Cardiovascular outcome trials in type 2 diabetes and the sulphonylurea controversy: Rationale for the active-comparator CAROLINA trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sulphonylureas (SUs) are widely used glucose-lowering agents in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with apparent declining efficacy over time. Concerns have been raised from observational retrospective studies on the cardiovascular (CV) safety of SUs but there are few long-term data on CV outcomes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving the use of this class of agents. Most of the observational studies and registry data are conflicting and vary with study population and methodology used for analyses. To address the SU controversy, we reviewed the recently published literature (until end of the year 2011) to evaluate the impact of SUs on CV outcomes in modern, longer-term (≥72 weeks) RCTs where they were compared in a head-to-head fashion versus an active comparator or were used as part of a treatment strategy. We identified 15 trials and found no report of an increase in the incidence of CV events with the use of SUs. However, the available data are limited, and, most importantly, there was no adequately powered formal head-to-head CV outcome trial designed to address CV safety. Since SUs are still being advocated as second-line therapy added-on to metformin, as one of several classes, and in certain circumstances first-line therapy in T2DM management, definitive data from a dedicated RCT addressing the CV safety question with SUs would be informative. Cardiovascular Outcome Study of Linagliptin versus Glimepiride in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes (CAROLINA) is such a trial, ongoing since November 2010, and is currently the largest head-to-head CV outcome trial that involves a comparison of a SU (glimepiride) with a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor (linagliptin) and will provide a unique perspective with respect to CV outcomes with these two commonly used agents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.260 | 0.313 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".