Glucose-lowering drugs are net harmful and belong among the 'forbidden' items; dapagliflozin (Forxiga) is among the 'dirtiest' drugs and kills the brain; leg amputations happen only to people taking diabetes drugs and insulin.
Original statement
الفورسيجا ده من اقذر من اقذر ما يمكن يعني انا ما شفتش ادويه اخذر منه غير الانسولين
verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.
Translation
Glucose-lowering drugs are net harmful and belong among the 'forbidden' items; dapagliflozin (Forxiga) is among the 'dirtiest' drugs and kills the brain; leg amputations happen only to people taking diabetes drugs and insulin.
Origin
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- الغيبوبات السكرية ؟! (Open source)
- Published
- 30 April 2025
- Timestamp
- 0:10:28 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); no timestamps; 'published' is the date listed by the archive and may be the upload date. Live-stream transcripts can contain viewer comments read aloud; the quoted passage was checked in context to be spoken by Elawady.
- Claimed mechanism
Drugs block normal metabolism; harm outweighs benefit.
- Claimed health effect
Brain damage, amputation, death
- Population concerned
People with diabetes
- Geographic restriction by Elawady
none found
Diverging source versions
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live! الموت المفاجيء (Open source)
- Published
- 14 July 2025
- Timestamp
- not available (transcript has no timings)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); no timestamps; 'published' is the date listed by the archive and may be the upload date. Live-stream transcripts can contain viewer comments read aloud; the quoted passage was checked in context to be spoken by Elawady.
- Source status
- Archive editors
- Attribution
- Archive editors (not Elawady)
- Origin
- https://eltayebat.com/rule/oral-diabetes-drugs/
- Attribution uncertainty
- Editorial narrative and study selection written by the archive operators.
يسمع طب ولا غير اللي هيوطي السكر هيتفشخ اللي هياخد انسولين هيتفشخ اللي هياخد دوا جالفس هيتفشخ اللي هياخد فورسيجا هيتفشخ اللي هياخد مونجارو هيتفشخ اللي هياخداني اسمه ايه اللي شبه المونجارو ده اوزمبيك هيتفشخ خلاص اللي [أصوات
Anyone who lowers blood sugar will be harmed: anyone taking insulin, Galvus (vildagliptin), Forxiga (dapagliflozin), Mounjaro (tirzepatide) or Ozempic (semaglutide) will be badly harmed.
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- بدأت قناة ＂Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي＂ بثًا مباشرًا ذكري يوم ميلادي 😂😂❤️❤️❤️ (Open source)
- Published
- 26 March 2026
- Timestamp
- 1:16:53 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); no timestamps; 'published' is the date listed by the archive and may be the upload date. Live-stream transcripts can contain viewer comments read aloud; the quoted passage was checked in context to be spoken by Elawady.
لن أوقف أدويتي الموصوفة بسبب هذا الموقع
altayybat requires users to confirm on entry that they will not stop prescribed medicines because of the site.
- Source status
- Third-party site (unofficial)
- Attribution
- Third-party site (unofficial; lowest attribution level)
- Origin
- https://altayybat.com/ar/
- Attribution uncertainty
- altayybat.com states on its pages that it is educational only and not affiliated with Dr. Diaa Elawady. Lowest attribution level; page fetched 2026-10-25.
المضادات الحيوية وأدوية الضغط والسكري والإنسولين ممنوعة|ويجب استشارة طبيبك الخاص وتحت اشرافه
CONFLICT: mytayibat lists antibiotics, blood-pressure and diabetes drugs and insulin as 'forbidden', adding 'consult your own doctor and under his supervision'.
