SynthesisBMJ open diabetes research & care2026
Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists for primary cardiovascular disease prevention in type 2 diabetes, a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to estimate the cardiovascular (CV) benefit of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) without a history of CV disease (CVD) (primary CVD prevention). We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews (up to July 4, 2025). We included RCTs of patients with T2D comparing a GLP-1 RA to placebo using a CV or renal primary outcome. 11 drug manufacturer-funded trials (77 419 participants) were included. We used version 1 of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Our primary analysis was the pooled estimate of the treatment effect in primary CVD prevention. Outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, primary outcome), all-cause mortality, CV mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and serious adverse events (secondary outcomes). Only 26% of participants were primary CVD prevention patients. The pooled estimates of treatment effect for primary CVD prevention were not significant for the primary outcome, MACE (pooled HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05, based on eight trials, n=16 672), and all secondary outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was rated as low due to trials' risk of bias and imprecision. Our review was limited to subgroup analyses of aggregated data from studies not powered for primary prevention alone. Current evidence is insufficient to establish CV benefits of GLP-1 RAs in T2D without a history of CVD, and dedicated primary prevention trials are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.