Maintenance of glycaemic control with liraglutide versus oral antidiabetic drugs as add-on therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with metformin alone: A randomized clinical trial in primary care (LIRA-PRIME)

Greater time spent with HbA1c less than 7.0% with oral semaglutide versus oral comparators: An exploratory analysis of the PIONEER studies

AIM

To assess how long participants with type 2 diabetes spent with HbA1c less than 7.0% and how likely they were to maintain this target with oral semaglutide 7 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg or oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg or subcutaneous liraglutide 1.8 mg.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Analyses used on-treatment data without rescue medication for all randomized participants (semaglutide [approved maintenance doses], n = 1880; comparators [not including placebo], n = 1412). Duration of time with HbA1c less than 7.0% was calculated using an HbA1c time curve. A binary endpoint of achieving HbA1c less than 7.0% at weeks 26 (week 24 for PIONEER 7) and 52 of each trial (and week 78 for PIONEER 3) was analysed.

RESULTS

Mean duration of time with HbA1c less than 7.0% was greater with oral semaglutide 7 mg versus sitagliptin in PIONEER 3 (27 vs. 22 weeks) and with oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin and sitagliptin (27-34 vs. 19 vs. 22 weeks, respectively), and similar versus subcutaneous liraglutide. A greater proportion of participants achieved and maintained HbA1c less than 7.0% for more than 75% of the trial with oral semaglutide 14 mg versus oral comparators. The odds of achieving HbA1c less than 7.0% at weeks 24/26 and 52/78 were significantly greater with oral semaglutide 14 mg versus oral comparators or subcutaneous liraglutide, and with oral semaglutide 7 mg versus sitagliptin.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral semaglutide 7 and 14 mg resulted in greater time spent with HbA1c less than 7.0%, and a greater likelihood of achieving and maintaining HbA1c less than 7.0% versus oral comparators.

Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists Have the Potential to Revolutionize the Attainment of Target A1C Levels in Type 2 Diabetes-So Why Is Their Uptake So Low?

A target A1C of <7% is the recommended goal for most people with type 2 diabetes. However, many are not achieving this target with their current treatment. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are highly efficacious in achieving glycemic control and could aid primary care providers (PCPs) in getting patients to their A1C target. However, despite their potential, use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in the primary care setting is limited. This review provides guidance for PCPs on how to help patients achieve their glycemic target and overcome perceived barriers of GLP-1 receptor agonist use, with the overall goal of improving PCP confidence in prescribing these agents.

Use of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Occurrence of Thyroid Disorders: a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The association between glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and the risk of various kinds of thyroid disorders remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and the occurrence of 6 kinds of thyroid disorders. We searched PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Web of Science from database inception to 31 October 2021 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 45 trials were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo or other interventions, GLP-1 receptor agonists' use showed an association with an increased risk of overall thyroid disorders (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03-1.60). However, GLP-1 receptor agonists had no significant effects on the occurrence of thyroid cancer (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.86-1.97), hyperthyroidism (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.61-2.35), hypothyroidism (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.80-1.87), thyroiditis (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.51-6.57), thyroid mass (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.43-3.20), and goiter (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.74-1.86). Subgroup analyses and meta-regression analyses showed that underlying diseases, type of control, and trial durations were not related to the effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists on overall thyroid disorders (all P _subgroup > 0.05). In conclusion, GLP-1 receptor agonists did not increase or decrease the risk of thyroid cancer, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, thyroiditis, thyroid mass and goiter. However, due to the low incidence of these diseases, these findings need to be examined further.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42021289121.