- Source status
- Third-party site (unofficial)
- Attribution
- Third-party site (unofficial; lowest attribution level)
- Origin
- https://mytayibat.com/forbidden
- Attribution uncertainty
- mytayibat.com is an unofficial third-party site in the sense that it is neither the eltayebat.com archive nor Elawady's own words. Its footer describes it as 'المنصة الرسمية التعليمية لنظام الطيبات' ('the official educational platform of the Tayebat system'), and its pages refer to it as 'the official platform'. This self-description could not be verified: no evidence was found that the site is authorised by Dr. Diaa Elawady's heirs or by the eltayebat.com archive. By contrast, altayybat.com states that it is not affiliated with Dr. Diaa Elawady. Lowest attribution level; page fetched 2026-10-25. original_ar joins two passages of the page with '|'.
Scientific assessment
False – The statement contradicts the robust evidence.
Certainty of evidence: high – Further research is very unlikely to change the assessment.
1. What was claimed?
Diabetes drugs are net harmful; Forxiga kills the brain; amputations are caused by the drugs.
2. What is demonstrably correct?
All drugs have side effects (see C-ODD-05); canagliflozin was associated with toe/metatarsal amputations in CANVAS (6.3 vs 3.4 per 1,000 patient-years; HR 1.97) (A-ODD-09).
3. What is wrong or exaggerated?
The same CANVAS trial showed a net cardiovascular benefit (HR 0.86), fewer serious adverse events than placebo (104.3 vs 120.0 per 1,000 patient-years), and amputations also in the placebo group (3.4 per 1,000 patient-years), which contradicts both 'net harmful' and 'amputations happen only to people taking diabetes drugs' (A-ODD-09). Dapagliflozin reduced cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure (HR 0.74) and all-cause death (HR 0.83) in DAPA-HF (I-ODD-04) and reduced death (HR 0.69) and kidney endpoints in DAPA-CKD, which was stopped early for efficacy (I-ODD-03). Empagliflozin reduced all-cause death by 32% (I-ODD-02); canagliflozin reduced kidney failure by 32% (I-ODD-05); liraglutide reduced death (HR 0.85) (I-ODD-06); semaglutide reduced major cardiovascular events (HR 0.74) (I-ODD-07). Higher glucose exposure is associated with more amputations and complications without threshold (I-INS-04). No evidence was found that dapagliflozin damages the brain.
4. What remains unclear?
How often the adverse effects of individual drugs occur in Egyptian practice was not reviewed. Whether the amputation signal seen with canagliflozin in CANVAS (A-ODD-09) applies to other drugs of the class was not reviewed here.
5. Which studies support it?
None for the claim as stated. A-ODD-09 documents an amputation signal with one drug but also net benefit and amputations on placebo.
6. Which studies contradict it?
A-ODD-09, I-ODD-01, I-ODD-02, I-ODD-03, I-ODD-04, I-ODD-05, I-ODD-06, I-ODD-07, I-INS-04, I-ODD-17.
7. What applies to Germany and Europe?
European (EASD) and German (DDG) guidance follow the same evidence base as the ADA/EASD consensus: individualised HbA1c targets, insulin as mandatory therapy in type 1 diabetes, and SGLT2 inhibitors/GLP-1 receptor agonists for people with cardiovascular or kidney disease. No country-specific difference changes the assessment.
8. What is known about Egypt?
Egypt has one of the highest diabetes prevalences in the region; the same drug classes and insulins are used. Access barriers and cost may make advice to stop medication attractive, which increases the practical risk of this claim. No Egypt-specific evidence changes the assessment.
9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?
Several diabetes drug classes have proven benefits that outweigh their risks in defined patient groups; decisions should be individual and made with a physician.
Assessment details
- Rationale for certainty of evidence
Multiple large, double-blind RCTs show reductions in death, heart failure and kidney failure (empagliflozin, dapagliflozin, canagliflozin, liraglutide, semaglutide) and metformin reduced mortality in UKPDS 34. Amputations are caused mainly by diabetic neuropathy and vascular disease driven by hyperglycaemia, which predates modern drugs.
- Source quality
Own words plus archive placement of drugs in the 'forbidden' section.
- Regional transferability
Universal.
- Individual exceptions
Individual drugs may be unsuitable for individual patients (e.g. SGLT2 in type 1 diabetes or ketosis-prone patients).
- Regional scope of the claim
- general (biological/medical)
- Last reviewed
- 25 October 2026 provisional
In plain language
The videos call Forxiga one of the dirtiest drugs. Yet large trials with thousands of patients showed that Forxiga and similar drugs reduce deaths, heart failure and kidney failure. Amputations in diabetes are mainly caused by nerve and blood vessel damage from long-term high blood sugar, not by medicines in general.
Studies on this claim
Studies supporting the claim (0)
No studies in this group.
Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (10)
-
Metformin in overweight type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34)
UKPDS Group. Lancet 1998 · PMID 9742977Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract only checked★ key studyMetformin reduced deaths from any cause by about a third over 10 years.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Intensive control with metformin in overweight type 2 diabetes
- How was the study done?
RCT within UKPDS (UKPDS 34)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
753 (main comparison); Overweight newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, mean age 53
- What was actually found?
Mortality -36%.
- How large was the observed effect?
RR reduction 36% (9-55)
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Metformin is protective.
- What are the study's limitations?
Small arms; Open-label; Conflicting supplementary result
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
UK.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Effects in non-overweight patients.
-
Empagliflozin heart trial
Zinman B et al.. N Engl J Med 2015 · PMID 26378978 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1504720Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract only checked★ key studyDeaths fell from 8.3% to 5.7% over about 3 years.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
CV outcomes of empagliflozin in type 2 diabetes at high CV risk
- How was the study done?
Double-blind placebo-controlled RCT (EMPA-REG OUTCOME)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
7,020; Type 2 diabetes with high CV risk
- What was actually found?
Primary 10.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 0.86; death -32%
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
This drug class protects heart and/or kidneys in the studied patients.
- What are the study's limitations?
Industry funded; Selected high-risk population
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Multinational trial including European sites or directly applicable to EU practice.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Benefit in low-risk people; absence of side effects.
-
Dapagliflozin (Forxiga) in kidney disease
Heerspink HJL et al.. N Engl J Med 2020 · PMID 32970396 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa2024816Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key studyForxiga reduced kidney failure and deaths; the trial was stopped early because the benefit was clear.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Dapagliflozin in CKD with/without diabetes
- How was the study done?
Double-blind placebo-controlled RCT (DAPA-CKD)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
4,304; CKD (eGFR 25-75, albuminuria)
- What was actually found?
Kidney failure, kidney decline or kidney/heart death: 9.2% with dapagliflozin vs 14.5% with placebo; deaths 4.7% vs 6.8%. Amputations 1.6% vs 1.8%; no ketoacidosis cases with dapagliflozin (2 with placebo).
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 0.61; death HR 0.69
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
This drug class protects heart and/or kidneys in the studied patients.
- What are the study's limitations?
Industry funded; stopped early for benefit (can overstate effect); selected high-risk CKD population; type 1 diabetes excluded; median 2.4 years follow-up.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts C-ODD-06 (Forxiga 'kills'); context for C-ODD-02.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Multinational trial including European sites or directly applicable to EU practice.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Benefit in low-risk people; absence of side effects.
-
Dapagliflozin in heart failure
McMurray JJV et al.. N Engl J Med 2019 · PMID 31535829 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1911303Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract only checked★ key studyFewer heart failure worsenings and deaths with Forxiga.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Dapagliflozin in heart failure with reduced EF
- How was the study done?
Double-blind placebo-controlled RCT (DAPA-HF)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
4,744; HFrEF NYHA II-IV, EF <=40%, with/without diabetes
- What was actually found?
Primary 16.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 0.74; death HR 0.83
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
This drug class protects heart and/or kidneys in the studied patients.
- What are the study's limitations?
Industry funded; Selected high-risk population
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts C-ODD-06.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Multinational trial including European sites or directly applicable to EU practice.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Benefit in low-risk people; absence of side effects.
-
Canagliflozin in diabetic kidney disease
Perkovic V et al.. N Engl J Med 2019 · PMID 30990260 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1811744Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key studyKidney failure and heart problems fell by about a third; amputations and fractures were not increased, but rare ketoacidosis was more common (11 vs 1 cases).
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes with nephropathy
- How was the study done?
Double-blind placebo-controlled RCT (CREDENCE)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
4,401; Type 2 diabetes with albuminuric CKD
- What was actually found?
Primary kidney/heart outcome 43.2 vs 61.2 per 1000 patient-years (30% lower); amputation 12.3 vs 11.2 per 1000 patient-years (not significant); diabetic ketoacidosis 2.2 vs 0.2 per 1000 patient-years.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 0.70
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
This drug class protects heart and/or kidneys in the studied patients.
- What are the study's limitations?
Industry funded; stopped early for benefit; selected high-risk population; foot checks added during the trial may have lowered amputation risk; rare harms imprecise.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts C-ODD-06; limits amputation/fracture signals in C-ODD-05.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Multinational trial including European sites or directly applicable to EU practice.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Benefit in low-risk people; absence of side effects (ketoacidosis was increased); amputation safety in routine care without foot surveillance.
-
Liraglutide heart trial
Marso SP et al.. N Engl J Med 2016 · PMID 27295427 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1603827Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key studyFewer heart deaths and deaths overall; pancreatitis not increased, but more gallstone disease and a small, non-significant excess of pancreatic cancer.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
CV outcomes of liraglutide
- How was the study done?
Double-blind placebo-controlled RCT (LEADER)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
9,340; Type 2 diabetes with high CV risk
- What was actually found?
Heart attack, stroke or heart death 13.0% vs 14.9%; deaths 8.2% vs 9.6%; acute pancreatitis 18 vs 23 patients; pancreatic cancer 13 vs 5 (not significant); gallstone disease 3.1% vs 1.9%.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 0.87; death HR 0.85
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
This drug class protects heart and/or kidneys in the studied patients.
- What are the study's limitations?
Industry funded with sponsor co-analysis; high-risk population; safety outcomes not powered and not adjusted for multiple testing; 3.5-5 years follow-up.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Multinational trial including European sites or directly applicable to EU practice.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Benefit in low-risk people; that pancreatic cancer risk is absent or present (too few cases); anything about pancreatic cysts.
-
Semaglutide heart safety trial
Marso SP et al.. N Engl J Med 2016 · PMID 27633186 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1607141Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract only checked★ key studyFewer heart attacks/strokes, but more diabetic eye complications and stomach side effects.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
CV safety of semaglutide
- How was the study done?
Double-blind placebo-controlled RCT (SUSTAIN-6)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
3,297; Type 2 diabetes, 83% with CVD/CKD
- What was actually found?
Primary 6.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 0.74
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
This drug class protects heart and/or kidneys in the studied patients.
- What are the study's limitations?
Industry funded; Selected high-risk population
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts C-ODD-06; GI and retinopathy harms relevant to C-ODD-05.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Multinational trial including European sites or directly applicable to EU practice.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Benefit in low-risk people; absence of side effects.
-
How much long-term blood sugar matters (UKPDS 35)
Stratton IM et al.. BMJ 2000 · PMID 10938048 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.321.7258.405Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract only checked★ key studyEach 1% lower HbA1c was linked to 21% fewer diabetes deaths and 37% fewer eye/kidney complications.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Relation of glycaemia over time to complications
- How was the study done?
Prospective observational analysis within UKPDS (UKPDS 35)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
4,585 (3,642 for RR); UKPDS patients (white, Asian Indian, Afro-Caribbean)
- What was actually found?
Graded risk with HbA1c, no threshold.
- How large was the observed effect?
-21% per 1% HbA1c
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
High sugar damages the body.
