Patient-reported outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with liraglutide or glimepiride, both as add-on to metformin

Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. The combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (M+S) is a widely used treatment. Whether M+S shows better or worse effects in comparison with other antidiabetic medications for people with T2DM is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin and sulphonylurea (second- or third-generation) combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of a recent systematic review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The updated search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was March 2018. We searched manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomising participants 18 years old or more with T2DM to M+S compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention or metformin monotherapy with a treatment duration of 52 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs randomising 28,746 people. Treatment duration ranged between one to four years. We judged none of these trials as low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most important events per person were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events (SAE), non-fatal stroke (NFS), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and microvascular complications. Most important comparisons were as follows:Five trials compared M+S (N = 1194) with metformin plus a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue (N = 1675): all-cause mortality was 11/1057 (1%) versus 11/1537 (0.7%), risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.67); 3 trials; 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 1/307 (0.3%) versus 1/302 (0.3%), low-certainty evidence; serious adverse events (SAE) 128/1057 (12.1%) versus 194/1537 (12.6%), RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.11); 3 trials; 2594 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) 2/549 (0.4%) versus 6/1026 (0.6%), RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.82); 2 trials; 1575 participants; very low-certainty evidence.Nine trials compared M+S (N = 5414) with metformin plus a dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor (N = 6346): all-cause mortality was 33/5387 (0.6%) versus 26/6307 (0.4%), RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.28); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 11/2989 (0.4%) versus 9/3885 (0.2%), RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.79); 6 trials; 6874 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 735/5387 (13.6%) versus 779/6307 (12.4%), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.18); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 14/2098 (0.7%) versus 8/2995 (0.3%), RR 2.21 (95% CI 0.74 to 6.58); 4 trials; 5093 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 15/2989 (0.5%) versus 13/3885 (0.3%), RR 1.45 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.07); 6 trials; 6874 participants; very low-certainty evidence; one trial in 64 participants reported no microvascular complications were observed (very low-certainty evidence).Eleven trials compared M+S (N = 3626) with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (N = 3685): all-cause mortality was 123/3300 (3.7%) versus 114/3354 (3.4%), RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.40); 6 trials; 6654 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 37/2946 (1.3%) versus 41/2994 (1.4%), RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.67); 4 trials; 5940 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 666/3300 (20.2%) versus 671/3354 (20%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.11); 6 trials; 6654 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 20/1540 (1.3%) versus 16/1583 (1%), RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.47); P = 0.45; 2 trials; 3123 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 25/1841 (1.4%) versus 21/1877 (1.1%), RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.68 to 2.14); P = 0.51; 3 trials; 3718 participants; very low-certainty evidence; three trials (3123 participants) reported no microvascular complications (very low-certainty evidence).Three trials compared M+S (N = 462) with metformin plus a glinide (N = 476): one person died in each intervention group (3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence); no cardiovascular mortality (2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence); SAE 34/424 (8%) versus 27/450 (6%), RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 5.21); P = 0.37; 3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence; no NFS (1 trial; 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence); non-fatal MI 2/215 (0.9%) participants in the M+S group; 2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence; no microvascular complications (1 trial; 233 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four trials compared M+S (N = 2109) with metformin plus a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (N = 3032): all-cause mortality was 13/2107 (0.6%) versus 19/3027 (0.6%), RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.09); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 4/1327 (0.3%) versus 6/2262 (0.3%), RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.33 to 4.41); 3 trials; 3589 participants; very low-certainty evidence; SAE 315/2107 (15.5%) versus 375/3027 (12.4%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.37); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 3/919 (0.3%) versus 7/1856 (0.4%), RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.34); 2 trials; 2775 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 7/890 (0.8%) versus 8/1374 (0.6%), RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.49 to 4.18; 2 trials); 2264 participants; very low-certainty evidence; amputation of lower extremity 1/437 (0.2%) versus 1/888 (0.1%); very low-certainty evidence.Trials reported more hypoglycaemic episodes with M+S combination compared to all other metformin-antidiabetic agent combinations. Results for M+S versus metformin monotherapy were inconclusive. There were no RCTs comparing M+S with metformin plus insulin. We identified nine ongoing trials and two trials are awaiting assessment. Together these trials will include approximately 16,631 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconclusive evidence whether M+S combination therapy compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention results in benefit or harm for most patient-important outcomes (mortality, SAEs, macrovascular and microvascular complications) with the exception of hypoglycaemia (more harm for M+S combination). No RCT reported on health-related quality of life.

