ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2021
Comparative risk of musculoskeletal adverse reactions among new users of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The association between glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and reported musculoskeletal adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2026Article
- Potential Molecular Biomarkers for Predicting and Monitoring Complications in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Treatment of acromegaly-induced diabetes: an updated proposal.Pituitary · 2024Review
- Association of Dipeptidylpeptidase 4 (CD26) With Chondrocyte Senescence and Radiographic Progression in Knee Osteoarthritis.Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4Is) on joint pain have been controversial. Objective: To assess the comparative musculoskeletal (MSk) risk of DPP4Is vs. non-DPP4Is. Methods: This study used a national claims database from January 2007 to December 2014. Exposure included the initiation of DPP4Is against the initiation of non-DPP4Is: metformin, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, meglitinides, and glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). Insulin was not included in this study. Outcomes were newly diagnosed MSk conditions (arthralgia, arthropathy, and rheumatoid arthritis or other inflammatory polyarthropathies). Individuals exposed to DPP4Is were matched to those exposed to non-DPP4Is using a propensity score (PS). Balance between the DPP4I's group and the non-DPP4I's group was assessed using standardized differences for both continuous and categorical variables. Cox regressions were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for MSk conditions. Results: Among PS-matched cohorts, incidence rates (IRs) for MSk conditions did not differ between DPP4I initiators and non-DPP4I initiators (HR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.97-1.05). After stratifying non-DPP4Is by drug class, the results still showed that DPP4I initiators had similar MSk risk when compared to initiators of metformin, sulfonylureas, meglitinides, and GLP-1 RAs. However, thiazolidinedione initiators had higher risk of MSk conditions than DPP4I initiators (HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.00-1.10). Conclusions: This head-to-head comparison study estimated comparative MSk risks among different antidiabetic drugs. The risk of MSk conditions among DPP4I initiators were not significantly higher than non-DPP4I initiators.
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.