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts C-DIAB-01, C-DIAB-02, C-ODD-06 (hyperglycaemia causes complications incl. amputation).
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
UK.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
That pushing HbA1c to normal is always safe.
-
ADA/EASD consensus 2022
Davies MJ et al.. Diabetes Care 2022 · PMID 36148880 · DOI 10.2337/dci22-0034Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkabstract only checkedWeight management plus heart- and kidney-protective drugs are central to type 2 diabetes care.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes
- How was the study done?
ADA/EASD consensus report based on systematic examination of publications since 2018
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
not applicable; Adults with type 2 diabetes
- What was actually found?
Cardiorenal protection and weight focus.
- How large was the observed effect?
not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Guideline direction.
- What are the study's limitations?
Abstract only read
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
EASD co-authored; directly applicable to EU.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Not applicable.
-
Canagliflozin heart and kidney trials (CANVAS)
Neal B et al.. N Engl J Med 2017 · PMID 28605608 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1611925Randomised controlled trialcited by the Tayebat archivefull text checked★ key studyFewer heart attacks, strokes and heart deaths (-14%), but more toe/foot amputations.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
CV, renal and safety outcomes of canagliflozin
- How was the study done?
Integrated analysis of two double-blind RCTs (CANVAS Program)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
10,142; Type 2 diabetes with high CV risk, mean age 63.3
- What was actually found?
14% fewer heart attacks, strokes or heart deaths; about twice as many amputations (6.3 vs 3.4 per 1,000 patient-years), mostly toes; more fractures and genital infections.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 0.86 / 1.97
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Both benefits and risks; foot care matters.
- What are the study's limitations?
Funded and co-analysed by the manufacturer; two trials combined; many secondary results only exploratory.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Multinational/US/UK data; transferable to EU practice.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
That SGLT2 inhibitors are net harmful.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies with mixed or unclear results (0)
No studies in this group.
Regional context
Germany / EU
European (EASD) and German (DDG) guidance follow the same evidence base as the ADA/EASD consensus: individualised HbA1c targets, insulin as mandatory therapy in type 1 diabetes, and SGLT2 inhibitors/GLP-1 receptor agonists for people with cardiovascular or kidney disease. No country-specific difference changes the assessment.
Egypt
Egypt has one of the highest diabetes prevalences in the region; the same drug classes and insulins are used. Access barriers and cost may make advice to stop medication attractive, which increases the practical risk of this claim. No Egypt-specific evidence changes the assessment.
What applies in my country?
General scientific assessment
False Several diabetes drugs prolong life in large trials; calling them net harmful is false.
This statement concerns biological or medical relationships. The scientific assessment above applies regardless of the country; country-specific food data do not change it.
References
- Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group.. UKPDS Group. Lancet 1998 · PMID 9742977
- Empagliflozin, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes.. Zinman B et al.. N Engl J Med 2015 · PMID 26378978 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1504720
- Dapagliflozin in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease.. Heerspink HJL et al.. N Engl J Med 2020 · PMID 32970396 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa2024816
- Dapagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction.. McMurray JJV et al.. N Engl J Med 2019 · PMID 31535829 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1911303
- Canagliflozin and Renal Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes and Nephropathy.. Perkovic V et al.. N Engl J Med 2019 · PMID 30990260 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1811744
- Liraglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes.. Marso SP et al.. N Engl J Med 2016 · PMID 27295427 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1603827
- Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.. Marso SP et al.. N Engl J Med 2016 · PMID 27633186 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1607141
- Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study.. Stratton IM et al.. BMJ 2000 · PMID 10938048 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.321.7258.405
- Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2022. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).. Davies MJ et al.. Diabetes Care 2022 · PMID 36148880 · DOI 10.2337/dci22-0034
- Canagliflozin and Cardiovascular and Renal Events in Type 2 Diabetes.. Neal B et al.. N Engl J Med 2017 · PMID 28605608 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1611925