Cited by 398Diabetes Treatment and ManagementPeptidase Inhibition and AnalysisNatural Antidiabetic Agents Studies

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Deacon, Carolyn F.·2020·Nature Reviews Endocrinology

Abstract

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i) have been available for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus since 2006. Although they are a diverse group, DPP4i are all small, orally available molecules that interact with the catalytic site of DPP4 without disturbing any of its other known functions, including its effects on the immune system. DPP4i have no intrinsic glucose-lowering activity, so their efficacy as anti-diabetic agents is related directly to their ability to inhibit DPP4 activity and is mediated through the effects of the substrates they protect. Of these, the incretin hormone, glucagon-like peptide 1, is probably the most important. As the effects of glucagon-like peptide 1 are glucose-dependent, the risk of hypoglycaemia with DPP4i is low. Class effects, which are directly related to the mechanism of action, are common to all DPP4i; these include their overall good safety profile and tolerability, as well as their efficacy in improving glycaemic control, but also, potentially, a small increased risk of acute pancreatitis. Compound-specific effects are those related to their differing chemistries and/or pharmacokinetic profiles. These compound-specific effects could affect the way in which individual DPP4i are used therapeutically and potentially explain off-target adverse effects, such as hospitalization for heart failure, which is seen only with one DPP4i. Overall, DPP4i have a favourable therapeutic profile and are safe and effective in the majority of patients wi…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41574-020-0399-8

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • For type 2 diabetes, complementary disease-modifying therapies may reduce or eliminate the need for insulin administration.

    “For type 2 diabetes, complementary disease-modifying therapies that may reduce or eliminate the need for insulin administration have also represented a rapidly expanding field of interest130–132.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Deacon, C. F.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Deacon, Carolyn F.
Venue
Nature Reviews Endocrinology
Published
2020-09-14
Volume
16
Issue
11
Pages
642-653
ISSN
  • 1759-5029 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-5037
OpenAlex
W3086213814
Cited by
398
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 77 · 2024: 95 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 2
FWCI
6.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Endocrinology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Peptidase Inhibition and Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Natural Antidiabetic Agents Studies
Keywords
DPP-4 inhibitors, type 2 diabetes, glucagon-like peptide-1, incretins, glucose-dependent insulin secretion, hypoglycemia, acute pancreatitis, heart failure hospitalization, drug safety, glycemic control, pharmacokinetics
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review