ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2009
Treatment of patients with diabetes with GLP-1 analogues or DPP-4- inhibitors: a hot topic for cardiologists?
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pleiotropic effects of the dipeptidylpeptidase-4 inhibitors on the cardiovascular system.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2014Review
- Dipeptidylpeptidase inhibition is associated with improvement in blood pressure and diastolic function in insulin-resistant male Zucker obese rats.Endocrinology · 2013Article
- Incretins in type 2 diabetes mellitus: cardiovascular and anti-atherogenic effects beyond glucose lowering.Hippokratia · 2012Article
- Possible involvement of GLP-1(9-36) in the regional haemodynamic effects of GLP-1(7-36) in conscious rats.British journal of pharmacology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Novel drugs for the treatment of patients with diabetes are of interest for cardiologists if they reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. However, as documented by the current discussion about the potential benefits of glitazones, high hopes can fail. Initial beneficial cardiovascular effects shown in proof-of-concept studies were muted by the apparent higher mortality in the metaanalysis of studies with rosiglitazone. Having this in mind, how should one judge about new, emerging antidiabetic therapies, in particular those influencing the incretin axis? The rapidly increasing use of GLP-1 analogues and DPP-4 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus may be of major interest for the cardiologist. Potential beneficial actions on the cardiovascular system so far shown in animal experiments and small proof of concept studies may provide the rationale for using these drugs specifically in diabetic patients with secondary complications such as macrovascular disease or diabetic cardiomyopathy. Theoretically, these new therapies could also proof beneficial in patients with heart failure, independently of concomittend diabetes mellitus. However, many unanswered questions need to be addressed in the near future to extend the experimental findings to potential benefits of real life patients. In summary a new class of antidiabetic drugs, which could possibly directly influence cardiovascular effects of diabetes mellitus and thus possibly treat or even prevent life threatening complications has become available. Further studies both assessing surrogate parameters as well as hard endpoint studies are needed to support the hypothesis generated from the summarized experimental studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.