Efficacy and safety of hypoglycemic drugs in improving cognitive function in patients with Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment: A systematic review and network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of oral hypoglycaemic drugs (HDs) on cognitive function and biomarkers of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) through a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We conducted systematic searches for English- and Chinese-language articles in the PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar databases, with no date restrictions. We performed a network meta-analysis, which we report here according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The 16 studies included a total of 3,081 patients. We selected the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive section (ADAS-Cog), the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living section (ADCS-ADL) and amyloid beta (Aβ) 42 as the outcome measures for analysis and comparison. Result: We selected seven treatments and assessed the clinical trials in which they were tested against a placebo control. Of these treatments, intranasal insulin 20 IU (ITSN20), glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DPP-4) were associated with significantly improved MMSE scores (7 RCTs, 333 patients, 30≥MMSE score≥20: mild) compared with placebo [standardized mean difference (SMD) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.87, 1.35); SMD 0.75, 95% CI (0.04, 1.41); and SMD 4.08, 95% CI (3.39, 4.77), respectively]. Rosiglitazone 4 mg (RLZ4), rosiglitazone 10 mg (RLZ10), intranasal insulin 40 IU (ITSN40), and ITSN20 significantly decreased ADAS-Cog scores (11 RCTs, 4044 patients, 10 ≤ ADAS-Cog scores ≤ 30: mild and moderate) compared with placebo [SMD -1.40, 95% CI (-2.57, -0.23), SMD -3.02, 95% CI (-4.17, -1.86), SMD -0.92, 95% CI (-1.77, -0.08), SMD -1.88, 95% CI (-3.09, -0.66)]. Additionally, ITSN20 and ITSN40 significantly improved ADCS-ADL scores (2 RCTs, 208 patients, ADCS-ADL scale score ≤ 10: mild) compared with placebo [SMD 0.02, 95% CI (0.01, 0.03), and SMD 0.04, 95% CI (0.03, 0.05), respectively]. In the 16 included studies, the degree of AD was classified as mild or moderate. For mild cognitive impairment, DPP-4 performed best, but for mild to moderate impairment, ITSN40 had excellent performance. Conclusion: Various HDs can improve the cognitive function of MCI and AD patients. Different drug regimens brought different degrees of improvement, which may be related to their dosage, duration, and mechanism of action. Systematic review registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".