Background Recent studies have increasingly shown that sodium‐glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors may have beneficial cardiovascular and metabolic effects in patients without diabetes mellitus. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to determine the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular and metabolic outcomes in patients without diabetes mellitus. Methods and Results Four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and SCOPUS) were searched on August 30, 2020 for articles published from January 1, 2000 to August 30, 2020, for studies that examined the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular and metabolic outcomes in patients without diabetes mellitus. A random‐effects pairwise meta‐analysis model was used to summarize the studies. A total of 8 randomized‐controlled trials were included with a combined cohort of 5233 patients. In patients without diabetes mellitus, those with heart failure treated with SGLT2 inhibitors had a 20% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular deaths and heart failure hospitalizations, compared with those who were not treated (risk ratio, 0.78; P <0.001). We additionally found that treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors improved multiple metabolic indices. Patients on SGLT2 inhibitors had a reduction in body weight of −1.21 kg ( P <0.001), body mass index of −0.47 kg/m 2 ( P <0.001), systolic blood pressure of −1.90 mm Hg ( P =0.04), and fasting plasma glucose of −0.38 mmol/L ( P =0.05), compared with those without. There were no between‐group differences in NT‐proBNP (N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide) levels, waist circumference, diastolic blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and estimated glomerular filtration rates. Across our combined cohort of 5233 patients, hypoglycemia was reported in 22 patients. Conclusions SGLT2 inhibitors improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients without diabetes mellitus with heart failure. In patients without diabetes mellitus, SGLT2 inhibitors showed positive metabolic outcomes in weight and blood pressure control.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Mentoring provides mentees and mentors with holistic support and research opportunities. Yet, the quality of this support has been called into question amidst suggestions that mentoring is prone to bullying and professional lapses. These concerns jeopardise mentoring's role in medical schools and demand closer scrutiny. Methods: To better understand prevailing concerns, a novel approach to systematic scoping reviews (SSR) s is proposed to map prevailing ethical issues in mentoring in an accountable and reproducible manner. Ten members of the research team carried out systematic and independent searches of PubMed, Embase, ERIC, ScienceDirect, Scopus, OpenGrey and Mednar databases. The individual researchers employed 'negotiated consensual validation' to determine the final list of articles to be analysed. The reviewers worked in three independent teams. One team summarised the included articles. The other teams employed independent thematic and content analysis respectively. The findings of the three approaches were compared. The themes from non-evidence based and grey literature were also compared with themes from research driven data. Results: Four thousand six titles were reviewed and 51 full text articles were included. Findings from thematic and content analyses were similar and reflected the tabulated summaries. The themes/categories identified were ethical concerns, predisposing factors and possible solutions at the mentor and mentee, mentoring relationship and/or host organisation level. Ethical concerns were found to stem from issues such as power differentials and lack of motivation whilst predisposing factors comprised of the mentor's lack of experience and personality conflicts. Possible solutions include better program oversight and the fostering of an effective mentoring environment. Conclusions: This structured SSR found that ethical issues in mentoring occur as a result of inconducive mentoring environments. As such, further studies and systematic reviews of mentoring structures, cultures and remediation must follow so as to guide host organisations in their endeavour to improve mentoring in medical schools.