Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38517522›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurology2024

Comparing major and mild cognitive impairment risks in older type-2 diabetic patients: a Danish register-based study on dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors vs. glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues.

Vera Battini, Maria Antonietta Barbieri, Carla Carnovale, Edoardo Spina, Emilio Clementi, Maurizio Sessa

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists for major neurocognitive disorders.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Vera BattiniDepartment of Drug Design and Pharmacology, University of Copenhagen, Jagtvej 160, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3513-9593
Maria Antonietta BarbieriDepartment of Drug Design and Pharmacology, University of Copenhagen, Jagtvej 160, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2019-4696
Carla CarnovalePharmacovigilance and Clinical Research, International Centre for Pesticides and Health Risk Prevention, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences (DIBIC), ASST Fatebenefratelli-Sacco University Hospital, Università Degli Studi Di Milano, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4107-196X
Edoardo SpinaDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina, 98125, Messina, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2509-7449
Emilio ClementiPharmacovigilance and Clinical Research, International Centre for Pesticides and Health Risk Prevention, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences (DIBIC), ASST Fatebenefratelli-Sacco University Hospital, Università Degli Studi Di Milano, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7333-8270
Maurizio SessaDepartment of Drug Design and Pharmacology, University of Copenhagen, Jagtvej 160, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. maurizio.sessa@sund.ku.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0874-4744
University of Copenhagen · DKUniversity of Messina · ITASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco · ITIRCCS Eugenio Medea · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe prevalence of major and mild cognitive impairment (CI) in type-2 diabetes older patients is 15-25% and 30-60%, respectively, thus affecting quality of life and health outcomes. There is, therefore, the need of head-to-head studies aiming at identifying the optimal treatment for individuals with type-2 diabetes at increased risk of mild and major CI. This study focuses on the risk of developing mild and major CI in Danish patients treated with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues (GLP-1a) using administrative and healthcare registers.

methodsAn active comparator design with a 3-year follow-up period was used. The main outcome was the hospital admission with a diagnosis of mild CI or major CI. Multivariate Cox Regression analysis was performed using the high-dimensional propensity score to obtain adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR) estimates. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and marginal structured model were used to calculate risk differences while accounting for the variations of confounders throughout the follow-up period.

resultsOur results show a significant higher risk of major CI between DPP-4i and GLP-1a in unadjusted [HR (95% CI) = 3.13 (2.45-4.00), p < 0.001] and adjusted analyses [HR (95% CI) = 1.58 (1.22-2.06), p = 0.001]. No statistically significant differences were observed for mild CI. IPTW resulted stable throughout the follow-up period. Marginal structure modeling (β (95% CI) = 0.022 (0.020-0.024), p < 0.001) resulted in a higher risk of major CI for DPP-4i when compared to GLP-1a. DISCUSSION: DPP-4i was associated with an increased risk of developing major CI when compared to GLP-1a among older individuals with type-2 diabetes.

Indexed as

Cognitive DysfunctionDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV InhibitorsGlucagon-Like Peptide 1RegistriesAgedAged, 80 and overDenmarkFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansHypoglycemic AgentsMaleMiddle AgedDipeptidyl-Peptidase IV InhibitorsGlucagon-Like Peptide 1Hypoglycemic AgentsDipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitorsGlucagon-like peptide-1 analoguesMajor cognitive impairmentMild cognitive impairmentOlder individualsRegister-based study

Identifiers

PMID38517522
PMCPMC11136777
OpenAlexW4393090182

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.