Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31848464›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Drug discovery2020

Advances in oral peptide therapeutics.

Daniel J Drucker

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Drug discovery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 244 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
244citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
44.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

244 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 602 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Antimicrobial Cyclic Peptidomimetics.Macromolecular rapid communications · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

184 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel J DruckerDepartment of Medicine and Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. drucker@lunenfeld.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6688-8127
Mount Sinai Hospital · CA

Funding

CIHR 154321
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protein and peptide therapeutics require parenteral administration, which can be a deterrent to medication adherence. For this reason, there have been extensive efforts to develop alternative delivery strategies, particularly for peptides such as insulin that are used to treat endocrine disorders. Oral delivery is especially desirable, but it faces substantial barriers related to the structural organization and physiological function of the gastrointestinal tract. This article highlights strategies designed to overcome these barriers, including permeation enhancers, inhibitors of gut enzymes, and mucus-penetrating and cell-penetrating peptides. It then focuses on the experience with oral peptides that have reached clinical trials, including insulin, calcitonin, parathyroid hormone and vasopressin, with an emphasis on the advances that have recently led to the landmark approval of an oral formulation of the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist semaglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAnimalsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinPeptidesProteinsHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinPeptidesProteins

Identifiers

PMID31848464
OpenAlexW2996266725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.