Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medicine logoLink to Medicine
. 2015 Jul 17;94(28):e1128. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001128

Sitagliptin After Ischemic Stroke in Type 2 Diabetic Patients: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Dong-Yi Chen 1, Szu-Heng Wang 1, Chun-Tai Mao 1, Ming-Lung Tsai 1, Yu-Sheng Lin 1, Feng-Chieh Su 1, Chung-Chuan Chou 1, Ming-Shien Wen 1, Chun-Chieh Wang 1, I-Chang Hsieh 1, Kuo-Chun Hung 1, Wen-Jin Cherng 1, Tien-Hsing Chen 1
Editor: Inyang Osemene1
PMCID: PMC4617065  PMID: 26181549

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Abstract

The cerebrovascular safety and efficacy of sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with ischemic stroke remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin in patients with T2DM with recent ischemic stroke.

We analyzed data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database between March 1, 2009, and December 31, 2011. Ischemic stroke patients were identified from individuals with T2DM. Patients who received sitagliptin were compared with those who did not to evaluate the cardiovascular safety and efficacy of sitagliptin. The primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular death.

A total of 5145 type 2 diabetic patients with ischemic stroke met our inclusion criteria and were followed for up to 2.83 years (mean, 1.17 years). Overall, 1715 patients (33.3%) received sitagliptin and 3430 patients (66.7%) did not. The primary composite outcome occurred in 190 patients in the sitagliptin group (11.1%) and in 370 patients in the comparison group (10.8%) (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85–1.21). Patients treated with sitagliptin had a similar risk of ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and all-cause mortality with an HR of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.78–1.16, P = 0.612), 1.07 (95% CI, 0.55–2.11, P = 0.834), and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.82–1.22, P = 0.989), respectively, compared with patients not treated with sitagliptin.

Treatment with sitagliptin in type 2 diabetic patients with recent ischemic stroke was not associated with increased or decreased risks of adverse cerebrovascular outcomes.

INTRODUCTION

It is well established that type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with an elevated risk of major cardiovascular complications.1 Patients with DM have a 2-fold excess risk for ischemic stroke compared with individuals without DM.2 From another perspective, acute stroke can cause stress hyperglycemia with increased mortality and poor outcome.3 Although improved glycemic control has been shown to reduce the risk of microvascular complications of T2DM, its benefit for macrovascular risk reduction has been controversial.4–8 There is still uncertainty regarding the cardiovascular outcome benefits or neuroprotective effect of glucose-lowering treatment after stroke.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are used for the treatment of patients with T2DM. These agents enhance the availability of incretin hormones such as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), which in turn stimulate insulin and suppress glucagon secretion.9 Emerging evidence has suggested that the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin may have neuroprotective effects and be associated with significantly fewer cardiovascular events and stroke.10,11 On the contrary, two recently published studies on saxagliptin and alogliptin did not find any beneficial effect on cardiovascular outcomes or stroke.12,13 As a result, there is ongoing debate about the cardiovascular benefits and potential risks of DPP-4 inhibitors.

Sitagliptin is the first approved DPP-4 inhibitor for clinical use. A meta-analysis study suggested that there is a decreased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes,14 but some individual studies reported a neutral effect,15,16 whereas others found increased cardiovascular risks.17,18 However, none of these studies designated ischemic stroke patients as the main study population. As a result, there are very limited data on the effects of sitagliptin in T2DM patients after ischemic stroke.

Given the current controversy over the neuroprotective effect of DPP-4 inhibitors, we conducted this nationwide cohort study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin with respect to cerebrovascular outcomes in patients with T2DM who had recent ischemic stroke.

METHODS

Data Source

We conducted a nationwide cohort study by using National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) of Taiwan, which consists of standard computerized claim documents submitted by medical institutions through the National Health Insurance (NHI) program. The NHIRD has been described in the previous studies.18 Briefly, the NHI program covers the medical needs of >23 million people, who represent >99% of the population of Taiwan. All clinical diagnoses were recorded according to the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes (Appendix, http://links.lww.com/MD/A330). The accuracy of diagnosis of major disease in the claims database, such as myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and chronic kidney disease (CKD), has been validated.19–21 The information and records of patients were deidentified prior to analysis. This study was approved by the Ethics Institutional Review Board of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan.

Study Cohorts

We identified all patients in the NHIRD with T2DM (ICD-9-CM codes 250) between March 1, 2009, and December 31, 2011. Only patients with T2DM who were hospitalized for ischemic stroke (ICD-9-CM codes 433–435) were included in our study (Figure 1). The index hospitalization was defined as the date on which the patient was admitted for ischemic stroke. Patients’ baseline characteristics and comorbidities, including previous cerebrovascular accident and atrial fibrillation, and CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores, were identified.22,23 The follow-up period was based on the index hospitalization to date of death, loss of follow-up, or until December 31, 2011.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Enrolment of study patients. Patients with T2DM who were hospitalized for ischemic stroke were identified for our study cohort after relevant exclusions. DPP-4 = dipeptidyl peptidase-4, T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Exposure to Sitagliptin

Patients who received a prescription of sitagliptin for 90 consecutive days following index discharge were defined as the sitagliptin group, whereas patients who did not receive sitagliptin were defined as the comparison group. Sitagliptin dosages were prescribed according to Taiwan's NHI regulations: 100, 50, and 25 mg daily for patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of >50 mL/min, between 30 to 50, and <30 mL/min, respectively.

Exclusion Criteria

Patients with age <40 years were initially excluded. Second, patients with newly diagnosed T2DM, which was defined as T2DM diagnosed during index hospitalization, were excluded to ensure consistencies in disease severity and duration among diabetic patients. In order to avoid carry-over effect, we excluded patients who received sitagliptin treatment before index hospitalization and those who were prescribed sitaglitpin for <90 days after index date. Patients who used DPP-4 inhibitors other than sitagliptin were also excluded. Third, patients were excluded if they met any of the following criteria that may affect the long-term outcomes: received renal replacement therapies before or after the index hospitalization; major adverse cardiovascular events (defined as ischemic stroke, MI, or cardiovascular death) within 30 days of discharge; expired during index admission; or followed up for <30 days after the index hospitalization.

Study Outcomes and Covariate Measurements

The baseline comorbidities were identified by ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes and nonstudy medication use after the index hospitalization was also evaluated. The primary outcome was composite event of ischemic stroke, MI, or cardiovascular death. Definitions of cardiovascular death met the criteria of the Standardized Definitions for End Point Events in Cardiovascular Trials draft by the Food and Drug Administration.24 Death and causes of death were based on registry data of the NHIRD.25 Other secondary outcomes were hemorrhagic stroke, nonfatal ischemic stroke, nonfatal acute MI, deaths of any cause, and hospitalization for heart failure. Safety outcomes included acute or chronic pancreatitis, hypoglycemia, hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state, and diabetic ketoacidosis.

Statistical Analysis

To minimize the bias in the estimated effect (group difference) in this study, the sitagliptin cohort was matched with the comparison cohort with a 1:2 ratio in terms of patient characteristics, baseline comorbidities, nonstudy medication prescribed 90 days since the index hospitalization (Table 1), and index year and month by using the propensity score method (PSM). The PSM matching algorithm was based on the nearest-neighbor method and used the caliper radius (set as 0.5 σ) that signifies a tolerance level for the maximum distance in the propensity score.26 The matching procedure was performed using SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

TABLE 1.

Baseline Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of the Study Patients

graphic file with name medi-94-e1128-g002.jpg

Open in a new tab

Clinical characteristics between study groups (sitagliptin and comparison groups) were compared by χ2 test for categorical variables and independent sample t test for continuous variables. Time to the first occurrence of a predefined primary or secondary outcome after the index hospitalization between the study groups was compared by Cox proportional hazard models with adjustment of the propensity score. The survival rates for the predefined period (ie, 3 months, 1 year, and until the last follow-up) for each study group were estimated and depicted by the Kaplan–Meier method, along with the log-rank test. All data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS software version 22 (IBM SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL).

