ReviewIndian heart journal
Unravelling the utility of modern sulfonylureas from cardiovascular outcome trials and landmark trials: expert opinion from an international panel.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacological Analysis of NLRP3 Inflammasome Inhibitor Sodium [(1,2,3,5,6,7-Hexahydro-s-indacen-4-yl)carbamoyl][(1-methyl-1ACS pharmacology & translational science · 2024Article
- Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus with stem cells and antidiabetic drugs: a dualistic and future-focused approach.Human cell · 2024Review
- Position of Sulfonylureas in the Current ERA: Review of National and International Guidelines.Clinical medicine insights. Endocrinology and diabetes · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors at 20 institutions in 12 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.