Cited by 11Sex and Gender in HealthcareDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Sex-specific cardiovascular risk factors and treatment in females with T2DM and CVD: developments and knowledge gaps

Open access
LeBlanc, Erin S, Brooks, Neon, Davies, Melinda, Chatterjee, Ranee·2024·The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

Abstract

PURPOSE: There are large disparities in the impact of diabetes on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and outcomes by sex and gender. Achieving health equity requires understanding risks and medication efficacy in female patients, especially now, as novel pharmacologic treatments are transforming the diabetes and CVD treatment landscape. This review examines 2 bodies of research that can inform sex differences in CVD in patients with diabetes: female-specific risk factors for CVD and sex-related limitations of clinical trial research in evaluating novel diabetes and CVD treatments. METHODS: Two literature searches were performed using Ovid Medline(R) All. The first retrieved manuscripts covering sex and gender differences related to CVD risk and therapies and diabetes. The second focused on randomized controlled trial data on sex/gender differences and GLP-1/SGLT-2/DPP-4 drugs. RESULTS: Female-specific risk factors for CVD include early menarche, premature or early menopause, irregular cycles and polycystic ovary syndrome; pregnancy; adverse pregnancy outcomes; history of breast cancer; and autoimmune diseases. Clinical trials of novel pharmacological treatments for diabetes and CVD have undersampled female populations, and clinical characteristics of male and female participants have differed significantly. Thus, evidence to evaluate potential sex differences in treatment efficacy and side effects has been lacking. CONCLUSION: To improve health of female patients with diabetes, sex-specific cardiovascular risk factors should be taken into account in screening and treatment decisions. Further, studies of cardiovascular and diabetes medications must ensure adequate representation by sex and report participant characteristics and outcomes by sex.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1210/clinem/dgae655

Cites

141 of 141 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Women with type 2 diabetes are less likely than men to receive GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors even when clinical indications are comparable.

    “A growing body of evidence indicates that women with type 2 diabetes mellitus are less likely than men to receive prescriptions for GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, even when clinical indications are comparable.”

    From Unequal Access to Evidence-Based Cardiometabolic Therapies: Racial Disparities in SGLT2 Inhibitor and GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Use Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease (2026) · cites this paper as [21]

    The section on sex differences in prescribing practices (page not provided) reports a Danish cohort in which women and men with the same new diagnoses of T2D and CVD had different initiation rates for both drug classes. But the review also reports a meta-analysis finding no sex difference for SGLT-2 inhibitors and higher GLP-1 receptor agonist prescribing among women. The claim presents the lower prescribing rate as a broader, consistent finding than this mixed evidence supports. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Grandi SM, Filion KB, Yoon S, et al. Cardiovascular disease-related morbidity and mortality in women with a history of pregnancy complications. Circulation. 2019;139(8):1069-1079.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
LeBlanc, E. S., Brooks, N., Davies, M., & Chatterjee, R.
Affiliations
  • Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
LeBlanc, Erin S
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
Published
2024-09-23
Volume
109
Issue
12
Pages
e2167-e2177
ISSN
  • 0021-972X (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-7197
OpenAlex
W4402732441
Cited by
11
References
141
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 2
FWCI
0.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Sex and Gender in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
sex differences, cardiovascular risk factors, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, women, GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, health equity, menopause, polycystic ovary syndrome, pregnancy outcomes, breast cancer, autoimmune disease, cardiovascular screening
MeSH terms
Heart Disease Risk Factors, Cardiovascular Diseases, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Male, Pregnancy, Risk Factors, Sex Characteristics, Sex Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review