Why the study?
Do DPP-4 inhibitors offer clinical efficacy and safety advantages compared to other glucose-lowering agents in patients with Type 2 diabetes?
Do DPP-4 inhibitors offer clinical efficacy and safety advantages compared to other glucose-lowering agents in patients with Type 2 diabetes?
This review highlights the clinical utility and safety profile of DPP-4 inhibitors in Type 2 diabetes, emphasizing their potential advantages in fragile populations and cardiovascular prevention.
May support DPP-4 inhibitor use in fragile T2D patients; leaves open need for confirmatory trials to resolve uncertainties.
INTRODUCTION: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (gliptins) occupy an increasing place in the armamentarium of drugs used for the management of hyperglycaemia and offer new opportunities for a personalized medicine in patients with Type 2 diabetes. AREAS COVERED: An updated review providing an analysis of available recent data with commercialized DPP-4 inhibitors, with a special focus on: differences between the various molecules, novelties regarding their mechanism of action, clinical efficacy in mono- and various combined therapies, comparison with other new therapies, efficacy-safety profile in at risk patients, concern about pancreatic safety, perspectives in cardiovascular prevention and, finally, a selection of remaining unanswered important questions for the clinician. EXPERT OPINION: DPP-4 inhibitors offer various advantages when compared to other glucose-lowering agents. Despite they have been commercialized since a few years only, available data obtained in randomised controlled trials are of better quality compared to those available with ancient classical glucose-lowering agents, especially in more fragile populations such as elderly people, individuals with renal impairment or at high cardiovascular risk and patients at higher risk of hypoglycaemia. However, there remain uncertainties and controversies that should be resolved by further ongoing large prospective controlled trials and increasing clinical experience combined with a careful post-marketing surveillance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
André Scheen (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: