Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35112779›Full record

Trial reportDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2022

Efficacy and safety of alogliptin versus acarbose in Chinese type 2 diabetes patients with high cardiovascular risk or coronary heart disease treated with aspirin and inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy or drug-naive: A multicentre, randomized, open-label, prospective study (ACADEMIC).

Bin Gao, Weiguo Gao, Hailong Wan, Fengmei Xu, Rong Zhou, Xia Zhang, Qiuhe Ji

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IVMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It reports registered trial NCT03794336. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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.

NCT03794336 phase4completed

Efficacy and Safety of Alogliptin vs. Acarbose in Chinese T2DM Patients With High CV Risk or CHD Treated With Aspirin and Inadequately Controlled With Metformin Monotherapy or Drug Naive: A Multicenter, Randomized, Open Label, Prospective Study

Ran2019Enrolled1,293Registered outcomes17Posted comparisons0ConditionsType 2 Diabetes MellitusArmsacarbose, Alogliptin, Aspirin, Metformin
Open the trial in the graph
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Bin GaoAir Force Military Medical University Tangdu Hospital, Xi'an, China.
Weiguo GaoQingdao Endocrinology and Diabetes Hospital, Qingdao, China.
Hailong WanPanjin Central Hospital, Panjin, China.
Fengmei XuHebi Coal Industry Co. Ltd. General Hospital, Hebi, China.
Rong ZhouSanofi, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6514-7503
Xia ZhangSanofi, Shanghai, China.
Qiuhe JiAir Force Military Medical University Xijing Hospital, Xi'an, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4008-2974
Sanofi (China) · CNHefei Design and Research Institute of Coal Industry (China) · CNJiangjin Central Hospital · CNQingdao University · CNTang Du Hospital · CNXijing Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo demonstrate the noninferiority of alogliptin to acarbose, in terms of antidiabetic efficacy, in Chinese people with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2D) and high cardiovascular risk. MATERIALS AND

methodsACADEMIC (NCT03794336) was a randomized, open-label, phase IV study conducted at 46 sites in China. Antidiabetic treatment-naive or metformin-treated adults with uncontrolled T2D (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 58.0-97.0 mmol/mol) were randomized 2:1 to alogliptin 25 mg once daily or acarbose 100 mg three times daily for 16 weeks. All participants had a documented history of coronary heart disease or high cardiovascular risk at screening and received aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) 100 mg daily throughout the trial. The primary endpoints were change in HbA1c versus baseline, and the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs). Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

resultsA total of 1088 participants were randomized. Alogliptin was noninferior to acarbose for the change in Week-16 HbA1c (least-squares mean change [standard error] -11.9 [0.4] vs. -11.4 [0.5] mmol/mol, respectively; difference between arms -0.5 [0.7] mmol/mol; 95% confidence interval -1.9 to 0.8 mmol/mol), and was associated with a lower incidence of gastrointestinal AEs (8.9% vs. 33.6%, respectively; P < 0.0001). More alogliptin than acarbose recipients achieved HbA1c <53.0 mmol/mol without gastrointestinal AEs (48.0% vs. 32.7%; P < 0.0001). Discontinuations due to treatment-related AEs were less frequent with alogliptin than acarbose (0.3% vs. 2.5%).

conclusionsGlycaemic control was comparable between alogliptin and acarbose, but the gastrointestinal tolerability of alogliptin was better. More patients achieved target HbA1c without gastrointestinal AEs with alogliptin, suggesting that this agent may be preferred in clinical practice.

Indexed as

AcarboseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2PiperidinesUracilAdultAspirinCoronary DiseaseDouble-Blind MethodGlycated HemoglobinHeart Disease Risk FactorsHumansHypoglycemic AgentsMetforminProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAcarbosealogliptinAspirinGlycated HemoglobinHypoglycemic AgentsMetforminPiperidinesUracilcardiovascular diseaseDPP-IV inhibitorglycaemic controlphase IV studyrandomised trialtype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID35112779
PMCPMC9314577
OpenAlexW4210683610

What OpenQuestion holds

Texttitle and abstract
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.