Pharmacokinetics and Tolerability of a Single Dose of Semaglutide, a Human Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Analog, in Subjects With and Without Renal Impairment

BACKGROUND

The pharmacokinetics and tolerability of semaglutide, a once-weekly human glucagon-like peptide-1 analog in development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, were investigated in subjects with/without renal impairment (RI).

METHODS

Fifty-six subjects, categorized into renal function groups [normal, mild, moderate, severe, and end-stage renal disease (ESRD)], received a single subcutaneous dose of semaglutide 0.5 mg. Semaglutide plasma concentrations were assessed ≤480 h post-dose; the primary endpoint was the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity.

RESULTS

Semaglutide exposure in subjects with mild/moderate RI and ESRD was similar to that in subjects with normal renal function. In subjects with severe RI, the mean exposure of semaglutide was 22% higher than in subjects with normal renal function, and the 95% confidence interval (1.02-1.47) for the ratio exceeded the pre-specified limits (0.70-1.43). When adjusted for differences in sex, age, and body weight between the groups, all comparisons were within the pre-specified clinically relevant limits. Across RI groups there was no relationship between creatinine clearance (CL_CR) and semaglutide exposure, or between CL_CR and semaglutide maximum plasma drug concentration (C _max). Hemodialysis did not appear to affect the pharmacokinetics of semaglutide. No appreciable changes in safety parameters or vital signs and no serious adverse events were noted. One subject with severe RI reported two major hypoglycemic events.

CONCLUSION

When adjusted for differences in sex, age, and body weight, semaglutide exposure was similar between subjects with RI and subjects with normal renal function. Semaglutide (0.5 mg) was well-tolerated. Dose adjustment may not be warranted for subjects with RI. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT00833716.

Practical Considerations for the Use of Subcutaneous Treatment in the Management of Dyslipidaemia

Suboptimal drug adherence represents a major challenge to effective primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. While adherence is influenced by multiple considerations, polypharmacy and dosing frequency appear to be rate-limiting factors in patient satisfaction and subsequent adherence. The cardiovascular and metabolic therapeutic areas have recently benefited from a number of advances in drug therapy, in particular protease proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors and incretin-based therapies, respectively. These drugs are administered subcutaneously and offer efficacious treatment options with reduced dosing frequency. Whilst patients with diabetes and diabetologists are well initiated to injectable therapies, the cardiovascular therapeutic arena has traditionally been dominated by oral agents. It is therefore important to examine the practical aspects of treating patients with these new lipid-lowering agents, to ensure they are optimally deployed in everyday clinical practice.

The efficacy and safety of liraglutide added to metformin in patients with diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) receptor agonist, has showed favorable effects in the glycaemic control and weight reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of liraglutide added to metformin with other treatments in patients with T2DM. A systematic literature search on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane library databases were performed. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with T2DM who received the combination treatment of liraglutide and metformin. Pooled estimates were performed using a fixed-effects model or random-effects model. A total of nine RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Compared with control (placebo, sitagliptin, glimepiride, dulaglutide, insulin glargine, and NPH), liraglutide in combination with metformin resulted in significant reductions in HbA1c, bodyweight, FPG, and PPG, and similar reductions in SBP, and DBP. Moreover, liraglutide combined with metformin did not increase the risk of hypoglycemia, but induced a higher incidence of gastrointestinal disorders. In conclusion, this meta-analysis confirmed the use of liraglutide as add-on to metformin appeared to be effective and safe for patients with T2DM. However, considering the potential limitations in this study, more large-scale, well-conducted RCTs are needed to identify our findings.

Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) used in recent Phase 3 trials for Type 2 Diabetes: A review of concepts assessed by these PROs and factors to consider when choosing a PRO for future trials

AIMS

Many treatment options are available for people with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D). While the goal of treatment is to reach target HbA1c levels, the psychological experience may be more tangible and meaningful for the patient. Together with biomarkers, Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) data provide a holistic understanding of the clinical and psychosocial impact of T2D and its treatment.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted in multiple databases to identify PRO endpoints used in Phase 3 trials of newer classes of drugs for the treatment of T2D.

