2014, 35, 992–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Jung, E.; Kim, J.; Kim, C.S.; Kim, S.H.; Cho, M.H. Gemigliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, inhibits retinal pericyte injury in db/db mice and retinal neovascularization in mice with ischemic retinopathy. Biochim. Et Biophys. Acta (BBA)—Mol. Basis Dis. 2015, 1852, 2618–2629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Gonçalves, A.; Leal, E.; Paiva, A.; Lemos, E.T.; Teixeira, F.; Ribeiro, C.F.; Reis, F.; Ambrósio, A.F.; Fernandes, R. Protective effects of the dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor sitagliptin in the blood-retinal barrier in a type 2 diabetes animal model. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2012, 14, 454–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Gonçalves, A.; Almeida, L.; Silva, A.P.; Fontes-Ribeiro, C.; Ambrósio, A.F.; Cristóvão, A.; Fernandes, R. The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin ameliorates retinal endothelial cell dysfunction triggered by inflammation. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2018, 102, 833–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ramos, H.; Bogdanov, P.; Huerta, J.; Deàs-Just, A.; Hernández, C.; Simó, R. Antioxidant Effects of DPP-4 Inhibitors in Early Stages of Experimental Diabetic Retinopathy. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Lee, C.-S.; Kim, Y.G.; Cho, H.-J.; Park, J.; Jeong, H.; Lee, S.-E.; Lee, S.-P.; Kang, H.-J.; Kim, H.-S. Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor Increases Vascular Leakage in Retina through VE-cadherin Phosphorylation. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 29393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Jäckle, A.; Ziemssen, F.; Kuhn, E.-M.; Kampmeier, J.; Lang, G.K.; Lang, G.E.; Deissler, H.; Deissler, H.L. Sitagliptin and the Blood-Retina Barrier: Effects on Retinal Endothelial Cells Manifested Only after Prolonged Exposure. J. Diabetes Res. 2020, 2020, 2450781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Kim, N.H.; Choi, J.; Choi, K.M.; Baik, S.H.; Lee, J.; Kim, S.G. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor use and risk of diabetic retinopathy: A population-based study. Diabetes Metab. 2018, 44, 361–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Chung, Y.R.; Park, S.W.; Kim, J.W.; Kim, J.H.; Lee, K. Protective effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors on progression of diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Retina 2016, 36, 2357–2363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Chung, Y.R.; Ha, K.H.; Kim, H.C.; Park, S.J.; Lee, K.; Kim, D.J. Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors versus Other Antidiabetic Drugs Added to Metformin Monotherapy in Diabetic Retinopathy Progression: A Real World-Based Cohort Study. Diabetes Metab. J. 2019, 43, 640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Taylor, O.M.; Lam, C. The Effect of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors on Macrovascular and Microvascular Complications of Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review. Curr. Ther. Res. 2020, 93, 100596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Tang, H.; Li, G.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, F.; Gower, E.W.; Shi, L.; Wang, T. Comparisons of diabetic retinopathy events associated with glucose-lowering drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A network meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2018, 20, 1262–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ueda, P.; Pasternak, B.; Eliasson, B.; Svensson, A.-M.; Franzén, S.; Gudbjörnsdottir, S.; Hveem, K.; Jonasson, C.; Melbye, M.; Svanström, H. Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists and Risk of Diabetic Retinopathy Complications: Cohort Study in Nationwide Registers from Two Countries. Diabetes Care 2019, 42, e92–e94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Zheng, C.; Wei, X.; Cao, X. The causal effect of obesity on diabetic retinopathy: A two-sample Mendelian randomization study. Front. Endocrinol. 2023, 14, 1108731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Zhou, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Shi, K.; Wang, C. Body mass index and risk of diabetic retinopathy: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Medicine 2017, 96, e6754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Zhu, W.; Wu, Y.; Meng, Y.F.; Xing, Q.; Tao, J.J.; Lu, J. Association of obesity and risk of diabetic retinopathy in diabetes patients: A meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Medicine 2018, 97, e11807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 13 01797 g001
Figure 1. Pairwise meta-analysis, GLP-1RA vs. placebo [6,20,22,23,24,25,26,27,30,46,47,49,51,52,55,57,58,61,62,63,65,66,67,69,71,73,74].
Figure 1. Pairwise meta-analysis, GLP-1RA vs. placebo [6,20,22,23,24,25,26,27,30,46,47,49,51,52,55,57,58,61,62,63,65,66,67,69,71,73,74].
