ArticleExpert opinion on drug safety2014
Gliptins - do they increase cardiovascular risk or benefit?
Article in Expert opinion on drug safety, 2014. 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, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Synthetic Approaches to Novel DPP-IV Inhibitors-A Literature Review.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Vasculoprotective Effects of Vildagliptin. Focus on Atherogenesis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Article
- Antidiabetic treatment with gliptins: focus on cardiovascular effects and outcomes.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn 2008, the US FDA required all new glucose-lowering therapies to show cardiovascular safety, and this applies to the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors ('gliptins'). AREAS COVERED: The cardiovascular safety trials of saxagliptin and alogliptin have recently been published and are the subject of this evaluation. EXPERT OPINION: The Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus - Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 53 trial and Examination of Cardiovascular Outcomes with Alogliptin versus Standard of Care were both multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase IV clinical trials. These trials showed that saxagliptin and alogliptin did not increase the primary end point, which was a composite of cardiovascular outcomes that did not include hospitalisations for heart failure. However, saxagliptin significantly increased hospitalisation for heart failure, which was a component of the secondary end point. The effect of alogliptin on hospitalisations for heart failure has not been reported. Neither agent improved cardiovascular outcomes. As there is no published evidence of improved outcomes with gliptins, it is unclear to us why these agents are so widely available for use. We suggest that the use of gliptins be restricted to Phase IV clinical trials until such time as cardiovascular safety and benefits/superiority are clearly established.
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.