RESULTS

This review identified five PRO concepts which were evaluated as endpoints in Phase 3 trials of GLP-1 receptor agonists, novel insulins, SGLT-2 inhibitors, and DPP-4 inhibitors; symptoms, health-related quality of life, psychological well-being, satisfaction with treatment/health and impact of weight. Twenty PRO questionnaires were used to measure these concepts/endpoints directly from patients. The relevance of, and scientific basis for, these concepts as endpoints are discussed, the similarities and differences between questionnaires targeting the same concepts/endpoints are explored, and the sensitivity of the questionnaires to the experimental intervention is summarized. In addition, factors that should be considered when choosing PROs for future T2D trials are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

The information gained from PROs in clinical trial research is important in defining treatment benefit within the context of the trial, and the potential benefit (i.e. better adherence) in clinical practice. However, variable results have been observed in recent trials and careful and systematic consideration should be given to PRO selection for future studies of T2D.

Treatment satisfaction in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with once-weekly dulaglutide: data from the AWARD-1 and AWARD-3 clinical trials

AIMS

To compare treatment satisfaction among people with type 2 diabetes receiving dulaglutide 1.5 mg and dulaglutide 0.75 mg (a once-weekly, long-acting, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist) with those receiving either exenatide or placebo (AWARD-1 study) or metformin (AWARD-3 study) over 52 weeks.

METHODS

The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status version (DTSQs) and change version (DTSQc) were used to evaluate total treatment satisfaction and perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

In the AWARD-1 study, significant improvements from baseline were observed in total DTSQs score for both dulaglutide doses (26 and 52 weeks) and exenatide (26 weeks). The improvement was significantly greater with both dulaglutide doses compared with placebo (26 weeks) and exenatide (26 and 52 weeks). The perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia was lower for all groups at 26 and 52 weeks compared with baseline. The improvement was greater with both dulaglutide doses and exenatide compared with placebo at 26 weeks, and was also greater with both dulaglutide doses compared with exenatide at 26 and 52 weeks. The exenatide group had an increase in perceived frequency of hypoglycaemia at 26 and 52 weeks. In the AWARD-3 study, significant improvements from baseline were observed for total DTSQs scores in all groups at 26 and 52 weeks. Perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia was lower for all groups at 26 and 52 weeks compared with baseline, and this improvement was greater with both dulaglutide doses compared with metformin at 52 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Dulaglutide was associated with improvements in treatment satisfaction and a decrease in perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia.

Review of patient-reported outcome instruments measuring health-related quality of life and satisfaction in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral therapy

OBJECTIVE

Treatments and their mode of administration may represent a burden for patients and can therefore impact their health-related quality of life (HRQL) or treatment/health satisfaction. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) can be treated with oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs), injectable medications (such as insulin), or a combination of agents. This review aimed to identify patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments measuring HRQL and/or satisfaction that could differentiate between oral medications based on medication related attributes such as efficacy, tolerability, weight loss, dosing frequency and pill burden.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and the Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Questionnaires (PROQOLID) biomedical databases were searched to identify instruments and document their development methodology, content and psychometric properties (i.e. validity, reliability), responsiveness and ability to detect changes between treatments.

RESULTS

Nineteen instruments were retained based on their potential to differentiate between OHAs. Ten instruments assessed HRQL, amongst which the Audit of Diabetes Dependent Quality of Life, Diabetes 39, Diabetes Health Profile and Impact of Weight on Quality of Life displayed good psychometric properties in T2DM populations and comprehensive HRQL content. Nine instruments assessed satisfaction. Both the Oral Hypoglycemic Agent Questionnaire (OHAQ) and Diabetes Medication Satisfaction (DiabMedSat) Questionnaire have highly relevant content regarding drug attributes. The OHAQ is specific to oral treatment and the DiabMedSat includes HRQL items. The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire is a standard instrument that is extensively used and provides conclusive results in studies of patients with T2DM.

CONCLUSIONS

Very few of the existing PRO instruments are specific to OHAs. Despite satisfaction instruments being recommended to differentiate between OHAs in studies of T2DM based on medication attributes, we find that none of the existing instruments appear to be useful in detecting differences between treatments, therefore limiting their use in clinical and observational research.

