Home › Research › Drug development
The Future of Incretin-Based Approaches for Neurodegenerative Diseases in Older Adults: Which to Choose? A Review of their Potential Efficacy and Suitability
Girges C, Vijiaratnam N, Athauda D, Auld G, Gandhi S, Foltynie T.. Drugs & aging, 2021-03-19
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
The current treatment options for neurodegenerative diseases in older adults rely mainly on providing symptomatic relief. Yet, it remains imperative to identify agents that slow or halt disease progression to avoid the most disabling features often associated with advanced disease stages. A potential overlap between the pathological processes involved in diabetes and neurodegeneration has been established, raising the question of whether incretin-based therapies for diabetes may also be useful in treating neurodegenerative diseases in older adults. Here, we review the different agents that belong to this class of drugs (GLP-1 receptor agonists, dual/triple receptor agonists, DPP-4 inhibitors) and describe the data supporting their potential role in treating neurodegenerative conditions including Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. We further discuss whether there are any distinctive properties among them, particularly in the context of safety or tolerability and CNS penetration, that might facilitate their successful repurposing as disease-modifying drugs. Proof-of-efficacy data will obviously be of the greatest importance, and this is most likely to be demonstrable in agents that reach the central nervous system and impact on neuronal GLP-1 receptors. Additionally, however, the long-term safety and tolerability (including gastrointestinal side effects and unwanted weight loss) as well as the route of administration of this class of agents may also ultimately determine success and these aspects should be considered in prioritising which approaches to subject to formal clinical trial evaluations.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Girges, C., Vijiaratnam, N., Athauda, D., Auld, G., Gandhi, S., & Foltynie, T. (2021). The Future of Incretin-Based Approaches for Neurodegenerative Diseases in Older Adults: Which to Choose? A Review of their Potential Efficacy and Suitability. Drugs & aging. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-021-00853-7
Vancouver
Girges C, Vijiaratnam N, Athauda D, Auld G, Gandhi S, Foltynie T. The Future of Incretin-Based Approaches for Neurodegenerative Diseases in Older Adults: Which to Choose? A Review of their Potential Efficacy and Suitability. Drugs & aging. 2021. doi:10.1007/s40266-021-00853-7. PMID: 33738783.
BibTeX
@article{girges2021-33738783,
author = {Girges, C. and Vijiaratnam, N. and Athauda, D. and Auld, G. and Gandhi, S. and Foltynie, T.},
title = {{The Future of Incretin-Based Approaches for Neurodegenerative Diseases in Older Adults: Which to Choose? A Review of their Potential Efficacy and Suitability}},
journal = {Drugs \& aging},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1007/s40266-021-00853-7},
pmid = {33738783},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-021-00853-7}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Yet, it remains imperative to identify agents that slow or halt disease progression to avoid the most disabling features often associated with advanced disease stages.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and 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 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Drugs & aging) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 33738783) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 23 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Drug development
Also tagged “incretin-based”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “incretin-based”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.