ReviewIndian heart journal
Modern sulphonylureas and cardiovascular adverse effects: Will CAROLINA put an end to the controversy?
Review in Indian heart journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anti-Hyperglycemic Effects of Alpha-Mangostin in Animal Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Safety and Tolerability of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists: A State-of-the-Art Narrative Review.Drugs · 2026Review
- Pathophysiology and Advances in the Therapy of Cardiomyopathy in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Genetic variation of CYP2C9 gene and its correlation with cardiovascular disease risk factors.Molecular biology reports · 2024Article
- Review
- Recent Pharmacological Options in Type 2 Diabetes and Synergic Mechanism in Cardiovascular Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Comparison of gliclazideWorld journal of diabetes · 2022Article
- Treatment of diabetes mellitus has borne much fruit in the prevention of cardiovascular disease.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2022Review
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sulphonylureas (SU) form an important role in management of people with type 2 diabetes. This safety history of SU was tainted for various reasons, the predominant one being lack of demonstration of cardiovascular safety. Since its introduction, SU's have never been subjected to a formal study for its cardiovascular safety. The cardiovascular safety of SUs was derived from small, inadequately powered randomised controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies. CAROLINA (CARdiovascular Outcome study of LINAgliptin versus glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes) trial planned as a cardiovascular outcome trial randomised people with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk to Linagliptin and Glimepiride. This opinion paper outlines the salient features of this landmark trial and its implications in general cardiology practice.
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.