↓ Skip to main content

Insights From Cardiovascular Outcome Trials with Novel Antidiabetes Agents: What Have We Learned? An Industry Perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Current Diabetes Reports, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Insights From Cardiovascular Outcome Trials with Novel Antidiabetes Agents: What Have We Learned? An Industry Perspective
Published in
Current Diabetes Reports, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11892-015-0663-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Boaz Hirshberg, Arie Katz

Abstract

Owing to the close association of cardiovascular (CV) disease with type 2 diabetes and the uncertainty surrounding the CV safety of antidiabetes agents, in 2008 the Food and Drug Administration issued guidance for the demonstration of CV safety for new antidiabetes drugs. Recently the results from CV outcomes trials of three dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist have been reported. The Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus (SAVOR) trial, the Examination of Cardiovascular Outcomes with Alogliptin versus Standard of Care in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Acute Coronary Syndrome (EXAMINE) trial, and the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) assessed the safety of saxagliptin, alogliptin, and sitagliptin, respectively, in patients with type 2 diabetes with CV disease or at high risk for CV disease. The Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ELIXA) assessed the safety of lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes and a recent acute coronary syndrome event. The results show that these agents neither increased nor deceased major adverse CV events (CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) compared with placebo. However, the resources needed to conduct these studies may detract from the ability to understand the potential long-term benefit and risk in the majority of patients that are candidates for use of these medications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 24%
Researcher 7 18%
Other 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 9 24%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 39%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Unspecified 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 8 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 December 2017.
All research outputs
#20,800,138
of 25,556,408 outputs
Outputs from Current Diabetes Reports
#832
of 1,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,069
of 281,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Diabetes Reports
#35
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,556,408 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,057 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,103 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.