[1] Neal B, Perkovic V, Matthews DR. Canagliflozin and Cardiovascular and Renal Events in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(21):2099. Epub 2017/11/23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1712572.
[2] Neuen BL, Ohkuma T, Neal B, Matthews DR, de Zeeuw D, Mahaffey KW, et al. Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes With Canagliflozin According to Baseline Kidney Function. Circulation.
2018;138(15):1537-50. Epub 2018/06/27. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.035901.
[3] Perkovic V, de Zeeuw D, Mahaffey KW, Fulcher G, Erondu N, Shaw W, et al. Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes: results from the CANVAS Program randomised clinical trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018;6(9):691-704. Epub 2018/06/26. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30141-4.
[4] Yale JF, Bakris G, Cariou B, Nieto J, David-Neto E, Yue D, et al. Efficacy and safety of canagliflozin over 52 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2014;16(10):1016-27. Epub 2014/06/27. doi: 10.1111/dom.12348.
[5] Wiviott SD, Raz I, Bonaca MP, Mosenzon O, Kato ET, Cahn A, et al. Dapagliflozin and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(4):347-57. Epub 2018/11/13. doi:
10.1056/NEJMoa1812389.
[6] Leiter LA, Cefalu WT, de Bruin TW, Xu J, Parikh S, Johnsson E, et al. Long-term maintenance of efficacy of dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2016;18(8):766-74. Epub 2016/03/25. doi: 10.1111/dom.12666.
[7] Cefalu WT, Leiter LA, de Bruin TW, Gause-Nilsson I, Sugg J, Parikh SJ. Dapagliflozin's Effects on Glycemia and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in High-Risk Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A 24-Week, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study With a 28-Week Extension.
Diabetes Care. 2015;38(7):1218-27. Epub 2015/04/09. doi: 10.2337/dc14-0315.
[8] EUCTR2015-002376-24-SK. Efficacy and Safety of Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin plus Saxagliptinin in Combination with Metformin in Type 2 Diabetes Patients compared with Sulphonylurea. 2015. doi:
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/central/doi/10.1002/central/CN-01879090/full.
[9] Cho KY, Nakamura A, Omori K, Takase T, Miya A, Manda N, et al. Effect of switching from pioglitazone to the sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor dapagliflozin on body weight and metabolism-related factors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: An open-label, prospective, randomized, parallel-group comparison trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2019;21(3):710-4. Epub 2018/10/13. doi: 10.1111/dom.13557.
77 [10] Barnett AH, Mithal A, Manassie J, Jones R, Rattunde H, Woerle HJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of
empagliflozin added to existing antidiabetes treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol.
2014;2(5):369-84. Epub 2014/05/06. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(13)70208-0.
[11] Perkovic V, Jardine MJ, Neal B, Bompoint S, Heerspink HJL, Charytan DM, et al. Canagliflozin and Renal Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes and Nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(24):2295-306. Epub 2019/04/17. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1811744.
[12] McMurray JJV, Solomon SD, Inzucchi SE, Kober L, Kosiborod MN, Martinez FA, et al. Dapagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction. N Engl J Med. 2019. Epub 2019/09/20.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911303.
[13] Pollock C, Stefansson B, Reyner D, Rossing P, Sjostrom CD, Wheeler DC, et al. Albuminuria-lowering effect of dapagliflozin alone and in combination with saxagliptin and effect of dapagliflozin and saxagliptin on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (DELIGHT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol.
2019;7(6):429-41. Epub 2019/04/18. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30086-5.
[14] Allegretti AS, Zhang W, Zhou W, Thurber TK, Rigby SP, Bowman-Stroud C, et al. Safety and Effectiveness of Bexagliflozin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Stage 3a/3b CKD. Am J Kidney Dis. 2019;74(3):328-37. Epub 2019/05/19. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.03.417.
78 Text S1 PRISMA checklist.PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
Section/topic#Checklist itemReportedon page #
TITLE
Title 1Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. Title page
ABSTRACT
Structured summary 2Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, andinterventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic reviewregistration number. Abstract, paragraph 1-3
INTRODUCTION
Rationale 3Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. Introduction, paragraph 1 Objectives 4Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and studydesign (PICOS). Introduction, paragraph 2
METHODS
Protocol and registration 5Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number. Methods, paragraph 1 Eligibility criteria 6Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale. Methods, paragraph 2 Information sources 7Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the searchand date last searched. Methods, paragraph 1
Search 8Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated. Supplement table S1
Study selection 9State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis). Methods, paragraph 2 Data collection process 10Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators. Methods, paragraph 3
Data items 11List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made. Methods, paragraph 4
Risk of bias in individual studies 12Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis. Methods, paragraph 5 Summary measures 13State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means). Methods, paragraph 6 Synthesis of results 14Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis. Methods, paragraph 6
79
Section/topic#Checklist itemReported on page # Risk of bias across studies 15Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies). Methods, paragraph 5 Additional analyses 16Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified. Methods, paragraph 6 RESULTS Study selection 17Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram. Figure 1 Study characteristics 18For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations. Table S1 Risk of bias within studies 19Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item 12). Results, paragraph 1 Results of individual studies 20For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. Fig. 2, 3, 4, S4, S6, S7, S8 Synthesis of results 21Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. Results, paragraph 2-8 Risk of bias across studies 22Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15). Figure S1 Additional analysis 23Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item 16]). Results, paragraph 6-7 DISCUSSION Summary of evidence 24Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers). Discussion, paragraph 1 Limitations 25Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias). Discussion, paragraph 6 Conclusions 26Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research. Conclusions FUNDING Funding 27Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. Funding From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097 For more information, visit:www.prisma-statement.org.
80
Text S2 Analysis plan.