ArticleCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2024
Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors versus sulfonylureas on the top of metformin in patients with diabetes and acute myocardial infarction.
Article in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- RETRACTED: Cardiovascular and mortality outcomes of DPP-4 inhibitors vs. sulfonylureas as metformin add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2025 · on this mapPooled it
- Cardiovascular Diseases and Metabolic Medications in the Lebanese Population: A Post Hoc Analysis from a Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A Comparison Between Culprit Versus Complete Revascularization in Diabetic Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.Clinical cardiology · 2024Article
- Cardioprotective effects of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor versus dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor in type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of comparative safety and efficacy.SAGE open medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recent trials have shown that both the extent of glycated hemoglobin reduction and the duration of enhanced glycemic control are major factors that may affect cardiovascular outcome results. We aimed to investigate the impact of metformin (MET) combined with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors or sulfonylureas (SU) on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods: This study was a prospective cohort trial. From November 2011 to December 2015, a total of 13,104 AMI patients were consecutively enrolled from the Korea AMI registry-National Institutes of Health. The patients were divided into the MET + DPP4 inhibitors group and the MET + SU group. The primary endpoint, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), was defined as the composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), and any repeat revascularization up to 3-year follow-up. To adjust baseline potential confounders, an inverse probability weighting (IPTW) analysis was performed. Results: Baseline well-matched two groups were generated (the MET + DPP4 inhibitors group, n=468 and the MET + SU group, n=468). During 3-year clinical follow-up, the cumulative incidence of MACE between the two groups was not significantly different after adjustment (16.8% for MET + DPP4 inhibitors group Conclusions: In patients with AMI and type 2 DM, the use of MET combined with DPP4 inhibitors was associated with reduced incidence of recurrent MI than MET combined with SU during 3-year follow-up.
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.