Comparative Retinopathy Risk in People with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Post Metformin Second-line Incretin Therapies: Study Based on US Electronic Medical Records

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for

researchers?

A: Very good

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

A: Very good

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

A: Very good

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

A: Good

Comments: The heading “Conclusion” should be replaced with “Discussion”.

Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

A: Very good

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

A: Very good

Comments:

The Discussion section aptly summarizes the observations of the study with the help of relevant literature. It reports that the patients, treated with incretins or thiazolidinedione (TZD) as second-line antidiabetic drugs (ADD) intensification had significantly lower risk of developing diabetic retinopathy (DR) compared to other ADD. Incretin-based therapy appears to be clinically relevant in type 2 diabetes patients as it gives rise to sustainable glycaemic control with a significant reduction of microvascular risk. Limitations of this study are also properly addressed.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Very good

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Very good

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

A: Good

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Very good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This population representative electronic medical records (EMR) based study provides a valuable insight into the diabetic retinopathy (DR) risk dynamics in patients in the US, treated with post metformin second line antidiabetic drugs (ADD). It evaluates the risk of developing DR after application of incretin-based therapies and other antidiabetic drugs (ADD) which result in varying levels of HbA1c control. The glucose-lowering effects of GLP-1 agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors make incretin-related therapies well suited to patients with better glycemic control. The second line incretin therapy group showed a significant reduction of glucose level with a sustainable glycaemic control compared to those treated with sulphonylurea or insulin. The limitations of this study such as unavoidable indication bias, lack of data call for further detailed validation studies.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - Suitable to be published

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team