ArticleScientific reports2025
The effect of sarpogrelate compared to aspirin in high- or very-high-risk diabetes for primary prevention.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- One-month dual antiplatelet therapy followed by prasugrel monotherapy at a reduced dose: the 4D-ACS randomised trial.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Trial
- Serotonin Signaling and Vascular Reactivity in Cardiometabolic Disease and Cardiac Surgery.Cells · 2026Review
- Innovative Lipid-Lowering Strategies: RNA-Based, Small Molecule, and Protein-Based Therapies.Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea) · 2025Review
- Comparative Effectiveness of Clopidogrel Versus Aspirin for Primary Prevention in High-Risk Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Nationwide Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The benefit of aspirin in primary prevention for atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD) is questionable due to bleeding complications. We analyzed the Korean National Health Insurance data to compare the efficacy and overall bleeding of sarpogrelate, an antiplatelet agent with lower bleeding risk, versus aspirin in high-/very-high-risk diabetic populations without prior ASCVD. The primary endpoint was net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as a composite of efficacy and overall bleeding. The efficacy was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke, whereas overall bleeding included intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. A total of 10,778 high-/very-high-risk diabetic patients (9550 on aspirin, 1228 on sarpogrelate) were analyzed. After propensity score matching, sarpogrelate was linked to a lower incidence of NACE (HR:0.71; 95% CI 0.57-0.88), mainly driven by 62% reductions in overall bleeding (0.38; 0.17-0.81), a composite of 64% and 72% lower rate of GI bleeding and ICH, respectively. Additionally, there was no significant differences in MI or stroke between groups. In high- or very-high-risk diabetic patients without ASCVD, sarpogrelate use was associated with net clinical benefit mainly due to the reduction of significant reduction in overall bleeding events.
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.