Table 3. Results summary.
RCTs | Observational | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | Results | Number | Results | |||
ACR | ||||||
Monotherapy | ||||||
MTF vs ACA | 1 | Favours ACA | 0 | |||
MTF vs SU | 0 | 1 | No difference | |||
MTF vs TZD | 2 | Both favour TZD | 1 | No difference | ||
SU vs SGLT | 1 | Favours SGLT | 0 | |||
SU vs TZD | 2 | Both no difference | 0 | |||
Dual therapy | ||||||
MTF+SU vs MTF+DPP4i | 0 | 1 | No difference | |||
MTF+TZD vs MTF+SU | 1 | Favours MTF+TZD | 0 | |||
SU+TZD vs SU+MTF | 1 | Favours SU+TZD | 0 | |||
eGFR | ||||||
Monotherapy | ||||||
MTF vs ACA | 1 | No difference | 0 | |||
MTF vs SU | 0 | 1 | Favours MTF | |||
MTF vs TZD | 1 | Favours TZD | 1 | No difference | ||
SU vs SGLT | 1 | Favours SGLT | 0 | |||
SU vs TZD | 1 | Favours TZD | 0 | |||
KIDNEY
OUTCOMES |
||||||
Monotherapy | ||||||
MTF vs DPP4i | 0 | 1 | Favours MTF | |||
MTF vs SU | 0 | 4 | 3 favour MTF, 1 favours SU | |||
MTF vs TZD | 0 | 2 | 1 no difference, 1 favours MTF | |||
SU vs DPP4i | 0 | 1 | No difference | |||
Mono vs. dual therapy | ||||||
MTF vs MTF+DPP4i | 0 | 1 | No difference | |||
MTF vs MTF+SU | 0 | 2 |
1 favours MTF, 1 favours
MTF+SU |
|||
MTF vs MTF+TZD | 0 | 1 | No difference | |||
MTF vs SU+DPP4i | 0 | 1 | Favours MTF | |||
MTF vs SU+TZD | 0 | 1 | Favours MTF | |||
SU vs MTF+SU | 0 | 1 | No difference |
Abbreviations: ACR: Albumin: Creatinine Ratio, eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate, MTF: metformin, SU: sulfonylurea, TZD: Thiazolidinedione, DPP4i: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, ACA: acarbose, , EXE: Exenatide. SGLT: SGLT2i, GLP1: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor anonist, IPW: Inverse Probability Weight, FU: Follow-up, SD: Standard deviation, ARF: Acute Renal Failure, CKD: Chronic Kidney Disease, IQR: Inter Quartile Range, p-yr: person-years, NR: Not reported, DB: Database, KDIGO: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes. One further comparison not included here. Hung et al. 2012, as two studies by Hung et al. reported similar comparison using similar data