Jcm 13 01797 g001
Jcm 13 01797 g002
Figure 2. Pairwise meta-analysis, DPP-4i vs. placebo [37,39,40,41,43,44,45,47,50,53,54,56,59].
Figure 2. Pairwise meta-analysis, DPP-4i vs. placebo [37,39,40,41,43,44,45,47,50,53,54,56,59].
Jcm 13 01797 g002
Jcm 13 01797 g003
Figure 3. Pairwise meta-analysis, SGLT-2i vs. placebo [33,34,35,36,38,42,48,68,70].
Figure 3. Pairwise meta-analysis, SGLT-2i vs. placebo [33,34,35,36,38,42,48,68,70].
Jcm 13 01797 g003
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.
First AuthorYearCTIDNameNumber of PatientsTime in Trial (Years)InterventionComparatorCharacteristics of ParticipantsBackground TreatmentMale (%)Mean Age (Years)Mean Diabetes Duration (Years)Mean BMIMean HbA1C (%)IG DR Incidents/Group SizeCG DR Incidents/Group Size
M. Husain [20]2019NCT02692716PIONEER 631821.6SemaglutidePlaceboAdults with DM2 at high cardiovascular risk Standard-of-care treatment68.466.014.9032.308.20109/159190/1592
J. Rosenstock [21]2019NCT02607865PIONEER 318611.5SemaglutideSitagliptinAdults with DM2 taking a stable dosage of metformin with or without sulfonylureaMetformin ± sulfonylurea52.858.08.6032.508.3083/139536/466
B. Zinman [22]2019NCT03086330SUSTAIN 93010.6SemaglutidePlaceboAdults with DM2 inadequately controlled despite at least 90 days of treatment with an SGLT-2 inhibitorStandard-of-care treatment, including SGLT-2 inhibitor treatment58.357.09.7031.908.003/1508/151
H. Gerstein [23]2019NCT01394952REWIND98925.4DulaglutidePlaceboAdults with DM2 with a previous CV event, evidence of CV disease, or > 2 CV risk factorsStandard-of-care treatment53.766.010.0032.307.3095/494976/4952
M. Nauck [24]2016NCT00849017HARMONY-23013AlbiglutidePlaceboAdults with DM2 inadequately controlled by diet and exercise none55.152.93.9633.538.005/2001/101
S. Marso [25]2016NCT01179048LEADER93363.8LiraglutidePlaceboAdults with DM2 at high cardiovascular risk Standard-of-care treatment64.364.312.8032.508.70106/466892/4672
A. Hernandez [26]2018NCT02465515HARMONY94321.6AlbiglutidePlaceboAdults with DM2 with cardiovascular diseaseStandard-of-care treatment69.464.114.1532.308.7078/471789/4715
M. Pinget [27]2013NCT00763815GETGOAL-P4841.6LixisenatidePlaceboAdults with DM2 who were treated with pioglitazone Pioglitazone ± metformin 52.555.88.1033.928.073/3230/161
L. Ji [28]2021NCT03061214SUSTAIN CHINA8670.6SemaglutideSitagliptinAdults with DM2 treated with metformin monotherapy Metformin57536.3628.28.136/57710/290
R. Pratley [29]2010NCT00700817LIRA-DPP-46581.0LiraglutideSitagliptinAdults with DM2 previously treated with metformin monotherapyMetformin52.955.36.232.88.47/4391/219
M. Pfeffer [30]2015NCT01147250ELIXA60631.8LixisenatidePlaceboAdults with DM2 who had had a myocardial infarction or who had been hospitalized for unstable angina within the previous 180 daysStandard-of-care treatment69.360.39.2930.167.682/30314/3032
C. Son [31]2021 CANTABILE1620.5TeneligliptinCanagliflozinAdults with DM2 and one or more metabolic risk factorsStandard-of-care treatment67.55566.3297.82/800/82
H. Rodbard [32]2019NCT02863328PIONEER 28191.0SemaglutideEmpagliflozinAdults with DM2 receiving a stable dose of metformin Metformin50.5587.432.88.114/4105/409
B. Zinman [33]2015NCT01131676EMPA-REG OUTCOME70203.1EmpagliflozinPlaceboAdults with DM2, established ASCVD, and estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m2Standard-of-care treatment71.563.182% >5 y30.6258.07758/468711/2333
V. Perkovic [34]2019NCT02065791CREDENCE43972.6CanagliflozinPlaceboAdults with DM2 with chronic kidney diseaseStandard-of-care treatment66.16315.831.38.378/220060/2197
