CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 217Diabetes Treatment and ManagementHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 21 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Association Between Sitagliptin Use and Heart Failure Hospitalization and Related Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
McGuire, Darren K., Van de Werf, Frans, Armstrong, Paul W., Standl, Eberhard, Koglin, Joerg, Green, Jennifer B., Bethel, M. Angelyn, Cornel, Jan H., Lopes, Renato D., Halvorsen, Sigrun, Ambrosio, Giuseppe, Buse, John B., Josse, Robert G., Lachin, John M., Pencina, Michael J., Garg, Jyotsna, Lokhnygina, Yuliya, Holman, Rury R., Peterson, Eric D., for the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes With Sitagliptin (TECOS) Study Group·2016·JAMA Cardiology
DOI 10.1001/jamacardio.2016.0103
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Previous trial results have suggested that dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DPP4i) use might increase heart failure (HF) risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The DPP4i sitagliptin has been shown to be noninferior to placebo with regard to primary and secondary composite atherosclerotic cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes With Sitagliptin (TECOS). OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of sitagliptin use with hospitalization for HF (hHF) and related outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: TECOS was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluating the CV safety of sitagliptin vs placebo, each added to usual antihyperglycemic therapy and CV care among patients with T2DM and prevalent atherosclerotic vascular disease. The median follow-up was 2.9 years. The setting was 673 sites in 38 countries. Participants included 14 671 patients with T2DM and atherosclerotic vascular disease. The study dates were December 2008 through March 2015. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to sitagliptin vs placebo added to standard care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Prespecified secondary analyses compared the effect on hHF, hHF or CV death, and hHF or all-cause death composite outcomes overall and in prespecified subgroups. Supportive analyses included total hHF events (first plus recurrent) and post-hHF death. Meta-analyses evaluated DPP4i effects on hHF and on hHF or CV death. RESULTS: Of 14 671 patients, 7332 were randomized to sitagliptin and 7339 to placebo. Hospitalization for HF occurred in 3.1% (n = 228) and 3.1% (n = 229) of the sitagliptin and placebo groups, respectively (unadjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83-1.19). There was also no difference in total hHF events between the sitagliptin (n = 345) and placebo (n = 347) groups (unadjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.80-1.25). Post-hHF all-cause death was similar in the sitagliptin and placebo groups (29.8% vs 28.8%, respectively), as was CV death (22.4% vs 23.1%, respectively). No heterogeneity for the effect of sitagliptin on hHF was observed in subgroup analyses across 21 factors (P > .10 for all interactions). Meta-analysis of the hHF results from the 3 reported DPP4i CV outcomes trials revealed moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 44.9, P = .16). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Sitagliptin use does not affect the risk for hHF in T2DM, both overall and among high-risk patient subgroups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00790205.

Overview

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/jamacardio.2016.0103

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 22 references

1 of the 22 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bethel MA, Green JB, Milton J, et al; TECOS Executive Committee. Regional, age and sex differences in baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes With Sitagliptin (TECOS). Diabetes Obes Metab. 2015;17(4):395-402.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 217

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
McGuire, D. K., Van de Werf, F., Armstrong, P. W., Standl, E., Koglin, J., Green, J. B., Bethel, M. A., Cornel, J. H., Lopes, R. D., Halvorsen, S., Ambrosio, G., Buse, J. B., Josse, R. G., Lachin, J. M., Pencina, M. J., Garg, J., Lokhnygina, Y., Holman, R. R., Peterson, E. D., & for the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes With Sitagliptin (TECOS) Study Group
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • Helmholtz Munich (DE)
  • Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Medisch Centrum Alkmaar (NL)
  • Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
  • Oslo University Hospital (NO)
  • University of Perugia (IT)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
  • George Washington University (US)
Corresponding author
McGuire, Darren K.
ORCID
Venue
JAMA Cardiology
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2016-05-01
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
126
ISSN
2380-6583 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/jamacardio.2016.0103
OpenAlex
W2335973015
Cited by
217
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 13
FWCI
42.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Diabetes Association
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation
  • Amgen
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Pfizer
  • AstraZeneca
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Sanofi
  • Gilead Sciences
  • Intarcia Therapeutics
  • Halozyme
  • AstraZeneca HealthCare Foundation
  • MacroGenics
  • Novo Nordisk
  • Astellas Pharma
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Keywords
sitagliptin, heart failure hospitalization, type 2 diabetes, DPP-4 inhibitors, cardiovascular safety, TECOS trial, atherosclerosis, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, glycemic control, antihyperglycemic therapy, subgroup analysis
MeSH terms
Sitagliptin Phosphate, Aged, Cardiovascular Diseases, Cause of Death, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Heart Failure, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Prevalence, Hospital Mortality, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Atherosclerosis, Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors

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