Comparative effectiveness of liraglutide in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is characterized by a progressive decline in beta cell function, with consequent worsening of glycemic control. The ideal antihyperglycemic treatment should achieve good and sustained glycemic control, with a low risk of hypoglycemia and no weight gain. This paper reviews the efficacy and tolerability of liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Once-daily injection of liraglutide (at doses of 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg), as monotherapy or in combination with one or two oral antihyperglycemic agents, was associated with greater improvements in glycemic control compared with active comparators or placebo in several controlled, randomized Phase III trials, including the six trials of the LEAD (Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes) program. Liraglutide also improved beta cell function, body weight, systolic blood pressure, and lipid profile, thereby achieving many of the goals of ideal antihyperglycemic therapy. Liraglutide was generally well tolerated in the Phase III trials. The most common adverse events were nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, usually of mild to moderate intensity. The observed rate of pancreatitis was low and comparable with that of the general diabetic population. In conclusion, although most trials were relatively short and focused on surrogate endpoints, liraglutide emerges as an effective and well tolerated treatment for type 2 diabetes, carrying a low risk of hypoglycemia, weight loss, and possible reduction of cardiovascular risk.

Is treatment with liraglutide efficient?

In the current context of limited economic and health resources, efficiency of drug treatments is of paramount importance, and their clinical effects and related direct costs should therefore be analyzed. Liraglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) which, in addition to its normoglycemic effects, induces a significant improvement in body weight and several cardiovascular risk factors. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize the available evidence about the effects of liraglutide upon cardiovascular risk factors and how these improve its cost-effectiveness profile. Despite the relatively higher cost of liraglutide as compared to other alternative therapies, liraglutide has been shown to be cost-effective when clinical indicators and total costs associated to T2DM management are analyzed.

Patient-reported outcomes in trials of incretin-based therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Incretin-based therapies have a glucose-dependent mode of action that results in excellent glucose-lowering efficacy with very low risk of hypoglycaemia, and weight neutrality [dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors] or weight loss [glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists], in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) complement physician evaluations of efficacy and tolerability and offer insights into the subjective experience of using modern diabetes treatments. We conducted a systematic search of clinical trials of the GLP-1 receptor agonists liraglutide, exenatide and long-acting exenatide, one of which included the oral DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin as a comparator. No other PRO data for DPP-4 inhibitors were identified. This review summarizes PRO data from eight clinical trials, the majority of which used the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) and/or Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (IWQOL-Lite) to evaluate patient experience. People with T2DM were highly satisfied with modern incretin-based therapies compared with traditional therapies. Treatment satisfaction (including perceptions of convenience and flexibility) was high and generally higher with GLP-1 agonists in association with their greater glucose-lowering efficacy and tendency to facilitate weight loss. Weight-related quality of life (QoL) also improved in people using incretin therapies. The glycaemic improvements achieved with GLP-1 receptor agonists, coupled with the low incidence of hypoglycaemia and ability to cause weight loss, seemed to offset potential concern about injections. It is plausible that superior patient-reported benefits found in clinical trials may translate into improved, clinically meaningful, long-term outcomes through increased treatment acceptability. Long-term, prospective data are needed to ascertain whether this is the case in practice.

Liraglutide: a review of its use in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Liraglutide (Victoza®) is a subcutaneously administered glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist produced by recombinant DNA technology and used as an adjunct to diet and exercise in the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This article reviews the clinical efficacy and tolerability of liraglutide in adults with type 2 diabetes, and provides a summary of its pharmacological properties. Recently published pharmacoeconomic studies of liraglutide are also reviewed. Administered subcutaneously, liraglutide (usually 1.2 or 1.8 mg once daily) generally produced greater improvements in glycaemic control than active comparators or placebo when administered as monotherapy or in combination with one or two oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) to adults with type 2 diabetes in numerous randomized, controlled phase III trials. These included six trials in the LEAD trial programme that was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of liraglutide across a continuum of antihyperglycaemic management for patients with type 2 diabetes. Liraglutide was generally well tolerated, with a low risk of hypoglycaemia evident, in the phase III trials. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal and included nausea and diarrhoea; most events were mild to moderate in severity and decreased in incidence over time. In conclusion, liraglutide has an important place in the management of adults with type 2 diabetes across a continuum of care. As well as providing effective glycaemic control, liraglutide improves pancreatic β-cell function and leads to bodyweight loss, thereby addressing some of the unmet needs of patients treated with traditional OADs.