C. Cannon [35]2020NCT01986881VERTIS CV82383.5ErtugliflozinPlaceboAdults with DM2, established ASCVDStandard-of-care treatment7064.41331.958.28/54935/2745
S. Wiviott [36]2019NCT01730534DECLARE-TIMI5817,1434.2DapagliflozinPlaceboAdults with DM2, creatinine clearance of 60 mL/min, ASCVD, or multiple risk factors for itStandard-of-care treatment62.663.910.532.058.311/857412/8569
J. Rosenstock [37]2019NCT01897532CARMELINA69792.2LinagliptinPlaceboAdults with DM2, high CV, and renal riskStandard-of-care treatment62.965.914.7531.357.9536/349449/3485
B. Neal [38]2017NCT01032629CANVAS43274.2CanagliflozinPlaceboAdults with DM2, history or high risk of CV disease Standard-of-care treatment6662.41633.18.3106/288647/1441
G. Ledesma [39]2019NCT02240680 3020.5LinagliptinPlaceboAdults with DM2 treated with basal insulin maintained at a stable dose for 4 weeks prior to randomizationInsulin. Optional metformin ± alpha-glucosidase inhibitor 60.672.476% >10 y288.22/1510/151
S. Marso [6]2016NCT01720446SUSTAIN 632972.0SemaglutidePlaceboAdults with DM2, established CVD, chronic heart failure, or chronic kidney disease Standard-of-care treatment60.764.613.932.88.750/164829/1649
A. Barnett [40]2012NCT00757588 4550.5SaxagliptinPlaceboAdults with DM2 inadequately controlled on a stable dose of insulinInsulin ± metformin 41.3581232.28.651/3040/151
W. White [41]2013NCT00968708EXAMINE53801.5AlogliptinPlaceboAdults with DM2 had an acute coronary syndrome within 15 to 90 days before randomizationStandard-of-care treatment67.9617.228.781/27013/2679
C. Kovacs [42]2015NCT01210001EMPA-REG EXTEND PIO4980.5EmpagliflozinPlaceboAdults with DM2 inadequately controlled on a diet and exercise regimen, receiving pioglitazone monotherapyPioglitazone ± metformin48.454.587% >1 y29.28.091/3330/165
J. Dou [43]2018NCT02273050START4250.5SaxagliptinPlaceboAdults with DM2 inadequately controlled with diet and exercise none64.350.250.84526.69.451/2150/210
H. Yki-Järvinen [44] 2013NCT00954447 12611.0LinagliptinPlaceboAdults with DM2 inadequately controlled on treatment with basal insulinBasal insulin, standard-of-care treatment52.26086% >5 y 318.31/6311/630
Y. Chen [45]2018NCT02104804SUPER4650.5SaxagliptinPlaceboAdults with DM2 inadequately controlled with a stable regimen of insulin or insulin plus metforminInsulin ± metformin 45.259.113.426.28.530/2342/231
J. Frias [46]2022NCT03353350AMPLITUDE-M4061.1EfpeglenatideplaceboAdults with DM2, inadequately controlled with diet and exercisenone53.958.55.134.28.052/3040/102
*2017NCT00849056 3013.0AlbiglutidePlaceboAdults with DM2 Pioglitazone ± metformin59.8557.96134.128.117/1502/151
*2017NCT01098539 4951.0AlbiglutideSitagliptinAdults with DM2, renally impaired and inadequately controlled with diet and exercise or their antidiabetic therapyMetformin, sulfonylurea, or thiazolidinediones 53.763.311.2330.398.1812/24950/246
B. Neal [38]2017NCT01989754CANVAS-R58071.8CanagliflozinPlaceboAdults with DM2, history or high risk of CVDStandard-of-care treatment62.86413.731.98.31/29040/2903
B. Ahren [47]2014NCT00838903HARMONY 37052.0Albiglutide, SitagliptinPlaceboAdults with DM2 inadequately controlled with background metforminMetformin47.654.56.12532.68.12514/302 a, 7/302 s, 2/101 p
*2014NCT00839527 3863.0AlbiglutidePlaceboAdults with DM2 Glimepiride + metformin 53.255.2932.58.210/2713/115
D. Bhatt [48]2021NCT03315143SCORED10,5771.3SotagliflozinPlaceboAdults with DM2, chronic kidney disease, and additional CVD risk factorsStandard-of-care treatment55.169N/a31.88.36/52913/5286
