114
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Incretin therapies: highlighting common features and differences in the modes of action of glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitors

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Over the last few years, incretin‐based therapies have emerged as important agents in the treatment of type 2 diabetes ( T2D). These agents exert their effect via the incretin system, specifically targeting the receptor for the incretin hormone glucagon‐like peptide 1 ( GLP‐1), which is partly responsible for augmenting glucose‐dependent insulin secretion in response to nutrient intake (the ‘incretin effect’). In patients with T2D, pharmacological doses/concentrations of GLP‐1 can compensate for the inability of diabetic β cells to respond to the main incretin hormone glucose‐dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, and this is therefore a suitable parent compound for incretin‐based glucose‐lowering medications. Two classes of incretin‐based therapies are available: GLP‐1 receptor agonists ( GLP‐1RAs) and dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 ( DPP‐4) inhibitors. GLP‐1RAs promote GLP‐1 receptor ( GLP‐1R) signalling by providing GLP‐1R stimulation through ‘incretin mimetics’ circulating at pharmacological concentrations, whereas DPP‐4 inhibitors prevent the degradation of endogenously released GLP‐1. Both agents produce reductions in plasma glucose and, as a result of their glucose‐dependent mode of action, this is associated with low rates of hypoglycaemia; however, there are distinct modes of action resulting in differing efficacy and tolerability profiles. Furthermore, as their actions are not restricted to stimulating insulin secretion, these agents have also been associated with additional non‐glycaemic benefits such as weight loss, improvements in β‐cell function and cardiovascular risk markers. These attributes have made incretin therapies attractive treatments for the management of T2D and have presented physicians with an opportunity to tailor treatment plans. This review endeavours to outline the commonalities and differences among incretin‐based therapies and to provide guidance regarding agents most suitable for treating T2D in individual patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references65

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Preserved incretin activity of glucagon-like peptide 1 [7-36 amide] but not of synthetic human gastric inhibitory polypeptide in patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus.

          In type-2 diabetes, the overall incretin effect is reduced. The present investigation was designed to compare insulinotropic actions of exogenous incretin hormones (gastric inhibitory peptide [GIP] and glucagon-like peptide 1 [GLP-1] [7-36 amide]) in nine type-2 diabetic patients (fasting plasma glucose 7.8 mmol/liter; hemoglobin A1c 6.3 +/- 0.6%) and in nine age- and weight-matched normal subjects. Synthetic human GIP (0.8 and 2.4 pmol/kg.min over 1 h each), GLP-1 [7-36 amide] (0.4 and 1.2 pmol/kg.min over 1 h each), and placebo were administered under hyperglycemic clamp conditions (8.75 mmol/liter) in separate experiments. Plasma GIP and GLP-1 [7-36 amide] concentrations (radioimmunoassay) were comparable to those after oral glucose with the low, and clearly supraphysiological with the high infusion rates. Both GIP and GLP-1 [7-36 amide] dose-dependently augmented insulin secretion (insulin, C-peptide) in both groups (P < 0.05). With GIP, the maximum effect in type-2 diabetic patients was significantly lower (by 54%; P < 0.05) than in normal subjects. With GLP-1 [7-36 amide] type-2 diabetic patients reached 71% of the increments in C-peptide of normal subjects (difference not significant). Glucagon was lowered during hyperglycemic clamps in normal subjects, but not in type-2 diabetic patients, and further by GLP-1 [7-36 amide] in both groups (P < 0.05), but not by GIP. In conclusion, in mild type-2 diabetes, GLP-1 [7-36 amide], in contrast to GIP, retains much of its insulinotropic activity. It also lowers glucagon concentrations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Pancreatitis, pancreatic, and thyroid cancer with glucagon-like peptide-1-based therapies.

            Glucagon-like peptide-1-based therapy is gaining widespread use for type 2 diabetes, although there are concerns about risks for pancreatitis and pancreatic and thyroid cancers. There are also concerns that dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors could cause cancer, given their effects on immune function. We examined the US Food and Drug Administration's database of reported adverse events for those associated with the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin and the glucagon-like peptide-1 mimetic exenatide, from 2004-2009; data on adverse events associated with 4 other medications were compared as controls. The primary outcomes measures were rates of reported pancreatitis, pancreatic and thyroid cancer, and all cancers associated with sitagliptin or exenatide, compared with other therapies. Use of sitagliptin or exenatide increased the odds ratio for reported pancreatitis 6-fold as compared with other therapies (P<2×10(-16)). Pancreatic cancer was more commonly reported among patients who took sitagliptin or exenatide as compared with other therapies (P<.008, P<9×10(-5)). All other cancers occurred similarly among patients who took sitagliptin compared with other therapies (P=.20). These data are consistent with case reports and animal studies indicating an increased risk for pancreatitis with glucagon-like peptide-1-based therapy. The findings also raise caution about the potential long-term actions of these drugs to promote pancreatic cancer. Copyright © 2011 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Incretin effects of increasing glucose loads in man calculated from venous insulin and C-peptide responses.

              Integrated insulin secretion rates calculated from peripheral venous C-peptide measurements by two-compartment kinetic analysis were measured in six young normal subjects after increasing oral glucose loads of 25, 50, and 100 g and respective isoglycemic glucose infusions. The differences in B-cell secretory responses between oral and iv glucose challenges were attributed to factors other than glycemia itself (incretin effect). Both insulin and C-peptide concentrations as well as calculated integrated insulin secretion rates increased with increasing oral glucose loads. Due to the similarity in the glucose profiles after all oral loads, almost identical amounts of iv glucose (approximately 20 g) were infused in all "isoglycemic" infusion experiments, with resulting similar hormone profiles and insulin secretion rates. The percent contribution of incretin factors to total immunoreactive insulin responses after 25, 50, and 100 g glucose (85.6%, 74.9%, and 93.0%; response to oral load, 100%) was significantly higher than their contribution to integrated C-peptide responses (27.6-62.9%) or calculated integrated insulin secretion rates (19.2-61.0%). These findings indicate that the degree of incretin stimulation of insulin secretion depends on the amount of glucose ingested. A discrepancy between the estimates of the incretin effect derived from peripheral venous insulin responses, on the one hand, and C-peptide responses or calculated insulin secretion rates, on the other hand, exists. Inasmuch as peripheral insulin values reflect both insulin secretion and hepatic insulin removal, this discrepancy suggests that elimination kinetics of insulin differ between oral and iv glucose administration. This difference can be related to a significantly reduced fractional hepatic insulin extraction after oral (46.9-54.6%) compared to iv (63.4-76.5%) glucose administration when calculated by a three-compartment kinetic model. This reduction in fractional hepatic insulin extraction could be caused by gastrointestinal factors (hormones or nerves) stimulated in the course of glucose ingestion.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Diabetes Obes Metab
                Diabetes Obes Metab
                10.1111/(ISSN)1463-1326
                DOM
                Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism
                Blackwell Publishing Ltd (Oxford, UK )
                1462-8902
                1463-1326
                05 January 2016
                March 2016
                : 18
                : 3 ( doiID: 10.1111/dom.2016.18.issue-3 )
                : 203-216
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Division of Diabetology, Medical Department ISt. Josef Hospital (Ruhr University Bochum) BochumGermany
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence to: Prof. Dr med. Michael Nauck, Division of Diabetology, Medical Department I, St. Josef Hospital (Ruhr University Bochum), Gudrunstrasse 56, D‐44791 Bochum, Germany.

                E‐mail: michael.nauck@ 123456rub.de

                Article
                DOM12591
                10.1111/dom.12591
                4785614
                26489970
                ec9f1ae2-b92a-48ad-9377-c0724ad2c1b9
                © 2015 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                : 18 August 2015
                : 12 October 2015
                : 17 October 2015
                Page count
                Pages: 14
                Funding
                Funded by: Novo Nordisk
                Funded by: Boehringer Ingelheim
                Funded by: Novartis Pharma
                Funded by: MSD GmbH
                Funded by: Metacure
                Funded by: AstraZeneca
                Funded by: GlaxoSmithKline
                Funded by: Roche Pharma AG
                Funded by: Novo Nordisk Pharma GmbH
                Funded by: ToleRx
                Categories
                Review Article
                Review Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                dom12591
                March 2016
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:4.8.5 mode:remove_FC converted:10.03.2016

                Endocrinology & Diabetes
                dpp‐4 inhibitor,glp‐1,glp‐1 receptor agonist,glucagon‐like peptide‐1,incretin enhancer,incretin mimetics,mode of action,type 2 diabetes mellitus

                Comments

                Comment on this article