Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26808256›Full record

ArticleExpert opinion on pharmacotherapy2016

Sitagliptin and other 'gliptins'--why prescribe them?

Sheila A Doggrell, Simon B Dimmitt

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Expert opinion on pharmacotherapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Computational Analysis ofAdvances in bioinformatics · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sheila A Doggrella School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health , Queensland University of Technology , Brisbane , 4002 , QLD , Australia.
Simon B Dimmittb School of Medicine and Pharmacology , University of Western Australia , Perth , Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn 2008, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) required all new glucose-lowering therapies to show cardiovascular safety, and this applies to the dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors ('gliptins'). At present, there is contradictory evidence on whether the gliptins increase hospitalizations for heart failure. AREAS COVERED: This is an evaluation of the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) in high risk cardiovascular subjects with type 2 diabetes [1]. TECOS demonstrated non-inferiority for sitagliptin over placebo for the primary outcome, which was cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. There was no difference in the rate of hospitalization for heart failure between sitagliptin and placebo. EXPERT OPINION: Despite the results of TECOS, debate over the effects of sitagliptin on the rates of hospitalizations for heart failure continues with some recent studies suggesting increased rates. Recently, empagliflozin (an inhibitor of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2) has been shown to reduce cardiovascular outcomes in subjects with type 2 diabetes, including the rates of hospitalization for heart failure. In our opinion, these positive findings with empagliflozin suggest that it should be prescribed in preference to the gliptins, including sitagliptin, unless any positive cardiovascular outcomes are reported for the gliptins.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansHypoglycemic AgentsPyrazinesTriazolesHypoglycemic AgentsPyrazinesTriazolescardiovascular benefitcardiovascular riskclinical trialsempagliflozinheart failuresitagliptintype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.