M. Riddle [49]2013NCT00715624GETGOAL-L4950.5LixisenatidePlaceboAdults with DM2 inadequately controlled with basal insulin with or without metforminInsulin ± Metformin 46.15712.532.18.42/3280/167
B. Scirica [50]2013NCT01107886SAVOR- TIMI 5316,4922.1SaxagliptinPlaceboAdults with DM2, a history of established CVD, or multiple risk factors for vascular diseaseStandard-of-care treatment66.96510.331811/82804/8212
H. Gerstein [51]2021NCT03496298AMPLITUDE-O40731.8EfpeglenatidePlaceboAdults with DM2 and either a history of CVD or current kidney disease plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factorStandard-of-care treatment6764.515.432.78.9147/271727/1359
Y. Seino [52]2012NCT00866658GETGOAL-L-ASIA3110.5LixisenatidePlaceboAdults with DM2 currently on stable basal insulin therapy with or without a sulfonylurea Insulin ± sulfonylureas47.958.413.9225.268.530/1541/157
I. Gantz [53]2017NCT01703208 41921.8OmarigliptinPlaceboAdults with DM2, established CVDStandard-of-care treatment70.263.612.0531.38.010/20923/2100
J. Green [54]2015NCT00790205TECOS14,5403.0SitagliptinPlaceboAdults with DM2 with established CVD, treated with stable doses of one or two oral antihyperglycemic agents One or two oral antihyperglycemic agents (metformin, pioglitazone, or sulfonylurea) or insulin 70.765.511.630.27.2226/7332180/7339
J. Rosenstock [55]2014NCT00713830GETGOAL-S8590.5LixisenatidePlaceboAdults with DM2 currently receiving an SU with or without metformin Sulfonylurea ± Metformin50.557.29.4530.258.251/5740/285
D. Owens [56]2011NCT00602472 10550.5LinagliptinPlaceboAdults with DM2 inadequately controlled by metformin and sulphonylurea combination treatmentSulfonylurea + Metformin47.258.173% >5 y28.338.141/7920/263
B. Ahren [57]2013NCT00712673GETGOAL-M6800.5LixisenatidePlaceboAdults with DM2 inadequately controlled on metformin with a dose of at least 1.5 g/day for at least 3 months Metformin43.157.46.1132.918.062/5100/170
R. Holman [58]2017NCT01144338EXSCEL14,7163.2ExenatidePlaceboAdults with DM2 Standard-of-care treatment6261.91231.758214/7344238/7389
D. Matthews [59]2019NCT01528254VERIFY19995.0VildagliptinPlaceboAdults with DM2Metformin4754.30.2831.16.71/9980/1001
M. Sugawara [60]2023 J-SELECT5991LuseogliflozinDPP-4iAdults with DM2Standard-of-care treatment65.457.754.45 7.651/3000/299
M. Davies [61]2021NCT03552757STEP 212101.3SemaglutidePlaceboAdults with DM2none49.155835.78.127/80511/402
B. Zinman [62]2019NCT03021187PIONEER 87311SemaglutidePlaceboAdults with DM2 inadequately controlled with insulin
± metformin		Insulin ± metformin 546115318.236/5469/184
V. Aroda [63]2019NCT02906930PIONEER 17030.5SemaglutidePlaceboAdults with DM2 managed only by diet and exercisenone50.8553.531.889/5253/178
Y. Seino [64]2018NCT02254291 3080.58SemaglutideSitagliptinAdults with DM2 treated with diet and exercise only or oral antidiabetic drug monotherapynone76.358.3825.48.16/2054/103
D. Russell-Jones [65] 2009NCT00331851LEAD-5 met+SU5810.5LiraglutidePlaceboAdults with DM2 treated with oral glucose-lowering drugs
for at least 3 months before screening		Metformin + Glimepiryde5357.59.330.858.32/2303/114
Y. Seino [66]2016NCT01572740 2570.7LiraglutidePlaceboAdults with DM2 on stable insulin therapy in addition to diet and exerciseInsulin5660.514.525.68.89/12713/130
W. Wang [67]2023NCT04591626AWARD-CHN32910.5DulaglutidePlaceboAdults with DM2 inadequately controlled with a stable dose of basal insulin glargine once daily with metformin ± or acarboseInsulin, metformin, and/or acarbose62.558.111.825.98.60/1443/147