Drug-induced hypoglycaemia in type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Hypoglycaemia is a side effect caused by some therapies for type 2 diabetes, which can cause physical, social and psychological harm. Hypoglycaemia also prevents attainment of treatment goals and satisfactory glycaemic control.

AREAS COVERED

The risk of hypoglycaemia associated with commonly prescribed therapies, including metformin, sulphonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 enzyme (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists and thiazolidinediones, is reviewed in this paper (insulin-induced hypoglycaemia is not included). Other medications that are frequently co-prescribed in type 2 diabetes are also discussed, including anti-hypertensive drugs, antibiotics and fibrates, along with various important patient-related risk factors.

EXPERT OPINION

Hypoglycaemia is a common and potentially dangerous side effect of some medications used for type 2 diabetes. The risk of hypoglycaemia should always be considered when selecting and implementing a therapy, with a focus on the individual. Future research into new therapies should measure the frequency of hypoglycaemia prospectively and accurately. Hypoglycaemia has been shown to be a potentially life-threatening metabolic stress; therefore therapies that effectively manage diabetes without the risk of hypoglycaemia are likely to be favoured in the future.

Next-generation GLP-1 therapy: an introduction to liraglutide

Liraglutide, a once-daily human glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2010 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Glucagon-like peptide-1 enhances insulin secretion and inhibits glucagon in a glucose-dependent manner. The efficacy and safety of liraglutide were evaluated in 6 phase 3 trials in > 4000 patients in the Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes (LEAD) program, in another trial in comparison with sitagliptin, and in another trial where basal insulin was added to liraglutide + metformin. At liraglutide doses of 1.2 mg or 1.8 mg once daily, significant mean reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (1%-1.6%) and fasting plasma glucose (15-43 mg/dL), as well as sustained weight loss (2-3 kg) and a low rate of hypoglycemia occurred. Mild and transient nausea, reported in 6% to 41% of patients, was the most frequent adverse event reported. Incretin-based therapies such as liraglutide provide an important expansion of options for the treatment of T2DM.

Weight-related quality of life, health utility, psychological well-being, and satisfaction with exenatide once weekly compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone after 26 weeks of treatment

OBJECTIVE

To assess change in patient-reported outcomes in subjects with type 2 diabetes treated with exenatide once weekly compared with those treated with sitagliptin or pioglitazone.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this 26-week randomized, multicenter, double-dummy study, 491 subjects received 2 mg of exenatide once weekly or maximum daily doses of sitagliptin (100 mg) or pioglitazone (45 mg) on a background of metformin. Weight-related quality of life, health utility, psychological well-being, and diabetes treatment satisfaction were assessed at baseline and week 26. Mean group changes from baseline to week 26 were estimated by ANCOVA.

RESULTS

Weight-related quality of life total scores improved significantly in the exenatide once weekly and sitagliptin arms only; the exenatide once weekly group experienced significantly greater improvement than the pioglitazone group in weight-related quality of life total scores and in several domain scores. Health utility scores improved significantly for exenatide once weekly and sitagliptin groups (P < 0.05) with no significant difference between the exenatide once weekly group and either comparison group. All groups experienced significant improvements on the psychological well-being global scale and all six domain scores, with no significant difference between the exenatide once weekly group and either comparator. All groups experienced significant improvements in total diabetes treatment satisfaction scores. The exenatide once weekly group experienced greater improvement than the sitagliptin group in treatment satisfaction total scores.

CONCLUSIONS

In combination with clinical outcomes from this study, these results indicate it is possible for patients treated with metformin to initiate exenatide therapy with potential benefits in both clinical and patient-reported outcomes.

Liraglutide in the management of type 2 diabetes

The pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes has been attributed to the classic triad of decreased insulin secretion, increased insulin resistance, and elevated hepatic glucose production. Research has shown additional mechanisms, including incretin deficiency or resistance in the gastrointestinal tract. Liraglutide is a modified form of human glucagon-like peptide-1. Liraglutide was obtained by substitution of lysine 34 for arginine near the NH2 terminus, and by addition of a C16 fatty acid at the ɛ-amino group of lysine (at position 26) using a γ-glutamic acid spacer. Liraglutide has demonstrated glucose-dependent insulin secretion, improvements in β-cell function, deceleration of gastric emptying, and promotion of early satiety leading to weight loss. Liraglutide has the potential to acquire an important role, not only in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, but also in preservation of β-cell function, weight loss, and prevention of chronic diabetic complications.