Cited by 612Diabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Management and Research

Effect of Linagliptin vs Glimepiride on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The CAROLINA Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Rosenstock, Julio, Kahn, Steven E., Johansen, Odd Erik, Zinman, Bernard, Espeland, Mark A., Woerle, Hans J., Pfarr, Egon, Keller, Annett +8 more·2019·JAMA

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Type 2 diabetes is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. In placebo-controlled cardiovascular safety trials, the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin demonstrated noninferiority, but it has not been tested against an active comparator. OBJECTIVE: This trial assessed cardiovascular outcomes of linagliptin vs glimepiride (sulfonylurea) in patients with relatively early type 2 diabetes and risk factors for or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, noninferiority trial, with participant screening from November 2010 to December 2012, conducted at 607 hospital and primary care sites in 43 countries involving 6042 participants. Adults with type 2 diabetes, glycated hemoglobin of 6.5% to 8.5%, and elevated cardiovascular risk were eligible for inclusion. Elevated cardiovascular risk was defined as documented atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, multiple cardiovascular risk factors, aged at least 70 years, and evidence of microvascular complications. Follow-up ended in August 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive 5 mg of linagliptin once daily (n = 3023) or 1 to 4 mg of glimepiride once daily (n = 3010) in addition to usual care. Investigators were encouraged to intensify glycemic treatment, primarily by adding or adjusting metformin, α-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, or insulin, according to clinical need. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke with the aim to establish noninferiority of linagliptin vs glimepiride, defined by the upper limit of the 2-sided 95.47% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) of linagliptin relative to glimepiride of less than 1.3. RESULTS: Of 6042 participants randomized, 6033 (mean age, 64.0 years; 2414 [39.9%] women; mean glycated hemoglobin, 7.2%; median duration of diabetes, 6.3 years; 42% with macrovascular disease; 59% had undergone metformin monotherapy) were treated and analyzed. The median duration of follow-up was 6.3 years. The primary outcome occurred in 356 of 3023 participants (11.8%) in the linagliptin group and 362 of 3010 (12.0%) in the glimepiride group (HR, 0.98 [95.47% CI, 0.84-1.14]; P < .001 for noninferiority), meeting the noninferiority criterion but not superiority (P = .76). Adverse events occurred in 2822 participants (93.4%) in the linagliptin group and 2856 (94.9%) in the glimepiride group, with 15 participants (0.5%) in the linagliptin group vs 16 (0.5%) in the glimepiride group with adjudicated-confirmed acute pancreatitis. At least 1 episode of hypoglycemic adverse events occurred in 320 (10.6%) participants in the linagliptin group and 1132 (37.7%) in the glimepiride group (HR, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.21-0.26]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with relatively early type 2 diabetes and elevated cardiovascular risk, the use of linagliptin compared with glimepiride over a median 6.3 years resulted in a noninferior risk of a composite cardiovascular outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01243424.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2019.13772

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In people at high cardiovascular risk, no difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was found between glimepiride and linagliptin.

    “and no difference in the incidence of MACE was found in people at high cardiovascular risk treated with glimepiride or linagliptin (194), a medication whose cardiovascular safety was demonstrated in a population at high cardiovascular and renal risk (195).”
  • Studies have been limited by small sample sizes in combination therapy subgroups and trials have not consistently shown benefit for the combination of SGLT2is and GLP-1RAs on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes.

    “Studies have been limited by small sample sizes in combination therapy subgroups and trials have not consistently shown benefit for the combination of SGLT2is and GLP-1RAs on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes.73,112”

    From Diagnosis and Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in Adults (2025) · cites this paper as [73]

    The Trial Participants and Limitations sections describe a linagliptin-versus-glimepiride trial, not studies of combined SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists. Searches for that combination, small subgroups, and cardiovascular or kidney outcomes found no passage addressing the claim. Page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Based on the findings of statistical non-inferiority of linagliptin vs. placebo in CARMELINA coupled with the non-inferiority of linagliptin vs. glimepiride demonstrated in CAROLINA, one might conclude that glimepiride is most likely not different from placebo with regards to cardiovascular safety.

    “Based on the findings of statistical non-inferiority of linagliptin vs. placebo in CARMELINA coupled with the non-inferiority of linagliptin vs. glimepiride demonstrated in CAROLINA, one might conclude that glimepiride is most likely not different from placebo with regards to CV safety.180”
  • In the CAROLINA trial, linagliptin was compared with the active comparator glimepiride, demonstrating no difference in any assessed cardiovascular or kidney outcome, though noting a higher risk of hypoglycaemia with glimepiride.

    “In the CAROLINA (Cardiovascular Outcome Study of Linagliptin Versus Glimepiride in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes) trial, linagliptin was compared with the active comparator glimepiride, demonstrating no difference in any assessed CV or kidney outcome, though noting a higher risk of hypoglycaemia with glimepiride.180”
  • In the CAROLINA randomized trial, while glimepiride was associated with significantly more hypoglycaemia than the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin, MACE did not differ between the two randomized groups.

    “Likewise, in the CAROLINA randomized trial, while glimepiride was associated with significantly more hypoglycaemia than the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin, MACE did not differ between the two randomized groups.180”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rosenstock, J., Kahn, S. E., Johansen, O. E., Zinman, B., Espeland, M. A., Woerle, H. J., Pfarr, E., Keller, A., Mattheus, M., Baanstra, D., Meinicke, T., George, J. T., von Eynatten, M., McGuire, D. K., Marx, N., & for the CAROLINA Investigators
Affiliations
  • Dallas Diabetes Research Center (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Boehringer Ingelheim (Norway) (NO)
  • Mount Sinai Hospital (CA)
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
  • Universität Ulm (DE)
  • Boehringer Ingelheim (Germany) (DE)
  • Boehringer Ingelheim (Netherlands) (NL)
  • Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH & Co KG, Ingelheim, Germany
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • Universitätsklinikum Aachen (DE)
Corresponding author
Marx, Nikolaus
Venue
JAMA
Published
2019-09-24
Volume
322
Issue
12
Pages
1155
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2974098728
Cited by
612
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 78 · 2022: 104 · 2021: 105 · 2020: 148 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
76.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Amgen
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Pfizer
  • AstraZeneca
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Sanofi
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFBTRR219, TRR219)
  • Eisai
  • Novo Nordisk
  • Esperion Therapeutics
  • Janssen Research and Development
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
linagliptin, glimepiride, type 2 diabetes, major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiovascular safety, non-inferiority, DPP-4 inhibitors, sulfonylureas, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, glycemic control, metformin, antihypertensive therapy, antidiabetic therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review