A network meta-analysis to compare glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with exenatide once weekly or liraglutide once daily in comparison with insulin glargine, exenatide twice daily or placebo

Exenatide for obesity in children and adolescents: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives: There is no curative treatment for childhood obesity. We aim to synthesize published Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) evidence on the efficacy of exenatide in obese children and adolescents. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search and analysis of relevant studies in popular databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Our focus was on RCTs that examined the effectiveness of exenatide for treating obesity in children. We primarily assessed changes in body weight, body mass index (BMI), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), or HbA1c levels. Additionally, we considered any adverse events reported during the treatment period, with particular attention to hypoglycemia. To evaluate the quality of RCTs included in our study, we employed the Cochrane bias assessment tool. Results: Five studies met the inclusion criteria. A group of 100 children were assigned to receive treatment with exenatide. Compared with controls, exenatide therapy reduced body weight and BMI by -0.6% (95% CI -0.93, -0.27), -1.11% (95% CI -1.91, -0.31), respectively. Undesirable consequences encompass gastrointestinal symptoms, with the majority of instances being characterized by mild severity. Conclusion: Exenatide demonstrates efficacy in the treatment of pediatric and adolescent obesity. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=413706.

Glycemic control and neonatal outcomes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus treated using glyburide, metformin, or insulin: a pairwise and network meta-analysis

AIMS

We aimed to assess the comparative efficiency and safety of the use of glyburide, metformin, and insulin in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials that compared glyburide, metformin, and insulin in GDM. Data regarding glycemic control and neonatal safety were collected and analyzed in pairwise and network meta-analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 4533 individuals from 23 trials were included. Compared with glyburide, metformin reduced 2-h postprandial blood glucose (2HPG) to a greater extent (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.18; 95% credible interval (CI) 0.01, 0.34). There were significantly lower prevalence of neonatal hypoglycemia (risk difference (RD) - 0.07; 95%CI - 0.11, - 0.02) and preeclampsia (RD - 0.03; 95%CI - 0.06, 0) in the metformin group than in the insulin group. The metformin group had significantly lower birth weight (SMD - 0.17; 95%CI - 0.25, - 0.08) and maternal weight gain (SMD - 0.61; 95%CI - 0.86,- 0.35) compared with the insulin group. Network meta-analysis suggested that metformin had the highest probability of successfully controlling glycemia and preventing neonatal complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis suggests that metformin may be as effective as insulin for glycemic control and is the most promising drug for the prevention of neonatal and maternal complications.

Does evidence matter? Comparative effectiveness research and prescribing of Type 2 diabetes mellitus drugs

Aim: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) can help ascertain value of new drugs; however, limited research assesses the translation of CER into clinical practice. The objective of this study was to analyze the association between CER evidence and prescribing trends within two markets of Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: A retrospective analysis to determine the prescribing trends from 2006 to 2016 and an electronic literature search to identify CER comparing different drugs was conducted. Results: In glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists market, CER showed superiority of Liraglutide. Prescribing of Exenatide twice daily dropped by 50% points as Liraglutide entered the market. In dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors market, CER did not suggest conclusive superiority. Nevertheless, Sitagliptin, the first entrant, continued to dominate throughout. Conclusion: CER evidence appeared to be associated with prescribing trends in GLP-1 agonists market; however, no associations were found in DPP4 inhibitors market. The translation of evidence into practice can be limited by the availability of superiority trials and timing of their availability.

Cost Effectiveness of Exenatide Once Weekly Versus Insulin Glargine and Liraglutide for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Greece

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost effectiveness of exenatide once weekly (ExQW) versus insulin glargine (IG) or liraglutide 1.2 mg (Lira1.2mg) for the treatment of adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) not adequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) therapy in Greece.

METHODS

The published and validated Cardiff Diabetes Model was used to project clinical and economic outcomes over a patient's lifetime. Clinical data were retrieved from a head-to-head clinical trial (DURATION 3) and a published network meta-analysis comparing ExQW with IG or Lira1.2mg, respectively. Following a Greek third-party payer perspective, direct medical costs related to drug acquisition, consumables, developed micro- and macrovascular complications, maintenance treatment, as well as treatment-related adverse events were considered. Cost and utility data were extracted from literature and publicly available official sources and assigned to model parameters to calculate total quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and total costs as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of changes in input data.

RESULTS

Over a patient's lifetime, ExQW was associated with 0.458 or 0.039 incremental QALYs compared with IG or Lira1.2mg, respectively, at additional costs of €2061 or €110, respectively. The ICER for ExQW was €4499/QALY compared with IG and €2827/QALY compared with Lira1.2mg. Results were robust across various one-way and scenario analyses. At the defined willingness-to-pay threshold of €36,000/QALY, probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that ExQW had a 100 or 88.2% probability of being cost effective relative to IG or Lira1.2mg, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

ExQW was estimated to be cost effective relative to IG or Lira1.2mg for the treatment of T2DM in adults not adequately controlled on OAD therapy in Greece.

Battle of GLP-1 delivery technologies

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) belong to an important therapeutic class for treatment of type 2 diabetes. Six GLP-1 RAs, each utilizing a unique drug delivery strategy, are now approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and additional, novel GLP-1 RAs are still under development, making for a crowded marketplace and fierce competition among the manufacturers of these products. As rapid elimination is a major challenge for clinical application of GLP-1 RAs, various half-life extension strategies have been successfully employed including sequential modification, attachment of fatty-acid to peptide, fusion with human serum albumin, fusion with the fragment crystallizable (Fc) region of a monoclonal antibody, sustained drug delivery systems, and PEGylation. In this review, we discuss the scientific rationale of the various half-life extension strategies used for GLP-1 RA development. By analyzing and comparing different approved GLP-1 RAs and those in development, we focus on assessing how half-life extending strategies impact the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, patient usability and ultimately, the commercial success of GLP-1 RA products. We also anticipate future GLP-1 RA development trends. Since similar drug delivery strategies are also applied for developing other therapeutic peptides, we expect this case study of GLP-1 RAs will provide generalizable concepts for the rational design of therapeutic peptides products with extended duration of action.

