ReviewReviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders2016
Outcome studies and safety as guide for decision making in treating patients with type 2 diabetes.
Review in Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Composite cardiovascular risk and BMI affected comparative profiles of BIAsp 30 + metformin vs BIAsp 30 monotherapy: a MERIT post-hoc analysis.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- Introduction to Hanefeld Symposium: 40+ years of metabolic syndrome.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality in patients with diabetes. Over the past 20 years multiple CV outcome studies have been conducted assessing the cardiovascular benefits of tight glycemic control or of particular glucose lowering agents. Improved glycemic control per-se failed to significantly reduce the risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in the short term, and it is only after >15 years that a reduction in adverse CV outcomes with tight glycemic control was perceived. Moreover tight glycemic control and increased attendant hypoglycemia led to increased mortality observed in the ACCORD trial. These data highlighted the importance of setting individualized glycemic targets and assessing the CV safety of the individual glucose lowering agents. Three DPP-4 inhibitors have presented CV outcome data to date demonstrating overall CV safety yet the question of increased hospitalization for heart failure with saxagliptin remains unexplained. Lixisenatide was the first GLP-1 receptor agonist to publish CV outcome data which demonstrated overall safety. The SGLT-2 inhibitor empagliflozin demonstrated CV superiority and a reduction in all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure vs. placebo via mechanisms which remain to be fully elucidated. The outcome studies, though large and costly, have had a considerable effect on diabetes guidelines, these now emphasizing the importance of individualization of care. The outcome studies will presumably influence the new guidelines and dictate better tailoring of the drug regimen to the individual patient, matching patient comorbidities to the accumulating data regarding the safety and efficacy of each drug and class.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27106831What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.