Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Network meta-analysis of pharmacotherapies shows GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2is reduce composite cardiovascular death and hospitalization in HFpEFNew drugs may lower heart failure risk and improve walking distance for patients with preserved ejection fraction

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2is for HFpEF to reduce hospitalization and improve functional capacity, noting limited safety data.

This study utilized a network meta-analysis approach to assess the comparative effectiveness of multiple pharmacotherapies for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The analysis included a total sample of 48,235 patients. The interventions examined encompassed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), digoxin, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), and nitrates and nitrites. The primary comparator was placebo. The primary outcome measured was the composite of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, worsening heart failure events, change in the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS), and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels.

Regarding the primary outcome, the network meta-analysis found that GLP-1 RAs significantly reduced the risk of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization, with a hazard ratio of 0.73 (95% CI 0.61-0.88). Similarly, SGLT2is significantly reduced this risk, with a hazard ratio of 0.79 (95% CI 0.70-0.90). In contrast, no statistically significant differences were observed among the treatments regarding cardiovascular death or all-cause mortality alone.

When evaluating functional and symptomatic outcomes, GLP-1 RAs elicited the greatest improvement in the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance, with a mean difference of +17.60 meters (95% CI 8.53-26.67). Furthermore, GLP-1 RAs showed the most substantial improvement in the KCCQ-CSS, with a mean difference of +7.38 points (95% CI 5.51-9.26). These findings suggest a potential benefit of GLP-1 RAs in enhancing physical performance and patient-reported quality of life in this population.

Safety and tolerability data were not reported in the source evidence provided for this analysis. Consequently, specific adverse event rates, serious adverse events, discontinuation rates, and general tolerability profiles could not be detailed. This lack of reported safety data represents a significant gap in the current evidence base for these specific agents within the context of this network meta-analysis.

The study design, being a network meta-analysis, allows for the simultaneous comparison of multiple interventions, even if not all were tested in the same randomized controlled trials. However, the absence of reported safety data limits the ability to fully weigh the risk-benefit profile of GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2is against other standard therapies. The results indicate that while these agents offer significant benefits in reducing hospitalization and cardiovascular death, their impact on mortality remains statistically indistinguishable from placebo in this specific analysis. Additionally, the lack of reported safety information prevents clinicians from making fully informed decisions regarding potential side effects or discontinuation risks.

These results highlight the potential role of GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2is in the management of HFpEF, particularly for improving functional capacity and reducing hospitalization rates. However, the absence of mortality benefit in the statistical analysis and the lack of safety reporting necessitate cautious interpretation. Clinicians should consider these findings alongside existing guidelines and emerging data, acknowledging that the current evidence does not yet support definitive statements regarding mortality reduction or specific safety profiles for these newer agents in HFpEF.

Heart failure is a serious condition where the heart cannot pump enough blood to meet the body's needs. For many people, this happens even when the heart muscle squeezes normally, a condition known as heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. This study looked at a wide range of common heart medications to see which ones actually help people live longer or feel better. The researchers wanted to know if taking these drugs could stop the disease from getting worse or if some were just a waste of money.

The team looked at data from 48,235 patients who had been prescribed various medicines. These drugs included common ones like beta blockers and ACE inhibitors, as well as newer options like GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors. The study compared these treatments against taking a placebo, which is an inactive pill used to see if the drug itself is doing the work. The main goal was to see if these medicines could lower the risk of a major heart event or a trip to the hospital.

The results showed clear winners for specific goals. Patients taking GLP-1 receptor agonists had a 27% lower risk of dying from heart causes or being hospitalized for heart failure compared to those on a placebo. Similarly, SGLT2 inhibitors lowered that same risk by about 21%. Beyond just survival, these drugs also helped patients walk further. Those on GLP-1 receptor agonists walked an average of 17.6 meters further than those on a placebo, while their quality of life scores improved by an average of 7.4 points.

However, the study did not find a difference in overall death rates. None of the drugs studied, including the new ones, showed a statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality. This means that while the drugs helped prevent hospital visits and improved daily function, they did not necessarily extend life expectancy on their own. Additionally, the researchers did not report any safety data, such as side effects or how well patients tolerated the new medications, which is a significant gap in the information.

It is important not to get too excited about these findings. This was a review of existing data, not a new trial where patients were specifically assigned to take these drugs. Because safety information was missing, doctors cannot yet say these new drugs are safe for everyone. Patients should not stop or start any medication based on this single study. The best approach is to talk with a doctor about the full picture of your heart health and the specific risks and benefits of any treatment plan.

What this means for you:
New drugs reduced hospital risk and improved walking distance, but safety data and overall death benefits remain unclear.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 235
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
AIM: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) presents a therapeutic challenge, characterised by a paucity of validated treatments. Emerging data suggest that targeting adiposity is central to HFpEF pathogenesis. We conducted an updated network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of emerging and established HFpEF therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library from inception to April 2025 for randomised controlled trials enrolling patients with HFpEF and evaluating pharmacotherapies, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), digoxin, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), nitrates and nitrites. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death and heart failure (HF) hospitalisation. The secondary outcomes included cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, worsening HF events, change in the 6-min walk test (6MWT) distance, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. A frequentist random-effects NMA was conducted. RESULTS: Thirty-nine trials with 78 treatment arms and 48 235 patients were enrolled. Compared with placebo, GLP-1 RAs (HR: 0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.88) and SGLT2is (HR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.70-0.90; P-score: 0.807) significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalisation. GLP-1 RAs showed the highest probability of ranking first (P-score: 0.871). GLP-1 RAs elicited the greatest improvement in functional outcomes, including the 6MWT (mean difference: +17.60 m, 95% CI 8.53-26.67) and KCCQ-CSS (mean difference: +7.38 points, 95% CI 5.51-9.26). No statistically significant differences in cardiovascular death or all-cause mortality were observed among the treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFpEF, GLP-1RA, SGLT2i and MRA significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalisation, while GLP-1RA additionally improved the functional and quality-of-life outcomes. GLP-1RA and SGLT2i significantly reduced HF morbidity, and GLP-1RA uniquely improved functional status, positioning adiposity modulation as a central therapeutic target in HFpEF.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.