ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2015
Efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin-based versus comparative dual therapy in type 2 diabetes : Results of the Austrian subpopulation of the EDGE study.
Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this post hoc analysis of data from the Austrian subpopulation of the EDGE study was the evaluation of the effectiveness and tolerability of vildagliptin as an add-on to an existing oral antidiabetic (OAD) monotherapy versus a combination therapy with two OADs without vildagliptin in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. PATIENTS AND
methodsIn Austria, 422 patients were included. In the framework of regular visits (at baseline, about once per quarter, and at the study end, after 12 months), adverse events (AEs), courses, and changes of therapy were recorded. In addition to the primary end point defined in the primary study, i.e., a reduction of HbA1c by > 0.3 % without hypoglycemia, weight gain ≥ 5 %, peripheral edema, or discontinuation due to gastrointestinal events, the most clinically relevant secondary end point, i.e., HbA1c reduction < 7 % without hypoglycemia or ≥ 3 % increase in body weight after 12 months was used for the analysis of the Austrian data.
resultsThe initial HbA1c of all enrolled patients was 8.3 ± 1.4 %. The mean reduction of HbA1c was - 1.1 % in the vildagliptin cohort and - 1.0 % in the comparator cohort. In the vildagliptin cohort, 56.4 % of patients, and in the comparator cohort, 45.9 % of patients, reached the primary end point (odds ratio: 1.53, p = 0.04). In the vildagliptin cohort, 18.7 % of patients, and in the comparator cohort, 16.9 % of patients, reached the secondary end point (odds ratio: 1.13, p = 0.68). The incidence of hypoglycemic events (two in each cohort), AEs (approximately 15 % in each cohort), and serious AEs (approximately 2 % in each cohort) was comparable between the two groups.
conclusionIn a "real-life" setting, the effectiveness of vildagliptin as second-line treatment is superior to comparator OADs with regard to a reduction in HbA1c of greater than 0.3 % from baseline without well-recognized side effects in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (mean baseline HbA1c: 8.5 % (vildagliptin cohort) vs. 8.1 % (comparator cohort)).
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.