* 2023NCT04017832PIONEER 1214410.5SemaglutideSitagliptinAdults with DM2 inadequately controlled on metformin ≥ 60 days prior to the day of screeningMetformin58.353.3n/an/an/a0/10801/358
W. Yang [68]2016NCT01095666 4440.5DapagliflozinPlaceboAdults with DM2 inadequately controlled on metforminMetformin54.353.84.926.18.130/2991/145
Y. Seino [69]2011NCT00395746 2641LiraglutidePlaceboAdults with DM2 inadequately controlled on diet therapy and one SU agentSulfonylurea 6459.710.324.98.8219/1767/88
J. Rosenstock [70]2015NCT01011868EMPA-REG BASAL4941.5EmpagliflozinPlaceboAdults with DM2 inadequately controlled despite
treatment with basal glargine or detemir insulin ± metformin and/or sulphonylurea use 		Basal insulin, with or without metformin ± sulphonylureas5658.889% >5 y32.28.20/3241/170
Y. Yamada [71]2020NCT03018028PIONEER 92431SemaglutidePlaceboAdults with DM2none79597.625.98.22/1464/49
T. Pieber [72]2019NCT02849080PIONEER 75041SemaglutideSitagliptinAdults with DM2 receiving stable daily doses of one or two glucose-lowering drugs Standard-of-care treatment57578.831.58.36/2536/250
O. Mosenzon [73]2019NCT02827708PIONEER 53240.5SemaglutidePlaceboAdults with DM2 with moderate renal impairment, receiving metformin or sulfonylurea, or both, or basal insulin with or without metforminMetformin ± sulphonyloureas or insulin ± metformin48701432.485/1632/161
H. Rodbard [74]2018NCT02305381SUSTAIN 53970.6SemaglutidePlaceboAdults with DM2 inadequately controlled with basal insulin
± metformin		Insulin ± metformin 56.158.813.332.28.45/2630/133
CTID, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier; DM2, type 2 diabetes; IG, Intervention group; CG, control group; DR, diabetic retinopathy; CV, cardiovascular; CVD, cardiovascular disease; ASCVD, Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease; mL, milliliter; min, minute; y, year; ±, with or without; *, no publication has been found; a, albiglutide group; s, sitagliptin group; p, placebo group.
Table 2. Pairwise meta-analysis summary.
Table 2. Pairwise meta-analysis summary.
Number of TrialsInterventionComparatorOR95% CIpI2 StatisticsEgger’s Test p
29GLP-1RAPlacebo1.080.94; 1.230.2713.82%0.74
13DPP-4iPlacebo1.100.84; 1.420.497.84%0.65
10SGLT-2Placebo1.020.76; 1.370.919.34%0.23
8GLP-1RADPP-4i0.850.44; 1.640.6376.16%0.79
3CanagliflozinPlacebo1.220.96; 1.560.110.00%0.54
3EmpagliflozinPlacebo0.380.17; 0.880.020.00%0.82
4LinagliptinPlacebo0.770.51; 1.170.220.00%0.24
4SaxagliptinPlacebo1.930.76; 4.910.170.00%0.43
5AlbiglutidePlacebo1.150.74; 1.790.5415.45%0.02
6LixisenatidePlacebo0.990.35; 2.770.980.00%0.21
9SemaglutidePlacebo1.180.84; 1.660.3337.88%0.48
4LiraglutidePlacebo1.060.78; 1.450.707.92%0.29
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Małyszczak, A.; Przeździecka-Dołyk, J.; Szydełko-Paśko, U.; Misiuk-Hojło, M. Novel Antidiabetic Drugs and the Risk of Diabetic Retinopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 1797. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061797

AMA Style

Małyszczak A, Przeździecka-Dołyk J, Szydełko-Paśko U, Misiuk-Hojło M. Novel Antidiabetic Drugs and the Risk of Diabetic Retinopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(6):1797. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061797

Chicago/Turabian Style

Małyszczak, Artur, Joanna Przeździecka-Dołyk, Urszula Szydełko-Paśko, and Marta Misiuk-Hojło. 2024. "Novel Antidiabetic Drugs and the Risk of Diabetic Retinopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 6: 1797. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061797

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop