Key result
SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists are disproportionately underutilized among racial minorities, women, and low-income patients, with race and ethnicity explaining approximately 26% of the variation in access.
Why the study?
Despite robust evidence of cardiovascular and renal benefits from GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2is, access and utilization remain unevenly distributed across patient populations.
Despite robust evidence and guideline recommendations, significant racial, gender, and socioeconomic disparities persist in the prescription of cardioprotective SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in the US healthcare system.
Requires urgent action to ensure equitable SGLT2i/GLP-1RA access; confirms persistent implementation gaps despite guidelines.
The pharmacologic management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and cardiovascular diseases, including heart failure, has advanced significantly with the introduction of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is), therapies that provide substantial cardiovascular and renal benefits. Despite robust evidence supporting their use, access to and utilization of these agents remain unevenly distributed across patient populations. This literature review explores disparities in the prescribing patterns of GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2is, with particular attention to the influence of race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status. By integrating findings from recent studies, this review aims to uncover the root causes of these disparities and outline approaches to ensure more equitable delivery of cardiometabolic care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Obi et al. (2026) conducted a review in Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists was evaluated on Disparities in prescribing or access to SGLT2 inhibitors and/or GLP-1 receptor agonists. SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists are disproportionately underutilized among racial minorities, women, and low-income patients, with race and ethnicity explaining approximately 26% of the variation in access.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: