Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32423565›Full record

ReviewIndian heart journal

Unravelling the utility of modern sulfonylureas from cardiovascular outcome trials and landmark trials: expert opinion from an international panel.

S Kalra, S Ghosh, A K Das, T Nair, S Bajaj, G Priya, R N Mehrotra, S Das, P Shah, V Deshmukh and 19 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Indian heart journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

29 authors at 20 institutions in 12 countries.

S KalraDepartment of Endocrinology, Bharti Hospital and BRIDE, Karnal, Haryana, India. Electronic address: brideknl@gmail.com.
S GhoshDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, IPGMER, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
A K DasDepartment of Endocrinology & Medicine, Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Puducherry, India.
T NairDept. of Cardiology, PRS Hospital, Trivandrum, Kerala, India.
S BajajDepartment of Endocrinology, MLN Medical College, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.
G PriyaDepartment of Endocrinology, Fortis Hospital, Chandigarh, Punjab, India.
R N MehrotraDepartment of Endocrinology, Apollo Hospitals, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, India.
S DasDepartment of Endocrinology, Apollo Hospitals in Bhubaneswar, India.
P ShahDepartment of Endocrinology and Diabetes Gujarat Endocrine Centre, Ahmedabad, India.
V DeshmukhDepartment of Endocrinology, Deshmukh Clinic and Research Centre, Pune, Maharashtra.
M ChawlaDepartment of Diabetology, Lina Diabetes Care and Mumbai Diabetes Research Centre, Mumbai, India.
D SanyalDepartment of Endocrinology, KPC Medical College, Kolkata, West Bengal.
S ChandrasekaranDepartment of Endocrinology & Diabetes, Dr. Rela Institute of Medical Science (RIMC), Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
D KhandelwalDepartment of Endocrinology & Diabetes, Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, New Delhi, India.
A JoshiDepartment of Endocrinology & Diabetes, Bhaktivedanta Hospital and Research Institute, Mumbai, India.
F ElianaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, YARSI University, Jakarta, Indonesia.
H PermanaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia.
M D FariduddinDepartment of Endocrinology of Bangabandhu Sheikh, Mujib Medical University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
P K ShresthaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Tribhuwan University Teaching Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal.
D ShresthaDepartment of Endocrinologist, Norvic International Hospital Kathmandu, Nepal.
S KahandawaDepartment of Endocrinology, Teaching Hospital Karapitiya, Sri Lanka.
M SumanathilakaDepartment of Endocrinology, National Hospital of Sri Lanka, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
A ShaheedDepartment of Internal Medicine, Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Malé, Maldives.
A A RahimDepartment of Diabetes and Metabolism, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
A OrabiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
A Al-AniDepartment of Internal Medicine, Hamad General Hospital, Doha, Qatar.
W HusseinDepartment of Endocrinology & Diabetes, Royal Hospital, Bahrain.
D KumarDepartment of Endocrinology, NMC Specialty Hospital, Abu Dhabi.
K ShaikhDepartment of Diabetes, Faculty of Internal Medicine, Royal Oman Police Hospital, Muscat, Oman.
Bangladesh Medical University · BDTribhuvan University Teaching Hospital · NPAlexandria University · EGApollo Hospitals · INApollo Hospitals · INBhaktivedanta Hospital & Research Institute · INBharti Hospital · INFortis Healthcare · INGrande International Hospital · NPHamad General Hospital · QAIndira Gandhi Memorial Hospital · MVInstitute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research · INInternational Hospital of Bahrain · BHKPC Medical College and Hospital · INMotilal Nehru Medical College · INOrthopedic Specialty Hospital · USPadjadjaran University · IDParas Hospitals · INPondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences · INTeaching Hospital Kandy · LK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe primary objective of this review is to develop practice-based expert group opinions on the cardiovascular (CV) safety and utility of modern sulfonylureas (SUs) in cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs).

backgroundThe United States Food and Drug Administration issued new guidance to the pharmaceutical industry in 2008 regarding the development of new antihyperglycemic drugs. The guidance expanded the scope for the approval of novel antihyperglycemic drugs by mandating CVOTs for safety. A few long-term CVOTs on dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors have been completed, while others are ongoing. SUs, which constitute one of the key antihyperglycemic agents used for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), have been used as comparator agents in several CVOTs. However, the need for CVOTs on modern SUs remains debatable. In this context, a multinational group of endocrinologists convened for a meeting and discussed the need for CVOTs of modern SUs to evaluate their utility in the management of patients with T2DM. At the meeting, CVOTs of modern SUs conducted to date and the hypotheses derived from the results of these trials were discussed. REVIEW

resultsThe expert group analyzed the key trials emphasizing the CV safety of modern SUs and also reviewed the results of various CVOTs in which modern SUs were used as comparators. Based on literature evidence and individual clinical insights, the expert group opined that modern SUs are cardiosafe and that since they have been used as comparators in other CVOTs, CVOTs of SUs are not required.

conclusionModern SUs can be considered a cardiosafe option for the management of patients with diabetes mellitus and CV disease; thus CVOTs among individuals with T2DM are not required.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesHumansSulfonylurea CompoundsTreatment OutcomeSulfonylurea CompoundsCardiosafeCardiovascular outcome trialsModern sulfonylureas

Identifiers

PMID32423565
PMCPMC7231843
OpenAlexW3000421244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.