↓ Skip to main content

Adverse drug effects observed with vildagliptin versus pioglitazone or rosiglitazone in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Adverse drug effects observed with vildagliptin versus pioglitazone or rosiglitazone in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40360-017-0175-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pravesh Kumar Bundhun, Girish Janoo, Abhishek Rishikesh Teeluck, Feng Huang

Abstract

Vildagliptin and pioglitazone/rosiglitazone are emerging Oral Hypoglycemic Agents (OHAs) which are used to treat patients suffering from Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). In this analysis, we aimed to systematically compare the adverse drug events which were observed with the use of vildagliptin versus pioglitazone or rosiglitazone respectively. Online databases were searched for studies comparing vildagliptin with pioglitazone/rosiglitazone. Adverse drug events were considered as the clinical endpoints in this analysis. We calculated Odds Ratios (OR) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) using the RevMan 5.3 software. All the authors had full access to the data which were used and approved the final version of the manuscript. A total number of 2396 patients were analyzed (1486 and 910 patients were treated with vildagliptin and pioglitazone/rosiglitazone respectively). Vildagliptin and pioglitazone/rosiglitazone were both associated with similar overall adverse drug events (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.81-1.24; P = 1.00). Headache (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.60-1.27; P = 0.49) and upper respiratory tract infection (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.71-1.27; P = 0.75) were similarly observed. However, dizziness was significantly lower with pioglitazone/rosiglitazone (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.43-0.92; P = 0.02). Back pain, diarrhea and nausea were insignificantly lower with pioglitazone/rosiglitazone (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.49-1.33; P = 0.40), (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.48-1.44; P = 0.52) and (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.25-1.05; P = 0.07) respectively, whereas peripheral edema and weight gain were insignificantly higher (OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.56-2.62; P = 0.63) and (OR: 2.29, 95% CI: 0.51-10.34; P = 0.28) respectively. Nevertheless, when pioglitazone and rosiglitazone were separately compared with vildagliptin, peripheral edema and weight gain were significantly higher with rosiglitazone (OR: 2.36, 95% CI: 1.40-3.99; P = 0.001) and (OR: 5.20, 95% CI: 2.47-10.92; P = 0.0001) respectively. Both vildagliptin and pioglitazone/rosiglitazone are acceptable for the treatment of patients with T2DM on the basis that they are not significantly different in terms of overall adverse drug events. However, weight gain and peripheral edema would have to be re-assessed in further larger randomized controlled trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 20%
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Librarian 3 7%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 43%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 11 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 July 2018.
All research outputs
#4,122,767
of 14,574,779 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#85
of 306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,190
of 318,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#10
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,574,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 306 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
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 318,934 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.