A relatively recent addition to the arsenal of antidiabetic drugs used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has been the “incretin mimetics,” a group of drugs that work on the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor and enhance insulin secretion from the pancreatic β-cells in a glucose-dependent manner, more potently in hyperglycemic conditions, while suppressing glucagon secretion at the same time. Therefore, it was assumed that this class of drugs would have a lower risk of hypoglycemia than insulin secretagogues like sulphonylureas. However, GLP-1 receptor agonists have been proposed to cause hypoglycemia in healthy normoglycemic subjects implying that their action is not as glucose-dependent as once thought. Other studies concluded that they might not induce hypoglycemia and the risk is dependent on other individual factors. However, the FDA announced that the 12 GLP-1 receptor agonists currently available on the market had potential safety signs and evaluated the need for regulatory action. This review provides an overview of the studies that investigated the possible hypoglycemic effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists. In addition, the current review describes other adverse effects of GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment.

Background: Previous trials showed a promising potential use of epinephrine in the treatment of no-reflow phenomenon (the no-reflow phenomenon is multiple pathogenetic processes, which may be attributed to ischemic injuries, distal atherothrombotic embolization, coronary-microcirculation susceptibility to injury, and reperfusion injuries (6)). This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of distal intracoronary delivery of epinephrine versus verapamil to prevent no-reflow during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Materials and Methods: We conducted a randomized, open-label, trial on patients undergoing PPCI. Patients were randomized to one of three groups: group I who received distal intracoronary administration of epinephrine; group II who received verapamil; and group III who served as a control group. The primary endpoint in our study was the incidence of no-reflow, defined as a post-procedural (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) TIMI flow grade (TFG) is < 3 or, in the case of a TFG of 3, when TIMI myocardial perfusion grade (TMPG) is 0 or 1. Results: A total of 120 patients were randomized. The angiographic flow and perfusion parameters were significantly improved in group I and II versus the control group, with better results in epinephrine group only TMPG3 was significantly higher with epinephrine (77.5%) than verapamil (55%) (p = 0.037) and TMPG2 was higher in verapamil (32.5%) than epinephrine (7.5%) (p = 0.003). No reflow is lower with epinephrine than verapamil (25% vs 27.5%); however, with no statistically significant difference (P=0.785). Patients in the three groups has no statistical significant difference in (MACE) or heart failure hospitalization. Conclusion: Epinephrine and verapamil are safe and effective in managing patients with no-reflow during PPCIs. Further studies with a larger sample and a longer duration of follow-up are required to confirm these findings

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract