↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Dipeptidyl-peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 analogues for prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its associated complications in people at increased risk…

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
402 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Dipeptidyl-peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 analogues for prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its associated complications in people at increased risk for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012204.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bianca Hemmingsen, David P Sonne, Maria-Inti Metzendorf, Bernd Richter

Abstract

The projected rise in the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) could develop into a substantial health problem worldwide. Whether dipeptidyl-peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 analogues are able to prevent or delay T2DM and its associated complications in people at risk for the development of T2DM is unknown. To assess the effects of DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues on the prevention or delay of T2DM and its associated complications in people with impaired glucose tolerance, impaired fasting blood glucose, moderately elevated glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) or any combination of these. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; PubMed; Embase; ClinicalTrials.gov; the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials. The date of the last search of all databases was January 2017. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of 12 weeks or more comparing DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues with any pharmacological glucose-lowering intervention, behaviour-changing intervention, placebo or no intervention in people with impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, moderately elevated HbA1c or combinations of these. Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed quality and extracted outcome data independently. One review author extracted data which were checked by a second review author. We resolved discrepancies by consensus or the involvement of a third review author. For meta-analyses, we planned to use a random-effects model with investigation of risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE instrument. We included seven completed RCTs; about 98 participants were randomised to a DPP-4 inhibitor as monotherapy and 1620 participants were randomised to a GLP-1 analogue as monotherapy. Two trials investigated a DPP-4 inhibitor and five trials investigated a GLP-1 analogue. A total of 924 participants with data on allocation to control groups were randomised to a comparator group; 889 participants were randomised to placebo and 33 participants to metformin monotherapy. One RCT of liraglutide contributed 85% of all participants. The duration of the intervention varied from 12 weeks to 160 weeks. We judged none of the included trials at low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains and did not perform meta-analyses because there were not enough trials.One trial comparing the DPP-4 inhibitor vildagliptin with placebo reported no deaths (very low-quality evidence). The incidence of T2DM by means of WHO diagnostic criteria in this trial was 3/90 participants randomised to vildagliptin versus 1/89 participants randomised to placebo (very low-quality evidence). Also, 1/90 participants on vildagliptin versus 2/89 participants on placebo experienced a serious adverse event (very low-quality evidence). One out of 90 participants experienced congestive heart failure in the vildagliptin group versus none in the placebo group (very low-quality evidence). There were no data on non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, health-related quality of life or socioeconomic effects reported.All-cause and cardiovascular mortality following treatment with GLP-1 analogues were rarely reported; one trial of exenatide reported that no participant died. Another trial of liraglutide 3.0 mg showed that 2/1501 in the liraglutide group versus 2/747 in the placebo group died after 160 weeks of treatment (very low-quality evidence).The incidence of T2DM following treatment with liraglutide 3.0 mg compared to placebo after 160 weeks was 26/1472 (1.8%) participants randomised to liraglutide versus 46/738 (6.2%) participants randomised to placebo (very low-quality evidence). The trial established the risk for (diagnosis of) T2DM as HbA1c 5.7% to 6.4% (6.5% or greater), fasting plasma glucose 5.6 mmol/L or greater to 6.9 mmol/L or less (7.0 mmol/L or greater) or two-hour post-load plasma glucose 7.8 mmol/L or greater to 11.0 mmol/L (11.1 mmol/L). Altogether, 70/1472 (66%) participants regressed from intermediate hyperglycaemia to normoglycaemia compared with 268/738 (36%) participants in the placebo group. The incidence of T2DM after the 12-week off-treatment extension period (i.e. after 172 weeks) showed that five additional participants were diagnosed T2DM in the liraglutide group, compared with one participant in the placebo group. After 12-week treatment cessation, 740/1472 (50%) participants in the liraglutide group compared with 263/738 (36%) participants in the placebo group had normoglycaemia.One trial used exenatide and 2/17 participants randomised to exenatide versus 1/16 participants randomised to placebo developed T2DM (very low-quality evidence). This trial did not provide a definition of T2DM. One trial reported serious adverse events in 230/1524 (15.1%) participants in the liraglutide 3.0 mg arm versus 96/755 (12.7%) participants in the placebo arm (very low quality evidence). There were no serious adverse events in the trial using exenatide. Non-fatal myocardial infarction was reported in 1/1524 participants in the liraglutide arm and in 0/55 participants in the placebo arm at 172 weeks (very low-quality evidence). One trial reported congestive heart failure in 1/1524 participants in the liraglutide arm and in 1/755 participants in the placebo arm (very low-quality evidence). Participants receiving liraglutide compared with placebo had a small mean improvement in the physical component of the 36-item Short Form scale showing a difference of 0.87 points (95% CI 0.17 to 1.58; P = 0.02; 1 trial; 1791 participants; very low-quality evidence). No trial evaluating GLP-1-analogues reported data on stroke, microvascular complications or socioeconomic effects. There is no firm evidence that DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 analogues compared mainly with placebo substantially influence the risk of T2DM and especially its associated complications in people at increased risk for the development of T2DM. Most trials did not investigate patient-important outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 402 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 402 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 95 24%
Student > Bachelor 54 13%
Researcher 42 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 7%
Student > Postgraduate 27 7%
Other 67 17%
Unknown 88 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 142 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 56 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 4%
Psychology 16 4%
Neuroscience 13 3%
Other 54 13%
Unknown 104 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 31 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,816,331
of 18,737,810 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,312
of 11,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,141
of 275,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#119
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,737,810 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,853 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 275,773 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 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 52% of its contemporaries.