Trial reportHeart and vessels2019
Differential effect of concomitant antidiabetic agents on carotid atherosclerosis: a subgroup analysis of the PROLOGUE study.
Trial report in Heart and vessels, 2019. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiovascular surrogate markers and cardiometabolic therapeutics: a viewpoint learned from clinical trials on dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2021Article
- Diabetic vasculopathy: macro and microvascular injury.Current pathobiology reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Accumulated evidence shows that some antidiabetic agents attenuate the progression of carotid atherosclerosis assessed as intima-media thickness (IMT). Although some studies have demonstrated an inhibitory effect of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors on carotid IMT progression, in the PROLOGUE study sitagliptin failed to slow progression relative to conventional therapy for 24 months. We hypothesized that differences in the concomitant antidiabetic agents between the groups have influenced the progression of carotid IMT. We performed a post hoc analysis of the PROLOGUE study using subgroups stratified by concomitant antidiabetic agents. Although no subgroup with any combination of agents in the overall patients showed a significant difference between sitagliptin group and conventional therapy group in the changes from baseline in mean common carotid artery (CCA)-IMT at 24 months, a significant attenuation of mean CCA-IMT progression was observed in the sitagliptin group relative to conventional therapy group only in three combination subgroups aged < 70 years, namely no thiazolidinedione; no thiazolidinedione or biguanide; and no thiazolidinedione, biguanide or α-glucosidase inhibitor, even after adjustment for multiple confounding factors. In the three subgroups, no significant difference between sitagliptin group and conventional therapy group in the changes from baseline in HbA1c at 24 months was detected. Our data suggest that some concomitant agents, whose prescription frequencies were increased in the conventional therapy group, may have masked the inhibitory effect of sitagliptin on carotid IMT progression in the PROLOGUE study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.