Article

The evolving place of incretin-based therapies in type 2 diabetes

Medizinische Klinik IV, Otfried-Müller-Strasse 10, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Pediatric Nephrology (Impact Factor: 2.88). 07/2010; 25(7):1207-17. DOI: 10.1007/s00467-009-1435-z
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Treatment options for type 2 diabetes based on the action of the incretin hormone glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) were first introduced in 2005. These comprise the injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists solely acting on the GLP-1 receptor on the one hand and orally active dipeptidyl-peptidase inhibitors (DPP-4 inhibitors) raising endogenous GLP-1 and other hormone levels by inhibiting the degrading enzyme DPP-4. In adult medicine, both treatment options are attractive and more commonly used because of their action and safety profile. The incretin-based therapies stimulate insulin secretion and inhibit glucagon secretion in a glucose-dependent manner and carry no intrinsic risk of hypoglycaemia. GLP-1 receptor agonists allow weight loss, whereas DPP-4 inhibitors are weight neutral. This review gives an overview of the mechanism of action and the substances and clinical data available.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Baptist Gallwitz, Jul 13, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
215 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite availability of several oral hypoglycemic agents, safe and effective treatment still represents a challenge in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and a large percentage of patients do not reach the therapeutic goal of a near normal HbA1c value. Incretin-based therapies represent a relatively new treatment approach that may address some of the shortfalls of the traditional treatments. ''Incretins'' are hormones secreted by the gastrointestinal tract upon food intake. Glucagone like peptide-1 (GLP-1), the first incretin to be described, potentiates glucose-dependent insulin secretion and appears capable, at least in vitro and in animal models, to preserve beta-cell mass and function. Due to its characteristics, GLP-1 is considered a very attractive molecule for treatment of type 2 diabetes. However, native GLP-1 is rapidly degraded by the enzyme dipeptidyl-peptidase IV (DPP-4) and, therefore, it is not suitable for clinical use. This has led to development of the two classes of incretin-based drugs that are presently approved for type 2 diabetes treatment: DPP-4 inhibitors (or incretin enhancers) that are small compounds readily absorbable when assumed orally, which will prolong endogenous GLP-1 half-life and GLP-1-receptor agonists (or GLP-1 mimetics), which are injectable molecule mimicking endogenous GLP-1 action but with a longer half-life. Efficacy, safety, and clinical use of the available compounds of these two classes are discussed in this review. It is concluded that, on the basis of the available evidence, incretin-based therapies do represent a very flexible tool to achieve optimal blood glucose control in type 2 diabetic patients.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: MKC253 is glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1, 7-36 amide) adsorbed onto Technosphere microparticles for oral inhalation. The pharmacokinetics of inhaled GLP-1 and the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) relationship between inhaled GLP-1 and insulin were analyzed in two trials, one in healthy normal volunteers and the other in patients with type 2 diabetes. Inhaled GLP-1 was absorbed quickly, with peak concentrations occurring within 5 min, and levels returned to baseline within 30 min. Inhaled GLP-1 appeared to produce plasma levels of GLP-1 comparable to those of parenteral administration and sufficient to induce insulin secretion resulting in attenuation of postmeal glucose excursions in subjects with type 2 diabetes. An E(max) (maximum effect) model described the relationship between GLP-1 concentration and insulin release. The variability in the E(max) may be due to differences in baseline glucose levels, differences resulting from genetic polymorphisms in GLP-1 receptors (GLP-1Rs), or the stage of diabetes of the patient.
    Clinical Pharmacology &#38 Therapeutics 08/2010; 88(2):243-50. DOI:10.1038/clpt.2010.85 · 7.39 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess diabetes treatment preferences with a focus on patient barriers to insulin treatment. A questionnaire using indirect and direct methods was administered as part of the International Diabetes Management Practices Study (IDMPS). Discrete choice modelling was used to assess how product attributes influence patients' preferences for diabetes treatment. A multinomial logit model was used to find the odds ratio for each parameter, representing the probability of selecting a chosen alternative given a choice set. This allowed for the derivation of relative attribute importance, an indication of how influential product attributes are in the respondents' choices. The IDMPS questionnaire was administered to 14,033 individuals with diabetes in 18 countries. The majority of respondents were women (53%) and had Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM; 85%). Across subgroups, administration (i.e. oral vs. injection) was a driver of preference. Patient preferences varied according to diabetes type; individuals with T2DM assigned much higher relative importance to administration than those with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM; 30.86% vs. 4.99%; p<0.0001). Individuals with T2DM treated with insulin placed less importance on administration than insulin-naïve T2DM patients (3.09% vs. 47.48%; p<0.0001). Diabetes education also had a significant effect on the priority given to administration between T2DM patients who received diabetes training and those who did not (28.21% vs. 33.68%, respectively; p<0.0001). The insulin barriers perceived by patients with diabetes evolved with their disease experience. While administration was the primary preference driver for insulin-naïve patients, patients were increasingly concerned with more clinically relevant barriers as they gained experience with insulin. This finding suggests that patients using insulin understand the importance of achieving an optimal balance between safety and efficacy.
    International Journal of Clinical Practice 04/2011; 65(4):408-14. DOI:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02590.x · 2.54 Impact Factor
Show more