RESULTS

Study Patients

A total of 5145 patients diagnosed with T2DM who were hospitalized for ischemic stroke from March 1, 2009, through December 31, 2011, were identified for our study cohort. Of these patients, 1715 (33.3%) were in the sitagliptin group and 3430 matched patients (66.7%) were in the comparison group. The mean age for the overall cohort was 67.5 years (standard deviation [SD] = 11.0 years). The mean follow-up period was 1.17 years (SD = 0.75 years), and the maximum follow-up time was 2.83 years. No differences in the distribution of the baseline characteristics and comorbidities between the study groups were found after PSM matching (Table 1).

Patients with atrial fibrillation accounted for 5.9% of the patients in the sitagliptin group and 6.1% in the comparison group. The CHADS2 score was 4.7 for the sitagliptin group and 4.6 for the comparison group, and CHA2DS2-VASc score was 6.3 for the sitagliptin group and 6.1 for the comparison group. Atrial fibrillation, CHADS2 score, and CHA2DS2-VASc score were well matched between the 2 groups. The use of nonstudy medication for T2DM and cardiovascular disease after enrolment was also well balanced between both the groups (Table 2).

TABLE 2.

Proportions of Patients Receiving Nonstudy Medications

graphic file with name medi-94-e1128-g003.jpg

Open in a new tab

Cardiovascular Outcomes

The composite primary cardiovascular outcome occurred in 190 patients in the sitagliptin group (11.1%) and in 370 patients in the comparison group (10.8%) (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85–1.21, P = 0.845). The incidence rates of ischemic stroke (HR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.78–1.16, P = 0.612), MI (HR = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.41–1.97, P = 0.785), and cardiovascular death (HR = 1.25; CI, 0.86–1.83, P = 0.243) were similar for the 2 study groups at 3-month follow-up and until the end of the study (Table 3; Figure 2A–D).

TABLE 3.

Primary Outcomes in Various Follow-Up Periods

graphic file with name medi-94-e1128-g004.jpg

Open in a new tab

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Cumulative probability of event rates in each study group for (A) ischemic stroke, (B) cardiovascular death, (C) myocardial infarction, and (D) primary composite endpoint. The primary endpoint was a composite of ischemic stroke, cardiovascular death, or myocardial infarction. No significant differences in the primary composite outcomes were observed between the 2 study groups after a mean 1.17-year follow-up.

With regard to the secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences in the risks of hemorrhagic stroke (HR = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.55–2.11), nonfatal ischemic stroke (HR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.79–1.18), nonfatal MI (HR = 1.12; 95% CI, 0.50–2.54), death of any cause (HR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.82–1.22), or hospitalization for heart failure (HR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.48–1.29) between the sitagliptin and comparison groups (Table 4). Subgroup analysis revealed that sitagliptin use was associated with a neutral effect on ischemic stroke or primary composite outcome in patients with or without previous history of atrial fibrillation, CKD, or cerebrovascular accident. There were no significant differences in adverse cardiovascular events between sexes, either (Figure 3A and B).

TABLE 4.

Secondary Outcomes

graphic file with name medi-94-e1128-g006.jpg

Open in a new tab

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Subgroup analysis for (A) ischemic stroke and (B) primary composite endpoint. Sitagliptin use was associated with a neutral effect on ischemic stroke and primary composite outcomes in patients with or without a previous history of atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, or cerebrovascular accident.

Safety Outcomes

The sitagliptin and comparison groups did not differ significantly with respect to the incidence of hypoglycemia (1.9% and 2.0%; P = 0.730). The incidences of hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state and diabetic ketoacidosis were also similar across the 2 study groups (1.6% and 1.1%, respectively; P = 0.166). There was no significant difference in the incidence of acute or chronic pancreatitis between the 2 study groups (Table 4).

DISCUSSION

This nationwide, population-based cohort study showed that in T2DM patients with recent ischemic stroke, treatment with the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin neither significantly increased nor significantly reduced the major cardiovascular risks of ischemic stroke, MI, or cardiovascular death when compared with T2DM patients with ischemic stroke but not treated with sitagliptin at 3-month, 1-year, and all-course follow-up. Secondary outcome analysis demonstrated that the sitagliptin treatment group did not significantly differ from the comparison group with respect to risks of hemorrhagic stroke, nonfatal ischemic stroke, all-cause mortality, or hospitalization for heart failure. To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the cardiovascular effect of sitagliptin focusing on the population of type 2 diabetic patients with recent ischemic stroke. Our results provide important information on the benefits and potential risks of using sitagliptin to treat this high-risk group of patients.

Our study revealed that the cerebrovascular outcomes in the sitagliptin treatment group were not inferior to those in the comparison group but did not provide a neuroprotective benefit for this high-risk group of patients. At present, there are still controversies about the neuroprotective effect of DPP-4 inhibitors. Sitagliptin treatment for 1 year has been shown to be associated with a beneficial effect with regard to the prevention of carotid intima-media thickness progression compared with the diet control.27 A 2-year study comparing linagliptin with glimepride in type 2 diabetic patients suggested that significantly fewer cardiovascular events and nonfatal stroke occur with linagliptin use.10 Nonetheless, the superiority of DPP-4 inhibition with regard to cardiovascular outcomes, such as cardiovascular death, ischemic stroke, and nonfatal stroke, was not found in 2 large cardiovascular outcome trials for saxagliptin in the SAVOR study12 and alogliptin in the EXAMINE study.13 More importantly, none of these studies designated ischemic stroke patients as the main study population. Uncertainty about the cerebrovascular benefits of different DPP-4 inhibitors among ischemic stroke patients remains.

Our goal was to determine the potential anti-stroke efficacy of sitagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor, for type 2 diabetic patients suffering from ischemic stroke. DPP-4 inhibitors do not cross the blood brain barrier (BBB), which inhibits their direct actions on the central nervous system. On the other hand, DPP-4 inhibitor-medicated increased GLP-1 can directly have an effect at the neuronal level in the brain which was suspected to be related the neuroprotective effect on the stroke mice.28 Furthermore, stroke-mediated damage has been reported to increase the permeability of the BBB but whether this effect could have benefit for neuroprotection of DPP-4 inhibitor is unclear. To this end, we included recent ischemic stroke type 2 diabetic patient receiving sitagliptin treatment and designed with cerebrovascular outcomes as the primary endpoints. However, our results didn’t find a significant anti-stroke efficacy mediated by sitagliptin treatment.

The exact mechanism underlying our finding that sitagliptin did not reduce the ischemic stroke rate remain unclear but there are several potential explanations. First, we included patients with a considerably high cardiovascular risk who had a recent episode of ischemic stroke, making the recurrent ischemic stroke rate more than 8% and primary composite cardiovascular event rate more than 10% during the mean follow-up period of 1.17 years. History of ischemic stroke is a strong predictor of recurrent stroke which may counterbalance the potential neuroprotective effect of sitaglipitin. In contrast, a 2-year study of linagliptin excluded patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack within 6 months before enrollment making their overall non-fatal stroke rate of only 0.9%.10 A difference in disease severity of the patient populations may have had an effect on the opposite conclusion reached by the two studies. Second, a majority of patients in our study received antiplatelet therapy with more than 74% of the patients receiving aspirin and more than 36% clopidogrel. The high proportion of aspirin use in our study was in accordance with 75% of patients receiving aspirin in the SAVOR study12 and 90% in the EXAMINE study.13 Both of these studies suggested a neutral neuroprotective effect. However, only 36% of the patients received aspirin therapy in the 2-year study of linagliptin.10 The high proportion of antiplatelet medication use in our study may have neutralized the cardiovascular risk and offset potential differences between the study groups. Finally, our study had a mean of 1.17 years and a maximum of 2.83 years of follow-up, which may not have been long enough to show a beneficial effect on reducing the risk of ischemic stroke. As a result, our finding could not rule out the possible neuroprotective effect with longer-term treatment of sitagliptin.

On account of the controversy over the cardiovascular effects of sitagliptin, the trial evaluating cardiovascular outcomes with sitagliptin (TECOS), a double-blind, randomized trial, is designed for further evaluation of the safety of this medication.29 This trial enrolled patients with established cardiovascular diseases; however, it did not specifically include individuals with recent ischemic stroke. In our study, all the patients had recent ischemic stroke. As a result, our study currently provides the only evidence on the cerebrovascular outcome of sitagliptin treatment for T2DM in a recent ischemic stroke population.

This study has several limitations. First, the claims database did not include personal information on tobacco use, physical activity, body mass index, family history of cardiovascular disease, or laboratory parameters including glycated hemoglobin levels. Nonetheless, we were able to include a wide range of variables related to outcomes to make our 2 study groups well balanced. Second, our study is based on the assumption that patients properly adhered to instructions to use their treatment medications in the claims data. Finally, our study has a mean of 1.17 years and a maximum of 2.83 years of follow-up because sitagliptin was available in Taiwan only after March 1, 2009. Studies with longer duration of follow-up may be needed to generate more information.

In conclusion, sitagliptin use in T2DM patients who had recent ischemic stroke was not associated with increased or decreased risks of the composite adverse cardiovascular outcome, which included recurrent ischemic stroke, cardiovascular death, or MI. Sitagliptin neither increased nor reduced the risk of hemorrhagic stroke, death from any cause, or heart failure hospitalization. These findings could help clinicians in formulating strategies for use of antihyperglycemic agents in this high-risk population of patients.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Hsing-Fen Lin for statistical assistance.

Footnotes

Abbreviations: ACEI = angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, ARB = angiotensin receptor blocker, BBB = blood brain barrier, CKD = chronic kidney disease, CV = cardiovascular, DKA = diabetic ketoacidosis, DPP-4 = dipeptidyl peptidase-4, GLP-1 = glucagon-like peptide 1, HHS = hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state, ICD-9-CM = International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, MI = myocardial infarction, NA = not applicable, NHI = National Health Insurance, NHIRD = National Health Insurance Research Database, PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention, PSM = propensity score method, T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus, TZD = thiazolidinedione.

This work was supported by grants from Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (CMRPG3B1201).

The authors have conflicts of interest to disclose.

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Website (www.md-journal.com).

