ArticlePloS one2026
Comparative safety of imeglimin versus sitagliptin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A pharmacy-based retrospective cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical evidence supports the safety and efficacy of imeglimin, a new oral antidiabetic medication that increases insulin secretion and reduces insulin resistance. However, comparative real-world safety data with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, widely used in Japan, remain limited. This retrospective, pharmacy-based cohort study compared the incidence of adverse events (gastrointestinal events and hypoglycemia) among patients newly prescribed imeglimin or sitagliptin in real-world settings. Using a new-user design, we analyzed the 2022-2024 community pharmacy data across Japan, including 1,140 and 990 new imeglimin and sitagliptin users, respectively. Primary outcome (incidence of treatment-related events classified using Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terminology) was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models. Unadjusted and multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for events during a 4-month follow-up were estimated. At least one adverse event was reported among 31% of imeglimin users versus 22% of sitagliptin users. Hypoglycemia risk differed non-significantly between groups (aHR: 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20-2.22). However, imeglimin was associated with substantially higher risks of gastrointestinal events than sitagliptin (aHR: 5.44; 95% CI: 3.44-8.61), particularly nausea (aHR: 15.34; 95% CI: 3.50-67.23), diarrhea (aHR: 7.90; 95% CI: 2.54-24.62), and abdominal discomfort (aHR: 6.02; 95% CI: 1.47-24.58). Sensitivity analyses in patients receiving monotherapy yielded increased risk (hazard ratio (HR): 5.36; 95% CI: 2.63-10.92). Imeglimin use was associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal events than sitagliptin in Japanese clinical practice, closely approaching our prespecified threshold for clinical significance. Conversely, no significant difference was observed in hypoglycemia risk, although this finding should be interpreted with caution owing to the limited number of events. Involving community pharmacists allowed for active monitoring and identification of events that are often underreported in large-scale claims databases. Clinicians should prioritize gastrointestinal monitoring during initial stages of imeglimin therapy, particularly in older patients with complex treatment regimens.
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.