Targeting postprandial glycaemia in children with diabetes: Opportunities and challenges

Postprandial glycaemia makes a substantial contribution to overall glycaemic control in diabetes, particularly in patients whose preprandial glycaemia is relatively well controlled and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) only modestly elevated. Our review addresses the determinants of postprandial glycaemia and how it may be targeted therapeutically in children with diabetes. Postprandial glycaemia is influenced by preprandial glycaemia, macronutrients and their absorption, insulin delivery and sensitivity, the action of the enteroendocrine system, and the rate of gastric emptying. Contemporary continuous glucose monitoring systems reveal patterns of post prandial glycaemia and allow management to be guided more precisely. Delays in blood glucose determination, insulin delivery and its absorption remain challenges in the rapidly evolving closed loop continuous subcutaneous insulin and glucagon delivery systems developed for children with type 1 diabetes. Augmentation of the incretin system through nutritional preloads or incretin mimetics targets postprandial glycaemia by slowing gastric emptying as well as insulinotropic and glucagonostatic effects. These treatments are of particular relevance to children with type 2 diabetes. Following the development of targeted therapies in adults, postprandial blood glucose control will now be increasingly targeted in the treatment of diabetes in children.

What have we learnt from "real world" data, observational studies and meta-analyses

The incretin therapies glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-IV) inhibitors are now well-established as second and third-line therapies and in combination with insulin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Over the last decade, there is accumulating evidence of their efficacy and safety from both large multicentre randomized clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies. Cardiovascular outcome trials have confirmed that several of these agents are also non-inferior to placebo with the GLP-1 RA liraglutide and semaglutide recently found to be superior in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. Observational studies and post-marketing surveillance provide real world evidence of safety and effectiveness of these agents and have provided reassurance that signals for pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer seen in clinical trials are not of major concern in large patient populations. Well-designed real world studies complement RCTs and systematic reviews but appropriate data and methodologies, which are constantly improving, are necessary to answer appropriate clinical questions relating to the use of incretin therapies.

Neurodevelopment in Young Children Born to HIV-Infected Mothers: A Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

HIV-infected (HIV+) children have worse neurodevelopmental outcomes compared with HIV-uninfected children. However, little is known regarding the differences in neurodevelopment between young HIV+ children, HIV-exposed but uninfected (HEU) children, and HIV-unexposed and uninfected (HUU) children.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and meta-analyze data on neurodevelopmental performance between young HIV+, HEU, and HUU children.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched the following electronic bibliographic databases: Ovid Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Education Resources Information Center, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were selected on the basis of defined inclusion criteria. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were assessed by 2 independent reviewers.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers and cross-checked by 2 additional reviewers.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies were identified for inclusion in the systematic review, and of these, 11 were included in the meta-analysis on the basis of availability of Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development scores. Within the meta-analysis, when compared with their HUU peers, HIV+ and HEU children had lower cognitive and motor scores. HIV+ and HEU children with antiretroviral (ARV) exposure had lower cognitive and motor scores compared with those without ARV exposure.

LIMITATIONS

We were unable to control adequately for intravenous drug use, geographic location, or quality of the assessment independently.

CONCLUSIONS

Both HIV+ and HEU children had worse developmental outcomes compared with HUU children. HIV+ and HEU children with ARV exposure also had worse developmental outcomes compared with those without exposure; however, these results should be interpreted with caution. More research is needed to identify the impact of ARV exposure on young children.

A Review of the Long-Term Efficacy, Tolerability, and Safety of Exenatide Once Weekly for Type 2 Diabetes

Introduction

Exenatide once weekly (ExeOW, Bydureon^®, Astra Zeneca), a drug belonging to the class of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, is the first agent approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) that can be administered on a weekly basis.

Methods

Data concerning treatment of T2D with ExeOW are reviewed with special reference to its long-term efficacy, tolerability, and safety. Relevant literature was identified through the PubMed database from inception to January 2015.

Results

In randomized clinical trials ExeOW, as add-on to oral antidiabetics, achieved significantly improved glycemic control compared to maximum recommended doses of exenatide twice daily, sitagliptin, pioglitazone, and insulin glargine, as measured by HbA1c. In drug-naïve patients ExeOW was superior to sitagliptin and non-inferior to metformin, whereas non-inferiority to pioglitazone and liraglutide was not proven. In different trials reductions in HbA1c ranged from −1.1% to −2.0%. ExeOW therapy over 6 months was also associated with a mean weight loss of −2 to −4 kg, improved systolic blood pressure and lipid profile, and no hypoglycemia unless associated to sulfonylurea. ExeOW long-term therapy up to 3–6 years allowed persistent glycemic control (HbA1c −1.6%), sustained decreases in blood pressure (−2 mmHg), and improvements of lipid profile. ExeOW tolerability was comparable to that of the other GLP-1 receptor agonists, with better gastrointestinal tolerability when direct comparison was done (namely liraglutide and exenatide BID), but higher incidence of injection site reactions and few treatment discontinuations mainly due to gastrointestinal events.

Conclusion

ExeOW is a well-tolerated and convenient option for long-term treatment of T2D allowing significant and persistent glycemic control with moderate weight loss and low risk of hypoglycemia unless associated with sulfonylureas.

Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Treatment Attributes Important to Injection-Experienced Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Preference Study in Germany and the United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION

This study assessed the relative importance of treatment-related attributes in influencing patient preferences for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) among injection-experienced type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in Germany and the United Kingdom.

METHODS

T2DM patients experienced with injecting once-weekly (QW) exenatide or once-daily (QD) liraglutide completed an online discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey. Patients chose between hypothetical blinded treatment profiles reflecting attributes of GLP-1RAs. The DCE survey included eight attributes: efficacy, side effects, device size, needle size, titration, injection preparation, long-term efficacy/safety, and dosing frequency. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a conditional logit model indicating the likelihood of choosing a treatment with a given attribute level versus a reference attribute level.

RESULTS

510 GLP-1RA injection-experienced patients completed the survey; 45.3% respondents were being treated with exenatide QW and 54.7% respondents were being treated with liraglutide QD. In terms of GLP-1RA attributes, patients indicated a preference for a treatment with greater efficacy (i.e., a 1.5-point improvement in HbA1c) (OR 2.58; 95% CI 2.37, 2.80; p < 0.001), fewer side effects (OR 2.67; 95% CI 2.52, 2.82; p < 0.001), once-weekly rather than once-daily administration (OR 2.26; 95% CI 2.13, 2.39; p < 0.001), and the preparation required for a multi-use pen (OR 1.71; 95% CI 1.55, 1.88; p < 0.001). Needle size, device size, and titration were not significant drivers of patient preference.

