| Literature DB >> 33062238 |
Yake Lou1, Ying Yu2, Junchao Duan3, Sining Bi4, Khaing Nyein Chan Swe5, Ziwei Xi1, Yanan Gao1, Yujie Zhou1, Xiaomin Nie6, Wei Liu6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have an increased risk of fracture compared with those without T2DM. Some oral glucose-lowering agents may increase the incidence of fracture. Whether sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) are associated with increased risk of fracture remains unclear.Entities:
Keywords: SGLT2i; canagliflozin; dapagliflozin; empagliflozin; fracture
Year: 2020 PMID: 33062238 PMCID: PMC7534105 DOI: 10.1177/2040622320961599
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ther Adv Chronic Dis ISSN: 2040-6223 Impact factor: 5.091
Figure 1.Flowchart of study selection.
RCT, randomized controlled trial.
Figure 2.Forest plot of fracture incidence between SGLT2is and other treatment.
CI, confidence interval; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel; SGLT2i, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor.
Subgroup analysis of fracture incidence between SGLT2i and other treatment.
| SGLT2i | Canagliflozin | Dapagliflozin | Empagliflozin | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1.03 (0.95, 1.12) | 1.17 (1.00, 1.37) | 1.02 (0.90, 1.15) | 0.89 (0.73, 1.10) |
|
| ||||
|
| 1.04 (0.95, 1.14) | 1.17 (0.99, 1.38) | 1.03 (0.91, 1.16) | 0.87 (0.69, 1.10) |
|
| 0.94 (0.70, 1.26) | 1.18 (0.64, 2.19) | 0.81 (0.43, 1.53) | 1.00 (0.63, 1.59) |
|
| ||||
|
| 0.71 (0.55, 0.93) | 0.78 (0.48, 1.28) | 0.71 (0.45, 1.12) | 0.53 (0.30, 0.92) |
|
| 1.03 (0.77, 1.39) | – | 1.04 (0.92, 1.18) | 1.04 (0.21, 5.17) |
|
| 1.08 (0.98, 1.19) | 1.22 (1.04, 1.45) | 1.07 (0.76, 1.51) | 0.97 (0.77, 1.22) |
|
| ||||
|
| 1.03 (0.94, 1.12) | 1.19 (1.01, 1.39) | 1.00 (0.88, 1.13) | 0.91 (0.73, 1.12) |
|
| 1.03 (0.59, 1.79) | 0.44 (0.12, 1.66) | 2.26 (0.91, 5.65) | 0.61 (0.18, 2.02) |
|
| ||||
|
| 0.81 (0.64, 1.04) | 0.86 (0.51, 1.43) | 0.78 (0.49, 1.23) | 0.89 (0.60, 1.33) |
|
| 1.07 (0.97, 1.17) | 1.21 (1.02, 1.43) | 1.03 (0.91, 1.17) | 0.90 (0.70, 1.15) |
|
| ||||
|
| 1.03 (0.95, 1.13) | 1.18 (1.00, 1.38) | 1.01 (0.90, 1.15) | 0.91 (0.73, 1.12) |
|
| 0.86 (0.43, 1.73) | 0.78 (0.14, 4.26) | 1.18 (0.38, 3.70) | 0.67 (0.24, 1.89) |
|
| ||||
|
| 0.80 (0.57, 1.13) | 0.87 (0.50, 1.52) | 0.83 (0.44, 1.56) | 1.29 (0.24, 6.75) |
|
| 1.11 (1.00, 1.23) | 1.21 (1.03, 1.43) | 1.05 (0.92, 1.20) | – |
|
| ||||
|
| 0.84 (0.49, 1.43) | 0.10 (0.00, 2.08) | 2.05 (0.69, 6.04) | 0.31 (0.11, 0.89) |
|
| 1.04 (0.95, 1.13) | 1.18 (1.01, 1.39) | 1.01 (0.89, 1.14) | 0.94 (0.76, 1.17) |
|
| ||||
|
| 1.11 (0.97, 1.27) | 1.21 (1.02, 1.44) | 0.93 (0.64, 1.35) | 0.98 (0.76, 1.27) |
|
| 1.04 (0.91, 1.19) | – | 1.04 (0.91, 1.19) | – |
CKD, chronic kidney disease; CVD, cardiovascular disease; DM, diabetes mellitus; OR, odds ratio; SGLT2i, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor.
Figure 3.Forest plot of fracture incidence between canagliflozin and other treatment.
CI, confidence interval; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.
Figure 4.Forest plot of fracture incidence between dapagliflozin and other treatment.
CI, confidence interval; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.
Figure 5.Forest plot of fracture incidence between empagliflozin and other treatment.
CI, confidence interval; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.