4.5 Article

GLP-1 Receptor Agonists for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Recent Developments and Emerging Agents

期刊

PHARMACOTHERAPY
卷 34, 期 11, 页码 1174-1186

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/phar.1507

关键词

GLP-1 receptor agonist; type 2 diabetes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

More than 26 million people in the United States have type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D). Many treatment options exist, but achieving long-term glycemic control in patients with T2D remains challenging. The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) offer a treatment option that improves glycemic control and reduces weight, with a low risk of hypoglycemia. They have emerged as attractive options for the treatment of T2D, and significant advances and developments continue to be published regarding these agents. To identify relevant literature on emerging issues related to GLP-1 RAs, a search of the MEDLINE database was performed. Studies published in English evaluating the safety and efficacy of GLP-1 RAs were analyzed. Because of their advantages and unique mechanism of action, GLP-1 RAs are currently being studied in new clinical areas, including in combination with basal insulin, as adjunctive therapy in type 1 diabetes, and for weight loss. In addition, there are several emerging agents in development. Lixisenatide is a once-daily GLP-1 RA that targets postprandial glucose and may be most useful when added to basal insulin as an alternative to rapid-acting insulin. Albiglutide and dulaglutide are once-weekly GLP-1 RAs that may offer more convenient dosing. The most common adverse effects of all GLP-1 RA agents are gastrointestinal (e. g., nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting), but the rates of occurrence vary among agents. Due to the differences in pharmacokinetics, efficacy, rates of adverse effects, and administration requirements within the GLP-1 RA class, each agent should be evaluated independently. The future of GLP-1 RAs offers broader treatment options for T2D as well as potential in other treatment areas.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据