CONCLUSIONS

Among GLP-1RA injection-experienced patients, key drivers of treatment preference for a hypothetical GLP-RA profile were side effects, efficacy, dosing frequency, and required preparation. Understanding patient preferences is important for optimizing treatment decision-making and improving treatment adherence.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

Comparative effectiveness of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with GLP-1 receptor agonists: a network meta-analysis of placebo-controlled and active-comparator trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical studies of patients with type 2 diabetes show that GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) improve glycemic control and promote weight loss. We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of placebo- and active-controlled randomized trials to assess the comparative effectiveness of liraglutide, albiglutide, dulaglutide, and exenatide twice daily and once weekly, with a focus on glycemic control.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (up to December 2014) for core registration programs for US-approved GLP-1 RAs. Patients reaching an A1C target of <7% were analyzed with a binomial model and change in A1C from baseline with a normal model. A covariate analysis assessed the impact of baseline A1C and treatment background on outcomes.

RESULTS

The base-case NMA used 23 trials reporting A1C outcomes at ~6 month follow-up. The results, unadjusted and adjusted for baseline A1C, indicated that all GLP-1 RAs resulted in statistically significantly lower A1C at follow-up compared with placebo. The odds of reaching the <7% target were also significantly better compared with placebo. With dulaglutide, exenatide once weekly, and liraglutide, the absolute reduction in A1C at 6 months was 0.9%-1.4%, and was significantly better than exenatide twice daily. Albiglutide was not significantly different from exenatide twice daily. We estimate that ~50% of patients will meet the <7% A1C target within 6 months of commencing GLP-1 RAs.

CONCLUSION

This was a comprehensive assessment of the comparative effectiveness of GLP-1 RAs and A1C outcome. GLP-1 RAs are a viable addition to oral antidiabetes therapy, and dulaglutide, exenatide once weekly, and liraglutide are the most effective.

Liraglutide Versus SGLT-2 Inhibitors in People with Type 2 Diabetes: A Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

For people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), evidence from both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world studies has demonstrated that treatment intensification with liraglutide offers effective glycemic control, weight reduction, and a lower risk of hypoglycemia compared to treatment intensification with insulin or additional OADs. Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors are a new class of OADs that have also been shown to be effective in T2DM patients inadequately controlled with OADs. Currently there are no head-to-head RCTs comparing these to liraglutide.

METHODS

We aimed to evaluate the relative efficacy, using network meta-analysis (NMA), of treatment intensification with liraglutide and SGLT-2 inhibitors people with T2DM who have been treated with metformin (alone or in combination with SU, DPP-4, and TZD). We performed a systematic literature review to identify relevant RCTs comparing liraglutide (1.2 and 1.8 mg), canagliflozin (100 and 300 mg), empagliflozin (10 and 25 mg), or dapagliflozin (5 and 10 mg) to placebo. To strengthen the indirect evidence base, we also included non-placebo RCTs where sitagliptin (100 mg) was the active comparator. Bayesian NMA was performed on the following outcomes to assess the relative efficacy and safety of interventions: reduction (change) in HbA1c, weight, and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) as well as proportion reaching target HbA1c (<7%), and risk of hypoglycemia. Doses for each intervention were considered separately.

RESULTS

A total of 16 RCTs were identified. All trials were similar with respect to important baseline characteristics and study design. Both doses of liraglutide were generally statistically significantly superior to the SGLT-2s with respect to change from baseline in HbA1c and FPG as well as odds of reaching target HbA1c <7%. For weight, canagliflozin 300 mg was superior to liraglutide 1.2 mg, and SGLT-2s were generally associated with larger change from baseline in weight. For risk of major or minor hypoglycemia, no differences were found between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to SGLT-2 inhibitors, liraglutide offers improvement in HbA1c and FPG. Reductions in weight are likely comparable between liraglutide and SGLT-2s. Liraglutide did not differ from SGLT-2s in terms of risk of hypoglycemia. Given the lack of head-to-head evidence, this analysis provides valuable insight into the comparative outcomes of liraglutide versus SGLT-2 inhibitors.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of exenatide once-weekly versus dulaglutide, liraglutide, and lixisenatide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: an analysis from the UK NHS perspective

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of exenatide 2 mg once-weekly (EQW) compared to dulaglutide 1.5 mg QW, liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg once-daily (QD), and lixisenatide 20 μg QD for the treatment of adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) not adequately controlled on metformin.

METHODS

The Cardiff Diabetes Model was applied to evaluate cost-effectiveness, with treatment effects sourced from a network meta-analysis. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated with health-state utilities applied to T2DM-related complications, weight changes, hypoglycemia, and nausea. Costs (GBP £) included drug treatment, T2DM-related complications, severe hypoglycemia, nausea, and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. A 40-year time horizon was used.

RESULTS

In all base-case comparisons, EQW was associated with a QALY gain per patient; 0.046 vs dulaglutide 1.5 mg; 0.102 vs liraglutide 1.2 mg; 0.043 vs liraglutide 1.8 mg; and 0.074 vs lixisenatide 20 μg. Cost per patient was lower for EQW than for liraglutide 1.8 mg (-£2,085); therefore, EQW dominated liraglutide 1.8 mg. The cost difference per patient between EQW and dulaglutide 1.5 mg, EQW and liraglutide 1.2 mg, and EQW and lixisenatide 20 μg was £27, £103, and £738, respectively. Cost per QALY gained with EQW vs dulaglutide 1.5 mg, EQW vs liraglutide 1.2 mg, and EQW vs lixisenatide 20 μg was £596, £1,004, and £10,002, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability that EQW is cost-effective ranged from 76-99%.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that exenatide 2 mg once-weekly is cost-effective over a lifetime horizon compared to dulaglutide 1.5 mg QW, liraglutide 1.2 mg QD, liraglutide 1.8 mg QD, and lixisenatide 20 μg QD for the treatment of T2DM in adults not adequately controlled on metformin alone.

Once-daily liraglutide (1.2 mg) compared with twice-daily exenatide (10 μg) in the treatment of type 2 diabetes patients: An indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists provide effective hyperglycemia management in patients with type 2 diabetes. In a randomized head-to-head trial, liraglutide 1.8 mg q.d. led to greater reductions in HbA1c than exenatide 10 μg b.i.d. There are no direct comparisons of liraglutide 1.2 mg q.d. and exenatide b.i.d.; therefore, in the present study, an indirect comparison and meta-analysis were undertaken.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials of liraglutide 1.2 mg q.d. or exenatide b.i.d. with HbA1c as an outcome and ≥25 subjects. Key data were extracted and analyzed. A random-effects model was used to incorporate heterogeneity between studies.

