Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. Drug development

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Aim Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with increased dementia risk, but comparative data across newer glucose-lowering therapies remain limited. We examined whether the initiation of GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) was associated with incident dementia compared with DPP4 inhibitors (DPP4is) and SGLT2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in older adults with T2D. Materials and methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study emulating a target trial using electronic health records from the University of Pennsylvania Health System (2019-2024), with external validation in the TriNetX U.S. Collaborative Network. Adults aged ≥50 with T2D, no prior dementia, and no GLP-1 RA, DPP4i, or SGLT2i use in the previous year were eligible. New GLP-1 RA users were propensity-score matched (1:1) to DPP4i users (n = 6677 pairs) and SGLT2i users (n = 8434 pairs). The outcome was incident dementia, defined by ICD-10-CM codes. Cox proportional hazards models estimated hazard ratios (HRs), with multiple sensitivity and subgroup analyses performed. Results Over a median follow-up of 3.0 years (GLP-1 RA vs. DPP4i) and 2.4 years (GLP-1 RA vs. SGLT2i), GLP-1 RA use was associated with a lower dementia risk versus DPP4is (109 vs. 148 events; HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59-0.97), but a higher risk versus SGLT2is (127 vs. 64 events; HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.13-2.07). Findings were consistent across sensitivity and subgroup analyses. External validation confirmed reduced dementia risk versus DPP4is but not versus SGLT2is. Conclusions In this large real-world cohort, GLP-1 RAs were associated with lower dementia risk than DPP4is but higher risk than SGLT2is. Prospective, biomarker-informed studies are needed to clarify mechanisms and inform treatment choices in older adults with T2D.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Zhou, T., Tang, H., Zhang, B., Zhang, D., Lu, Y., Li, L., et al. (2026). Association between glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and risk of dementia in older adults with type 2 diabetes: A target trial emulation. Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.70384

Vancouver

Zhou T, Tang H, Zhang B, Zhang D, Lu Y, Li L, et al. Association between glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and risk of dementia in older adults with type 2 diabetes: A target trial emulation. Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. 2026. doi:10.1111/dom.70384. PMID: 41424236.

BibTeX

@article{zhou2026-41424236,
  author  = {Zhou, T. and Tang, H. and Zhang, B. and Zhang, D. and Lu, Y. and Li, L. and Chen, J. and Chen, Y. and others},
  title   = {{Association between glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and risk of dementia in older adults with type 2 diabetes: A target trial emulation}},
  journal = {Diabetes, obesity \& metabolism},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.1111/dom.70384},
  pmid    = {41424236},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.70384}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 78/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 5 of 5; Sample size 3 of 4; Effect reported 3 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomized / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multicenter collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 45 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 78 of 100. Total 78 of 100.45 of the 58 points we could judge = 78 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 45 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 78 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Diabetes, obesity & metabolism)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 7 / 12 A cohort study following people over time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 5 / 5 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 3 / 4 6,677 participants
Effect reported 3 / 3 Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomized / blinded 0 / 2 No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41424236)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 45 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 45 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 78 out of 100.
Total 78 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Drug development

Also tagged “peptide-1-receptor”

5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “peptide-1-receptor”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Drug development

See all studies in Drug development →