ArticleBMJ open diabetes research & care2016
PERS&O (PERsistent Sitagliptin treatment & Outcomes): observational retrospective study on cardiovascular risk evolution in patients with type 2 diabetes on persistent sitagliptin treatment.
Article in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- ANDREW: A Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes on Persistent Treatment with Dulaglutide.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2020Article
- PERsistent Sitagliptin treatment & Outcomes (PERS&O 2.0) study, long-term results: a real-world observation on DPP4-inhibitor effectiveness.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Risk Engine (RE) provides the best risk estimates available for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), so it was applied to patients on persistent sitagliptin treatment.
designA 'real-world' retrospective, observational, single-center study.
settingThe study was performed in a general hospital in Northern Italy in order: (1) to validate UKPDS RE in a cohort of Italian participants with T2D without prespecified diabetes duration, with/without cardiovascular (CV) disease, treated with sitagliptin; (2) to confirm CV risk gender difference; (3) to evaluate the effect on metabolic control and on CV risk evolution obtained by 'add-on' persistent sitagliptin treatment.
participantsSitagliptin 100 mg once a day was taken by 462 participants with T2D: 170 of them (males: 106; age: 63.6±8.8; T2D duration: 11.58±7.33; females: 64; age: 65.6±7.95; T2D duration 13.5±7.9) were treated for 48 months with the same dosage.
interventionsAn analysis of normality was performed both for continuous, and for groups variables on UKPDS RE percentage values, defining the requirement of a base log10 transformation to normalize risk factor values for analysis validation.
resultsThe evaluation of CV risk evolution by gender (t-test) confirmed the expected statistical difference (p<0.0001). Sitagliptin obtained significant results after 12 months, and at the end of the observation, both on metabolic control (expressed by glycated hemoglobin) and on UKPDS RE. Analysis of variance test revealed a significant effect on CV risk after 12 months (p=0.003), and after 48 months (p=0.04). A bivariate correlation analysis revealed a correlation index (r)=0.2 between the two variables (p<0.05).
conclusionsThese 'real-world' data obtained applying UKPDS RE may reflect patients' and clinicians' interest in realizing individual CV risk, and its evolution. Sitagliptin-persistent treatment for a medium-long period obtained an improvement on metabolic control, as well as a reduction on CV risk.
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.