RESULTS

Three liraglutide 1.2 mg q.d. (n = 1060) and 10 exenatide b.i.d. (n = 2609) placebo-controlled studies were identified, allowing indirect comparison with placebo as the common arm. Baseline characteristics were mean age ~55 years, disease duration ~7 years, HbA1c ~8%, and body mass index ~32 kg/m² . Compared with exenatide b.i.d., liraglutide 1.2 mg was associated with significantly greater reductions from baseline in HbA1c (-0.29%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.53, -0.05) and fasting plasma glucose (-0.92 mmol/L; 95% CI -1.43, -0.41), with shorter duration of nausea (3 vs 14 days; P = 0.002) and fewer withdrawals (odds ratio 0.34; 95% CI 0.22, 0.52). The incidence of adverse events (including nausea) and withdrawals because of adverse events were similar between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Liraglutide 1.2 mg provided a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c than exenatide 10 μg b.i.d. The significantly shorter duration of nausea with liraglutide than exenatide may be appreciated by patients.

A Systematic Review of Methods for Handling Missing Variance Data in Meta-Analyses of Interventions in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

AIMS

Meta-analysis is of critical importance to decision makers to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of interventions and is integral to health technology assessment. A major problem for the meta-analysis of continuous outcomes is that associated variance data are not consistently reported in trial publications. The omission of studies from a meta-analysis due to incomplete reporting may introduce bias. The objectives of this study are to summarise and describe the methods used for handling missing variance data in meta-analyses in populations with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Electronic databases, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library (accessed June 2015), were systematically searched to identify meta-analyses of interventions in patients with T2DM. Eligible studies included those which analysed the change in HbA1c from baseline.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven publications reporting on meta-analyses of change in HbA1c from baseline in T2DM were identified. Approaches for dealing with missing variance data were reported in 41% of publications and included algebraic calculation, trial-level imputation, and no imputation.

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis publications typically fail to report standardised approaches for dealing with missing variance data. While no particular imputation method is favoured, authors are discouraged from using a no-imputation approach. Instead, authors are encouraged to explore different approaches using sensitivity analyses and to improve the quality of reporting by documenting the methods used to deal with missing variance data.

Methods for network meta-analysis of continuous outcomes using individual patient data: a case study in acupuncture for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Network meta-analysis methods, which are an extension of the standard pair-wise synthesis framework, allow for the simultaneous comparison of multiple interventions and consideration of the entire body of evidence in a single statistical model. There are well-established advantages to using individual patient data to perform network meta-analysis and methods for network meta-analysis of individual patient data have already been developed for dichotomous and time-to-event data. This paper describes appropriate methods for the network meta-analysis of individual patient data on continuous outcomes.

METHODS

This paper introduces and describes network meta-analysis of individual patient data models for continuous outcomes using the analysis of covariance framework. Comparisons are made between this approach and change score and final score only approaches, which are frequently used and have been proposed in the methodological literature. A motivating example on the effectiveness of acupuncture for chronic pain is used to demonstrate the methods. Individual patient data on 28 randomised controlled trials were synthesised. Consistency of endpoints across the evidence base was obtained through standardisation and mapping exercises.

RESULTS

Individual patient data availability avoided the use of non-baseline-adjusted models, allowing instead for analysis of covariance models to be applied and thus improving the precision of treatment effect estimates while adjusting for baseline imbalance.

CONCLUSIONS

The network meta-analysis of individual patient data using the analysis of covariance approach is advocated to be the most appropriate modelling approach for network meta-analysis of continuous outcomes, particularly in the presence of baseline imbalance. Further methods developments are required to address the challenge of analysing aggregate level data in the presence of baseline imbalance.

Hypoglycaemia when adding sulphonylurea to metformin: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIMS

The risk of hypoglycaemia may differ among sulphonylureas (SUs), but evidence from head-to-head comparisons is sparse. Performing a network meta-analysis to use indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we compared the relative risk of hypoglycaemia with newer generation SUs when added to metformin.

METHODS

A systematic review identified RCTs lasting 12-52 weeks and evaluating SUs added to inadequate metformin monotherapy (≥1000 mg/day) in type 2 diabetes. Adding RCTs investigating the active comparators from the identified SU trials, we established a coherent network. Hypoglycaemia of any severity was the primary end point.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials of SUs and 14 of oral non-SU antihyperglycaemic agents (16 260 patients) were included. All reported hypoglycaemia only as adverse events. Producing comparable reductions in HbA_1C of -0.66 to -0.84% (-7 to -9 mmol/mol), the risk of hypoglycaemia was lowest with gliclazide compared to glipizide (OR 0.22, CrI: 0.05 to 0.96), glimepiride (OR 0.40, CrI: 0.13 to 1.27), and glibenclamide (OR 0.21, CrI: 0.03 to 1.48). A major limitation is varying definitions of hypoglycaemia across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

When added to metformin, gliclazide was associated with the lowest risk of hypoglycaemia between the newer generation SUs. Clinicians should consider the risk of hypoglycaemia agent-specific when selecting an SU agent.

Network meta-analysis of treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus following failure with metformin plus sulfonylurea

Aims The efficacy and safety of sodium-glucose linked transporters (SGLT2s) plus metformin and a sulfonylurea (MET + SU) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in patients who fail to achieve glycemic control with MET + SU, relative to other triple therapies licensed in the EU, were estimated. Methods A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving anti-diabetes treatments added to MET + SU were conducted.

RESULTS

Of 2236 abstracts identified through a systematic literature review, 30 RCTs published between 2003 and 2013 were included. RCTs ranged from 12 to 52 weeks in duration, included 28 to 1274 patients, were of parallel design, and most were open-label. Comparators included placebo (reference treatment), SGLT2 inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, thiazolidinediones (TZDs), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (AGIs), meglitinides, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analogues, and basal, bolus, and biphasic insulin, all added on to MET + SU, as well as basal and biphasic insulin added to MET and monotherapy. The mean change (%) in HbA1c levels compared to placebo was -0.86 for SGLT2 inhibitors, -0.68 for DPP-4 inhibitors, -0.93 for TZDs, and -1.07 for GLP-1 analogues, respectively. Only SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues led to a weight loss (-1.71 kg and -1.14 kg, respectively) and decrease in systolic blood pressure (SBP; -3.73 mmHg and -2.90 mmHg, respectively), while all other treatments showed either an increase or no changes in weight or SBP. Conclusion SGLT2 inhibitors are at least as effective as other classes of antidiabetic agents at controlling HbA1c levels, while providing the additional benefits of weight loss and reducing SBP. Additionally, since the risk of hypoglycemia is similar or reduced with SGLT2 inhibitors, patients do not have to trade off efficacy for tolerability. Similar findings were observed for GLP-1 analogues.

Exenatide Extended-Release: An Updated Review of Its Use in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Exenatide extended-release (exenatide ER) [Bydureon(®)] is a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. It is injected subcutaneously by patients once weekly, with no dose titration required. This article updates an earlier review of exenatide ER in the management of type 2 diabetes, focusing on recently published data. In randomized, controlled trials, adjunctive exenatide ER 2 mg once weekly for 24-30 weeks significantly improved glycaemic control and reduced bodyweight in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes despite diet plus exercise and/or oral antihyperglycaemic drugs (OADs). These beneficial effects of exenatide ER were maintained after up to 6 years of treatment. In patients receiving one or more OADs, addition of exenatide ER provided better glycaemic control than an immediate-release formulation of exenatide (exenatide twice daily), sitagliptin, pioglitazone, insulin glargine or insulin detemir, and was slightly less effective than liraglutide. In patients treated with diet plus exercise alone, adjunctive exenatide ER was noninferior to metformin and superior to sitagliptin, but was not noninferior to pioglitazone. Exenatide ER was generally well tolerated, with a low inherent risk of hypoglycaemia. The most common adverse events were mild to moderate gastrointestinal events, injection-site reactions and headache. Thus, exenatide ER is a useful treatment option in the management of type 2 diabetes. It offers a convenient, once-weekly regimen and can be administered by patients via a pen injection system or syringes and needles.

A Network Meta-analysis Comparing Exenatide Once Weekly with Other GLP-1 Receptor Agonists for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

Exenatide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). There is limited direct evidence comparing the efficacy and tolerability of exenatide 2 mg once weekly (QW) to other GLP-1 RAs. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to estimate the relative efficacy and tolerability of exenatide QW versus other GLP-1 RAs for the treatment of adults with T2DM inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated GLP-1 RAs (albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, and lixisenatide) at approved doses in the United States/Europe, added on to metformin only and of 24 ± 6 weeks treatment duration. A Bayesian NMA was conducted.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs were included in the NMA. Exenatide QW obtained a statistically significant reduction in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) relative to lixisenatide 20 µg once daily. No other comparisons of exenatide QW to other GLP-1 RAs were statistically significant for change in HbA1c. No statistically significant differences in change in weight, systolic blood pressure, risk of nausea or discontinuation due to adverse events were observed for exenatide QW versus other GLP-1 RAs.

CONCLUSION

Exenatide QW demonstrated similar effectiveness and tolerability compared to other GLP-1 RAs, for the treatment of T2DM in adults inadequately controlled on metformin alone.

An indirect comparison of HbA1c treatment effect with albiglutide and exenatide 2.0 mg QW using the Bucher method

No head-to-head comparisons exist between once-weekly (QW) glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists; accordingly, this indirect comparison was conducted to evaluate the comparative efficacy of QW albiglutide vs QW exenatide. Following a systematic literature search, it was determined that HARMONY 7 and DURATION 6, Phase III trials for albiglutide and exenatide, respectively, were similar in study design and baseline characteristics and included a common comparator arm, making them suitable for an indirect comparison using the Bucher method. The primary endpoint of change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) with albiglutide 50 mg QW and exenatide 2.0 mg QW was compared and tested for noninferiority. The indirect comparison showed a treatment difference of 0.0% (95% confidence interval: -0.189% to 0.189%) in mean change in HbA1c from baseline, and albiglutide 50 mg was noninferior to exenatide 2.0 mg QW at the noninferiority margin of 0.3%. In the absence of a head-to-head trial, these results can be used in pharmacoeconomic analysis and to inform health technology assessment and clinical decision making.

Real-world glycemic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating exenatide once weekly and liraglutide once daily: a retrospective cohort study

AIM

The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists exenatide once weekly (QW) and liraglutide once daily (QD) have demonstrated improvements in glycemic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in randomized clinical trials. However, little is known about their real-world comparative effectiveness. This retrospective cohort study used the Quintiles Electronic Medical Record database to evaluate the 6-month change in glycated hemoglobin (A1C) for patients initiating exenatide QW or liraglutide QD.

METHODS

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus prescribed exenatide QW (n=664) or liraglutide QD (n=3,283) between February 1, 2012 and May 31, 2013 were identified. Baseline A1C measures were from 75 days before to 15 days after initiating exenatide QW or liraglutide QD, with follow-up measures documented at 6 months (±45 days). Adjusted linear regression models compared the difference in mean A1C change. A priori defined sensitivity analysis was performed in the subgroup of patients with baseline A1C ≥7.0% and no prescription for insulin during the 12-month pre-index period.

RESULTS

For exenatide QW and liraglutide QD, respectively, mean (SD) age of the main study cohort was 58.01 (10.97) and 58.12 (11.05) years, mean (SD) baseline A1C was 8.4% (1.6) and 8.4% (1.6), and 48.2% and 54.2% of patients were women. In adjusted models, change in A1C did not differ between exenatide QW and liraglutide QD during 6 months of follow-up. Results were consistent in the subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSION

In a real-world setting, A1C similarly improves in patients initiating exenatide QW or liraglutide QD.

New perspectives on exploitation of incretin peptides for the treatment of diabetes and related disorders

The applicability of stable gut hormones for the treatment of obesity-related diabetes is now undisputable. This is based predominantly on prominent and sustained glucose-lowering actions, plus evidence that these peptides can augment insulin secretion and pancreatic islet function over time. This review highlights the therapeutic potential of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), oxyntomodulin (OXM) and cholecystokinin (CCK) for obesity-related diabetes. Stable GLP-1 mimetics have already been successfully adopted into the diabetic clinic, whereas GIP, CCK and OXM molecules offer promise as potential new classes of antidiabetic drugs. Moreover, recent studies have shown improved therapeutic effects following simultaneous modulation of multiple receptor signalling pathways by combination therapy or use of dual/triple agonist peptides. However, timing and composition of injections may be important to permit interludes of beta-cell rest. The review also addresses the possible perils of incretin based drugs for treatment of prediabetes. Finally, the unanticipated utility of stable gut peptides as effective treatments for complications of diabetes, bone disorders, cognitive impairment and cardiovascular dysfunction is considered.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists for the management of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of recently approved once-weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing any GLP-1 RA licensed for once-weekly dosing (albiglutide, dulaglutide or exenatide extended release) with placebo or other antidiabetic agents. We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and grey literature for articles published up to December 2014 and extracted data in duplicate.

RESULTS

In our systematic review we included 33 trials with a total of 16 003 participants. Compared with placebo the change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration was -0.66% [six studies; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.14 to -0.19; I(2)  = 88%] with albiglutide, and -1.18% (seven studies; 95% CI -1.34 to -1.02; I(2)  = 65%) with dulaglutide. Based on data from placebo-controlled trials, we did not detect statistically significant weight-sparing benefits for albiglutide or dulaglutide. Compared with other antidiabetic agents, once-weekly GLP-1 RAs outperformed sitagliptin, daily exenatide and insulin glargine in terms of HbA1c-lowering (mean differences -0.40%; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.14; I(2)  = 85%, -0.44%; 95% CI -0.58 to -0.29; I(2)  = 40% and -0.28; 95% CI -0.45 to -0.10; I(2)  = 81%, respectively). The main adverse effects of treatment included gastrointestinal and injection site reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Given their dosing scheme and overall efficacy and safety profile, once-weekly GLP-1 RAs are a convenient therapeutic option for use as add-on to metformin.

Comparison Review of Short-Acting and Long-Acting Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are useful tools for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus. In their recent position statement, the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommend GLP1-RAs as add-on to metformin when therapeutic goals are not achieved with monotherapy, particularly for patients who wish to avoid weight gain or hypoglycemia. GLP1-RAs differ substantially in their duration of action, frequency of administration and clinical profile. Members of this class approved for clinical use include exenatide twice-daily, exenatide once-weekly, liraglutide and lixisenatide once-daily. Recently, two new once-weekly GLP1-RAs have been approved: dulaglutide and albiglutide. This article summarizes properties of short- and long-acting GLP-1 analogs, and provides useful information to help choose the most appropriate compound for individual patients.

Effects of three injectable antidiabetic agents on glycaemic control, weight change and drop-out in type 2 diabetes suboptimally controlled with metformin and/or a sulfonylurea: A network meta-analysis

AIMS

The objective of this review was to assess glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), basal insulin, and premixed insulin among participants with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin and/or a sulfonylurea.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane Library to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for a network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 17 RCTs involving 5874 adult individuals were included. Compared with placebo, all three therapies showed a significant effect on achieving target glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (GLP-1 RAs: 31.7%, 95% CI, 24.7-38.6%; premixed insulin: 31.1%, 95% CI, 20.4-41.8%; basal insulin: 26.0%, 95% CI, 16.4-35.7%). However, there was no significant difference between the three therapies. A similar result was found in HbA1c reduction. The use of GLP-1 RAs resulted in significant body weight loss (-3.73 kg, 95% CI, -4.52 to -2.95 kg vs. basal insulin and -5.27 kg, 95% CI, -6.17 to -4.36 kg vs. premixed insulin) but there was a higher drop-out rate of participants. Premixed insulin seemed associated with more severe hypoglycemic episodes.

CONCLUSIONS

The three injectables had similar impact on glycemic control but other differentiating features relevant to the management of type 2 diabetes with GLP-1 RAs having the most favorable profile.

Exenatide twice daily: a review of its use in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Exenatide, administered subcutaneously twice daily (Byetta(®)), is a synthetic version of the natural peptide exendin-4, which is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (incretin mimetic). Exenatide binds to the GLP-1 receptor with the same affinity as GLP-1, but has a much longer half-life, since it is not degraded by the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4. Exenatide twice daily enhances glucose-dependent insulin secretion, suppresses inappropriately elevated glucagon secretion, slows gastric emptying and reduces caloric intake. In well-designed clinical trials, adjunctive subcutaneous exenatide 5 or 10 μg twice daily for 16-52 weeks significantly and dose-dependently improved glycaemic control and reduced mean body weight compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antihyperglycaemic drugs (OADs) and/or basal insulin. The improvements in glycaemic control and reductions in body weight were stably maintained during long-term therapy (up to 3.5 years). The efficacy of adjunctive exenatide twice daily was generally similar to that of basal, prandial or biphasic insulin, sulfonylureas, rosiglitazone and lixisenatide, and less than that of liraglutide, taspoglutide or exenatide once weekly with respect to reductions in glycated haemoglobin. Exenatide twice daily was generally well tolerated; mild to moderate nausea and vomiting, which decreased with time on therapy, were the most common adverse events. In patients not receiving concomitant sulfonylureas or insulin, the incidence of hypoglycaemia was low; when it did occur, it was generally mild in severity. Thus, adjunctive exenatide twice daily is a valuable option in the treatment of type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with OADs and/or basal insulin.

New forms of insulin and insulin therapies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

Insulin is a common treatment option for many patients with type 2 diabetes, and is generally used late in the natural history of the disease. Its injectable delivery mode, propensity for weight gain and hypoglycaemia, and the paucity of trials assessing the risk-to-safety ratio of early insulin use are major shortcomings associated with its use in patients with type 2 diabetes. Development of new insulins-such as insulin analogues, including long-acting and short-acting insulins-now provide alternative treatment options to human insulin. These novel insulin formulations and innovative insulin delivery methods, such as oral or inhaled insulin, have been developed with the aim to reduce insulin-associated hypoglycaemia, lower intraindividual pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variability, and improve imitation of physiological insulin release. Availability of newer glucose-lowering drugs (such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors) also offers the opportunity for combination treatment; the results of the first trials in this area of research suggest that such treatment might lead to use of reduced insulin doses, less weight gain, and fewer hypoglycaemic episodes than insulin treatment alone. These and future developments will hopefully offer better opportunities for individualisation of insulin treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes.

Modulation of Glucagon Receptor Pharmacology by Receptor Activity-modifying Protein-2 (RAMP2)

The glucagon and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptors play important, opposing roles in regulating blood glucose levels. Consequently, these receptors have been identified as targets for novel diabetes treatments. However, drugs acting at the GLP-1 receptor, although having clinical efficacy, have been associated with severe adverse side-effects, and targeting of the glucagon receptor has yet to be successful. Here we use a combination of yeast reporter assays and mammalian systems to provide a more complete understanding of glucagon receptor signaling, considering the effect of multiple ligands, association with the receptor-interacting protein receptor activity-modifying protein-2 (RAMP2), and the role of individual G protein α-subunits. We demonstrate that RAMP2 alters both ligand selectivity and G protein preference of the glucagon receptor. Importantly, we also uncover novel cross-reactivity of therapeutically used GLP-1 receptor ligands at the glucagon receptor that is abolished by RAMP2 interaction. This study reveals the glucagon receptor as a previously unidentified target for GLP-1 receptor agonists and highlights a role for RAMP2 in regulating its pharmacology. Such previously unrecognized functions of RAMPs highlight the need to consider all receptor-interacting proteins in future drug development.

Incretin manipulation in diabetes management

Incretin-based therapies have revolutionized the medical management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the 21^st century. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) suppresses appetite and gastric motility, and has trophic effects on pancreas, cardio-protective and renal effects. GLP-1 analogues and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors form the incretin-based therapies. Significant reduction of hemoglobin A1c when used as monotherapy and in combination regimens, favorable effects on body weight, and low risk of hypoglycemia are their unique therapeutic benefits. Their safety and tolerability are comparable to other anti-diabetic medications. Concern about elevated risk of pancreatitis has been discarded by two recent meta-analyses. This article discusses the therapeutic manipulation of incretin system for the management of T2DM.

The short-term cost-effectiveness of once-daily liraglutide versus once-weekly exenatide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States

Background

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic metabolic disease with substantial morbidity, mortality, and economic impacts. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, such as once-daily (QD) liraglutide and once-weekly (QW) exenatide, are FDA-approved treatment for T2DM. Head-to-head trials and meta-analyses comparing these agents have reported clinically meaningful improvements but small differences in glycemic control between both agents. In this study, we calculate and compare the cost-effectiveness implications of these alternative effectiveness outcomes.

Methods

We developed a decision model to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of exenatide QW 2 mg versus liraglutide QD 1.8 mg in T2DM patients, with effectiveness measured as reduction in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). In the base case, the model tracks change in HbA1c and direct medical expenditure over a 6-month time horizon. We calculated and compared the cost per 1% reduction in HbA1c of models populated with clinical data from a head-to-head randomized, controlled trial (DURATION-6) and a network meta-analysis. Expenditure inputs were derived from wholesale acquisition costs and published sources.

Results

In the base case, 6-month expenditure for the liraglutide and exenatide strategies were $3,509 and $2,618, respectively. Using clinical data from DURATION-6 and the network meta-analysis, the liraglutide strategy had an incremental cost per 1% reduction in HbA1c of $4,773 and $27,179, respectively. The most influential model parameters were drug costs, magnitude of HbA1c reduction in patients on treatment for >1 month, and liraglutide gastrointestinal adverse event rate. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) using DURATION-6 data, the exenatide strategy was optimal at willingness-to-pay levels below $4,800 per 1% reduction in HbA1c. In a PSA using meta-analysis data, the exenatide strategy was dominant.

Conclusions

Our modeled results demonstrate that the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of liraglutide QD 1.8 mg relative to exenatide QW 2 mg depend largely on the chosen source of the clinical data.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes: a clinical perspective

Diabetes is associated with the development of premature atherosclerotic disease, including coronary heart disease and acute coronary syndromes. A late consequence of this process is the development of chronic heart failure, which contributes to the increased cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality associated with diabetes. Reduction of cholesterol with statins and intensive blood pressure control significantly reduce vascular events in people with diabetes. Intensive treatment of glycaemia reduces microvascular complications, especially retinopathy and nephropathy, but has only a modest effect in reducing macrovascular complications. Attention has therefore focused on individual antidiabetic drugs or drug classes to determine if these have effects in reducing CV events beyond the reduction of blood glucose. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are a class of injected therapies that enhance the incretin effect, increasing insulin release from the pancreas and reducing glucagon production. They also have a central effect, increasing satiety, and in routine clinical use are associated with reductions in body weight. Another possibly beneficial effect of these drugs is a slight but significant reduction in systolic blood pressure. Data from cohort studies have indicated no increase in CV events with GLP-1 receptor agonists, and perhaps some reductions in CV events. The safety and possible CV benefit of these drugs is now being tested in large, multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

Retrospective study comparing healthcare costs and utilization between commercially insured patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are newly initiating exenatide once weekly or liraglutide in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To compare healthcare costs and utilization between commercially insured patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the United States newly initiating exenatide once weekly (QW) or liraglutide.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used US administrative claims data to study patients with T2DM initiating exenatide QW or liraglutide (initiated therapy = index therapy). Patients were included if they had T2DM, were glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) naïve, initiated exenatide QW or liraglutide from 1 February 2012 to 1 October 2012 (date of initiation = index), were ≥18 years at index, and had continuous enrollment for 12 months before (baseline) to 6 months after index (follow-up). Study outcomes were overall and diabetes-specific healthcare utilization and costs. Multivariable regressions compared the study outcomes between exenatide QW and liraglutide, adjusting for potential confounders. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess liraglutide by dose (1.2 mg/1.8 mg).

RESULTS

The study sample included 9106 liraglutide (4188, 1.2 mg; 4918, 1.8 mg) patients and 2445 exenatide QW patients. In multivariable-adjusted analyses, compared with liraglutide patients, exenatide QW patients had statistically significantly lower odds of overall inpatient admissions (odds ratio [OR] = 0.80, p = 0.046) and diabetes-specific (OR = 0.83, p = 0.026) inpatient admissions, similar overall total costs ($7833 exenatide QW, $8296 liraglutide, p = 0.069) and diabetes-specific total costs ($3610 exenatide QW, $3736 liraglutide, p = 0.298), and statistically significantly lower overall medical costs ($3939 exenatide QW, $4652 liraglutide, p = 0.008) and diabetes-specific medical costs ($1161 exenatide QW, $1469 liraglutide, p = 0.007). Sensitivity analyses assessing liraglutide by dose were directionally consistent. Unadjusted exploratory analyses showed that exenatide QW patients obtained a greater median number of days supplied for their GLP-1RA during follow-up (141 days) than liraglutide patients (124 days).

CONCLUSIONS

In this 6 month follow-up study, patients receiving exenatide QW had similar total healthcare costs but lower odds of inpatient admission and lower medical costs compared with patients receiving liraglutide.

Treatment patterns among older patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The American Diabetes Association consensus statement on the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in older patients highlights the need for treatment pattern and effectiveness data from real-world settings and populations. This retrospective cohort study assessed the relative frequency of use of four commonly prescribed antihyperglycemia treatments for T2DM and quantified their effectiveness up to 2 years post-initiation.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Within a large, U.S.-based, electronic health record database, we investigated usage of insulin, sulfonylureas, glucagon-like peptide-1(GLP-1) receptor agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in patients with T2DM, focusing on those ≥65 years old, although younger patients were included for comparative purposes.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria were met by 77,440 patients. Mean baseline glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels for patients ≥65 years old varied among treatments: insulin (7.7% [61 mmol/mol]; n=3,311), sulfonylureas (7.0% [53 mmol/mol]; n=5,706), GLP-1 receptor agonists (7.1% [54 mmol/mol]; n=260), and DPP-4 inhibitors (7.1% [54 mmol/mol]; n=1,096). Older patients demonstrated good glycemic control at therapy initiation and were prescribed glucose-lowering agents at lower HbA1c values compared with younger patients. A large proportion of older patients were prescribed sulfonylureas (56%) and insulin (34%) compared with GLP-1 receptor agonists (3.4%) and DPP-4 inhibitors (12%), despite the associated risk of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients initiating insulin and sulfonylureas demonstrated more sustained glycemic control compared with GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors. A majority of older patients with T2DM was initiated on sulfonylureas and insulin at relatively low levels of HbA1c, a practice not entirely consistent with the recommendations of published guidelines.

Defining the role of GLP-1 receptor agonists for individualized treatment of Type 2 diabetes

With the advent of dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) over the past decade, incretin therapy has become established as an important treatment strategy for Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), with an efficacy and safety profile distinct from that of other anti-hyperglycemic agents. However, our understanding of the optimal clinical use of incretins remains incomplete. This review focuses on the use of GLP-1 RAs in the treatment of T2DM, with reference to the differing dominant mechanisms of action between short- and long-acting GLP-1 RAs and the clinical implications of this difference. The role of GLP-1 and the effects of GLP-1 RAs in various organs other than the pancreas will also be discussed.

Investigating G protein signalling bias at the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor in yeast

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor performs an important role in glycaemic control, stimulating the release of insulin. It is an attractive target for treating type 2 diabetes. Recently, several reports of adverse side effects following prolonged use of GLP-1 receptor therapies have emerged: most likely due to an incomplete understanding of signalling complexities.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

We describe the expression of the GLP-1 receptor in a panel of modified yeast strains that couple receptor activation to cell growth via single Gα/yeast chimeras. This assay enables the study of individual ligand-receptor G protein coupling preferences and the quantification of the effect of GLP-1 receptor ligands on G protein selectivity.

KEY RESULTS

The GLP-1 receptor functionally coupled to the chimeras representing the human Gαs, Gαi and Gαq subunits. Calculation of the dissociation constant for a receptor antagonist, exendin-3 revealed no significant difference between the two systems. We obtained previously unobserved differences in G protein signalling bias for clinically relevant therapeutic agents, liraglutide and exenatide; the latter displaying significant bias for the Gαi pathway. We extended the use of the system to investigate small-molecule allosteric compounds and the closely related glucagon receptor.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

These results provide a better understanding of the molecular events involved in GLP-1 receptor pleiotropic signalling and establish the yeast platform as a robust tool to screen for more selective, efficacious compounds acting at this important class of receptors in the future.

[Type 2 diabetes mellitus: new treatments]

The benefits and problems associated with traditional hypoglycemic drugs, such as failure of beta cells, hypoglycemia and weight gain, that lead to a worsening of diabetes, are reviewed. New hypoglycemic drugs with incretin effect (glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors), achieve, in a glucose dependent manner, an glycosylated hemoglobin reduction without hypoglycemia or increase in body weight. Recently, another group of oral hypoglycemic drugs, sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors, have demonstrated efficacy in diabetes control by inhibiting renal glucose reabsorption. However, long-term effects and cardiovascular prevention remain to be demonstrated. We have more and better drugs nowadays. Hypoglycemic treatment should be customized (glycosylated hemoglobin levels, risk-benefit, risk of hypoglycemia, weight changes, cardiovascular risk), with a combination of drugs being necessary in most cases. However, we do not have yet an ideal hypoglycemic drug. Moreover we must remember that an early and intensive treatment of dyslipidemia and hypertension is essential for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Advances in pharmacologic therapies for type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is a multi-causal, heterogeneous and progressive cardiometabolic condition, with an increasing prevalence worldwide. T2DM is associated with multiple comorbidities that may impact patients' quality of life. Treatment is multifactorial, but pharmacologic treatment of hyperglycemia is still regarded as the mainstay of diabetes management. Current established therapies include metformin, sulfonylurea agents and insulin, the long-term use of which was associated with reduced micro- and macrovascular events in the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study. Despite major recent advances in diabetes care, a large proportion of patients remain in poor glycemic control, necessitating the development of new therapeutic options. The recently published position statement of the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes for the management of hyperglycemia in T2DM has accommodated this wider range of therapy choices, as it is less prescriptive and advocates an individualized treatment approach, taking into account many relevant patient- and disease-related factors. This review summarizes the updates on various established agents as well as the recent developments with regard to incretin-based therapies, inhibitors of the renal tubular sodium-glucose-linked-transporter-2 and ultra-long acting basal insulin formulations.

Exenatide extended-release; clinical trials, patient preference, and economic considerations

Type 2 diabetes remains an escalating problem worldwide, despite a range of treatments being available. The revelation that insulin secretion is under the control of a gut hormone, glucagon-like peptide 1, has led to a new paradigm in the management of type 2 diabetes, ie, use of medicines that directly stimulate or prolong the actions of endogenous glucagon-like peptide 1 at its receptors. Exenatide is an agonist at the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor, and was initially developed as a subcutaneous medication twice daily (ExBID). Clinical trials with ExBID established a role for exenatide in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Subsequently, exenatide once weekly (ExQW) was shown to have advantages over ExBID, and there is now more emphasis on the development of ExQW. ExQW alone reduces glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) and body weight, and is well tolerated. ExQW has been compared with sitagliptin, pioglitazone, and metformin, and been shown to have a greater ability to reduce HbA(1c) than these other medicines. The only preparation of insulin with which ExQW has been compared is insulin glargine, and ExQW had some favorable properties in this comparison, notably causing weight loss compared with the weight gain on insulin glargine. ExQW has been compared with another glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, liraglutide, and was noninferior to liraglutide in reducing HbA(1c). The small amount of evidence available shows that subjects with type 2 diabetes prefer ExQW to ExBID, and that adherence is high in the clinical trial setting. Health care and economic modeling suggests that ExQW will reduce diabetic complications and be cost-effective, compared with other medications, in long-term use. Little is known about whether subjects with type 2 diabetes prefer ExQW to other medicines, and whether adherence is good with ExQW in practice. These important topics require further study.