Evidence mapPaperPMID 35111291Full record

ReviewTherapeutic advances in drug safety2022

Safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Katharina Doni, Stefanie Bühn, Alina Weise, Nina-Kristin Mann, Simone Hess, Andreas Sönnichsen, Dawid Pieper, Petra Thürmann, Tim Mathes

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Therapeutic advances in drug safety, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. To do one and to get more: Part I. Diabetes and bone.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Katharina DoniInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
Stefanie BühnInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
Alina WeiseInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
Nina-Kristin MannDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
Simone HessInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
Andreas SönnichsenDepartment of General Practice and Family Medicine, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Dawid PieperInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
Petra ThürmannDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
Tim MathesDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Heusnerstraße 40, 42283 Wuppertal Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5304-1717
Witten/Herdecke University · DEMedical University of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

registrationPROSPERO: CRD42020210645.

introductionWe aimed to assess the safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in older patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycaemic control.

methodsWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in older (⩾65 years) patients with type 2 diabetes. The intervention group was randomized to treatment with any DPP-4 inhibitors. A systematic search in MEDLINE and Embase was performed in December 2020. For assessing the risk of bias, RoB 2 tool was applied. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We pooled outcomes using random effects meta-analyses.

resultsWe identified 16 RCTs that included 19,317 patients with a mean age of greater than 70 years. The mean HbA1c level ranged between 7.1 and 10.0 g/dl. Adding DPP-4 inhibitors to standard care alone may increase mortality slightly [risk ratio (RR) 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-1.21]. Adding DPP-4 inhibitors to standard care increases the risk for hypoglycaemia (RR 1.08; 95% CI 1.01-1.16), but difference in overall adverse events is negligible. DPP-4 inhibitors added to standard care may reduce mortality compared with sulfonylureas (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.75-1.04). DPP-4 inhibitors probably reduce the risk for hypoglycaemia compared with sulfonylureas (magnitude of effect not quantifiable because of heterogeneity) but difference in overall adverse events is negligible. There is insufficient evidence on hospitalizations, falls, fractures, renal impairment and pancreatitis.

conclusionThere is no evidence that DPP-4 inhibitors in addition to standard care decrease mortality but DPP-4 inhibitors increase hypoglycaemia risk. Second-line therapy in older patients should be considered cautiously even in drugs with a good safety profile such as DPP-4 inhibitors. In case second-line treatment is necessary, DPP-4 inhibitors appear to be preferable to sulfonylureas. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY:

Indexed as

dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitorsmeta-analysesolder peoplesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35111291
PMCPMC8785305
OpenAlexW4225934310

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.