REFERENCES

  • 1.Meigs JB. Epidemiology of cardiovascular complications in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Acta Diabetol 2003; 40 (suppl 2):S358–S361. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sarwar N, Gao P, Seshasai SR, et al. Diabetes mellitus, fasting blood glucose concentration, and risk of vascular disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of 102 prospective studies. Lancet 2010; 375:2215–2222. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Capes SE, Hunt D, Malmberg K, et al. Stress hyperglycemia and prognosis of stroke in nondiabetic and diabetic patients: a systematic overview. Stroke 2001; 32:2426–2432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J, et al. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:2560–2572. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Duckworth W, Abraira C, Moritz T, et al. Glucose control and vascular complications in veterans with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:129–139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gerstein HC, Miller ME, Genuth S, et al. Long-term effects of intensive glucose lowering on cardiovascular outcomes. N Engl J Med 2011; 364:818–828. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Boussageon R, Bejan-Angoulvant T, Saadatian-Elahi M, et al. Effect of intensive glucose lowering treatment on all cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and microvascular events in type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2011; 343:d4169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hemmingsen B, Lund SS, Gluud C, et al. Targeting intensive glycaemic control versus targeting conventional glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 6:Cd008143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Drucker DJ, Nauck MA. The incretin system: glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes. Lancet 2006; 368:1696–1705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Gallwitz B, Rosenstock J, Rauch T, et al. 2-year efficacy and safety of linagliptin compared with glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin: a randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2012; 380:475–483. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Johansen OE, Neubacher D, von Eynatten M, et al. Cardiovascular safety with linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a pre-specified, prospective, and adjudicated meta-analysis of a phase 3 programme. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2012; 11:3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Scirica BM, Bhatt DL, Braunwald E, et al. Saxagliptin and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:1317–1326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.White WB, Cannon CP, Heller SR, et al. Alogliptin after acute coronary syndrome in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:1327–1335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Patil HR, Al Badarin FJ, Al Shami HA, et al. Meta-analysis of effect of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors on cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol 2012; 110:826–833. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Scheller NM, Mogensen UM, Andersson C, et al. All-cause mortality and cardiovascular effects associated with the DPP-IV inhibitor sitagliptin compared with metformin, a retrospective cohort study on the Danish population. Diabetes Obes Metab 2014; 16:231–236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Eurich DT, Simpson S, Senthilselvan A, et al. Comparative safety and effectiveness of sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes: retrospective population based cohort study. BMJ 2013; 346:f2267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Weir DL, McAlister FA, Senthilselvan A, et al. Sitagliptin use in patients with diabetes and heart failure: a population-based retrospective cohort study. JACC Heart Failure 2014; 2:573–582. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Chen D, Wang S, Mao C, et al. Sitagliptin and cardiovascular outcomes in diabetic patients with chronic kidney disease and acute myocardial infarction: a nationwide cohort study. Int J Cardiol 2014; 181c:200–206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Chang CH, Lee YC, Tsai CT, et al. Continuation of statin therapy and a decreased risk of atrial fibrillation/flutter in patients with and without chronic kidney disease. Atherosclerosis 2014; 232:224–230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cheng CL, Kao YH, Lin SJ, et al. Validation of the National Health Insurance Research Database with ischemic stroke cases in Taiwan. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safety 2011; 20:236–242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cheng CL, Lee CH, Chen PS, et al. Validation of acute myocardial infarction cases in the national health insurance research database in taiwan. J Epidemiol/Japan Epidemiol Assoc 2014; 24:500–507. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gage BF, Waterman AD, Shannon W, et al. Validation of clinical classification schemes for predicting stroke: results from the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation. J Am Med Assoc 2001; 285:2864–2870. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mason PK, Lake DE, DiMarco JP, et al. Impact of the CHA2DS2-VASc score on anticoagulation recommendations for atrial fibrillation. Am J Med 2012; 125:603. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Food and Drug Administration. Standardized definitions for end point events in cardiovascular trials. 2010; Silver Spring, MD: Food and Drug Administration, 37. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wu CY, Chen YJ, Ho HJ, et al. Association between nucleoside analogues and risk of hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence following liver resection. J Am Med Assoc 2012; 308:1906–1914. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Austin PC. Statistical criteria for selecting the optimal number of untreated subjects matched to each treated subject when using many-to-one matching on the propensity score. Am J Epidemiol 2010; 172:1092–1097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ishikawa S, Shimano M, Watarai M, et al. Impact of sitagliptin on carotid intima-media thickness in patients with coronary artery disease and impaired glucose tolerance or mild diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol 2014; 114:384–388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Darsalia V, Ortsater H, Olverling A, et al. The DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin counteracts stroke in the normal and diabetic mouse brain: a comparison with glimepiride. Diabetes 2013; 62:1289–1296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Green JB, Bethel MA, Paul SK, et al. Rationale, design, and organization of a randomized, controlled Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease. Am Heart J 2013; 166:983–989. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES