↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors in the management of type 2 diabetes in older adults: a systematic review and development of recommendations to reduce inappropriate…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors in the management of type 2 diabetes in older adults: a systematic review and development of recommendations to reduce inappropriate prescribing
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12877-017-0571-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gisela Schott, Yolanda V Martinez, R. Erandie Ediriweera de Silva, Anna Renom-Guiteras, Anna Vögele, David Reeves, Ilkka Kunnamo, Minna Marttila-Vaara, Andreas Sönnichsen

Abstract

Preventable drug-related hospital admissions can be associated with drugs used in diabetes and the benefits of strict diabetes control may not outweigh the risks, especially in older populations. The aim of this study was to look for evidence on risks and benefits of DPP-4 inhibitors in older adults and to use this evidence to develop recommendations for the electronic decision support tool of the PRIMA-eDS project. Systematic review using a staged approach which searches for systematic reviews and meta-analyses first, then individual studies only if prior searches were inconclusive. The target population were older people (≥65 years old) with type 2 diabetes. We included studies reporting on the efficacy and/or safety of DPP-4 inhibitors for the management of type 2 diabetes. Studies were included irrespective of DPP-4 inhibitors prescribed as monotherapy or in combination with any other drug for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The target intervention was DPP-4 inhibitors compared to placebo, no treatment, other drugs to treat type 2 diabetes or a non-pharmacological intervention. Thirty studies (reported in 33 publications) were included: 1 meta-analysis, 17 intervention studies and 12 observational studies. Sixteen studies were focused on older adults and 14 studies reported subgroup analyses in participants ≥65, ≥70, or ≥75 years. Comorbidities were reported by 26 studies and frailty or functional status by one study. There were conflicting findings regarding the effectiveness of DPP-4 inhibitors in older adults. In general, DPP-4 inhibitors showed similar or better safety than placebo and other antidiabetic drugs. However, these safety data are mainly based on short-term outcomes like hypoglycaemia in studies with HbA1c control levels recommended for younger people. One recommendation was developed advising clinicians to reconsider the use of DPP-4 inhibitors for the management of type 2 diabetes in older adults with HbA1c <8.5% because of scarce data on clinically relevant benefits of their use. Twenty-two of the included studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies and authored or co-authored by employees of the sponsor. Other than the surrogate endpoint of improved glycaemic control, data on clinically relevant benefits of DPP-4 inhibitors in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in older adults is scarce. DPP-4 inhibitors might have a lower risk of hypoglycaemia compared to other antidiabetic drugs but data show conflicting findings for long-term benefits. Further studies are needed that evaluate the risks and benefits of DPP-4 inhibitors for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in older adults, using clinically relevant outcomes and including representative samples of older adults with information on their frailty status and comorbidities. Studies are also needed that are independent of pharmaceutical company involvement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 154 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 16%
Researcher 23 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 42 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 5%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 49 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 April 2019.
All research outputs
#2,453,528
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#625
of 3,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,158
of 325,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#16
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,210 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.