Patient-reported outcomes are superior in patients with Type 2 diabetes treated with liraglutide as compared with exenatide, when added to metformin, sulphonylurea or both: results from a randomized, open-label study

Association of SGLT-2 Inhibitors With Treatment Satisfaction and Diabetes-Specific and General Health Status in Adults With Cardiovascular Disease and Type 2 Diabetes

Background It is unknown if initiation of a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) is associated with changes in patient-reported health status outside of clinical trials. Methods and Results Using a prospective observational study design, adults with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease were recruited from 14 US hospitals between November 2019 and December 2021 if they were new users of noninsulin antidiabetic medications. The primary outcome was change in 6-month diabetes treatment satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included diabetes-related symptom distress, diabetes-specific quality of life, and general health status for all patients and based on cardiovascular disease type. Inverse probability of treatment weight using propensity score was performed to compare outcome changes based on medication use. Of 887 patients (SGLT-2i: n=242) included in the inverse probability of treatment weight analyses, there was no difference in changes in treatment satisfaction in SGLT-2i users compared with other diabetes medication users (0.99 [95% CI, -0.14 to 2.13] versus 1.54 [1.08 to 2.00], P=0.38). Initiating an SGLT-2i versus other diabetes medications was associated with a greater reduction in ophthalmological symptoms (-3.09 [95% CI, -4.99 to -1.18] versus -0.38 [-1.54 to 0.77], P=0.018) but less improvement in hyperglycemia (1.08 [-2.63 to 4.79] versus -3.60 [-5.34 to -1.86], P=0.026). In subgroup analyses by cardiovascular disease type, SGLT-2i use was associated with a greater reduction in total diabetes symptom burden and neurological sensory symptoms in patients with heart failure. Conclusions Among patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, initiating an SGLT-2i was not associated with changes in diabetes treatment satisfaction, total diabetes symptoms, diabetes-specific quality of life, or general health status.

Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes for Assessing Diabetes Outcomes

The treatment of diabetes can be complex and overwhelming for patients as it demands persistent attention to lifestyle management, adherence to medications, monitoring of side effects of drugs, and management of devices for glucose monitoring and/or insulin infusion. Therefore, understanding patient-reported outcomes (PROs) that provide direct insight into the patient's experience with diabetes is crucial for optimizing diabetes management.This review provides an overview of commonly used PRO questionnaires that assess different aspects of diabetes management.

Effects of Metabolic Medicine and Metabolic Surgery on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

The assessment and management of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is considered secondary to that of cardiometabolic outcomes. When assessed, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), a PRO, can yield pertinent information that cannot be obtained from cardiometabolic assessments. For instance, physical and mental distress can be quantified and treated. Moreover, treatment convenience and satisfaction can be gaged. Behavioral modification, bariatric surgery, and pharmacotherapy can improve PROs. Typically, HRQOL is responsive to changes in weight. Specifically, weight loss and weight gain are associated with positive and negative changes in quality of life, respectively. In addition, patient satisfaction can be influenced by glycemic control. Therefore, hypoglycemia and hyperglycemic episodes can negatively affect patient satisfaction. When managing type 2 diabetes (T2D), it is important to consider how therapies impact PROs. Generally, changes in clinical outcomes mirror changes in PROs. To best manage T2D, integrating the assessment of PROs with clinical outcomes is needed.

GLP-1 receptor agonists: an updated review of head-to-head clinical studies

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) are attractive options for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) because they effectively lower A1C and weight while having a low risk of hypoglycemia. Some also have documented cardiovascular benefit. The GLP-1 RA class has grown in the last decade, with several agents available for use in the United States and Europe. Since the efficacy and tolerability, dosing frequency, administration requirements, and cost may vary between agents within the class, each agent may offer unique advantages and disadvantages. Through a review of phase III clinical trials studying dulaglutide, exenatide twice daily, exenatide once weekly, liraglutide, lixisenatide, semaglutide, and oral semaglutide, 14 head-to-head trials were identified that evaluated the safety and efficacy of GLP-1 RA active comparators. The purpose of this review is to provide an analysis of these trials. The GLP-1 RA head-to-head clinical studies have demonstrated that all GLP-1 RA agents are effective therapeutic options at reducing A1C. However, differences exist in terms of magnitude of effect on A1C and weight as well as frequency of adverse effects.

Patient Reported Outcomes following initiation of Glucagon-like peptide-1 Receptor agonists in patients with type 2 Diabetes in a specialist endocrinology practice of the LMC diabetes registry: The PROGRESS-Diabetes study

AIMS

To compare patient-reported outcomes and clinical outcomes in patients who initiated dulaglutide or liraglutide as part of usual clinical therapy.

METHODS

This observational study enrolled adults with type 2 diabetes who initiated dulaglutide or liraglutide between April 2017 and January 2018. A prospective patient cohort completed questionnaires at baseline and at their usual follow-up visit three to six months later. Clinical outcomes were assessed in a post-hoc retrospective analysis using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

In the per-protocol analysis, 146 dulaglutide and 79 liraglutide patients had similar significant improvements in diabetes treatment satisfaction scores (dulaglutide 9.6 ± 1.1, p < 0.001; liraglutide 10.6 ± 1.4, p < 0.001) and follow-up scores for diabetes device satisfaction. Only dulaglutide had significant improvements in medication adherence scores. In the overall cohort, 754 matched patients showed similar reductions in A1C (dulaglutide -0.8% [9 mmol/mol]; liraglutide -0.7% [8 mmol/mol]). Liraglutide patients had a greater reduction in weight than those initiating dulaglutide (-2.8 kg vs. -1.8 kg; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who initiated dulaglutide or liraglutide in a real-world specialist practice had similar improvements in diabetes medication satisfaction and diabetes device satisfaction. Only dulaglutide patients had significant improvements in medication adherence scores. Both treatment cohorts had similar patterns of A1C change, and liraglutide had significantly greater weight loss, which are similar to findings from clinical trials.

GLP-1 Receptor Agonists for Type 2 Diabetes and Their Role in Primary Care: An Australian Perspective

The ever-increasing number of drugs available to treat type 2 diabetes and the complexity of patients with this condition present a constant challenge when it comes to identifying the most appropriate treatment approach. The more recent glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are non-insulin injectable options for the management of type 2 diabetes. Effective at improving glycaemic control with a low intrinsic risk of hypoglycaemia and the potential for weight reduction, this agent class is an important addition to the prescribing armamentarium. However, understanding their place in therapy may prove confusing for many primary care practitioners, especially given the common belief that 'injectables' are a last-resort treatment option, which puts them at risk of being niched alongside insulin. This review summarises the clinical evidence for GLP-1RAs and how they compare to other glucose-lowering agents in managing type 2 diabetes. It also provides practical and case-driven opinions and recommendations on the optimal use of GLP-1RAs by discussing important patient factors and clinical considerations that will help to identify those who are most likely to benefit from this class of agents.Funding: Eli Lilly Australia.

Adherence to antihyperglycemic medications and glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes: clinical consequences and strategies for improvement

Adherence to antihyperglycemic medications is often suboptimal in patients with type 2 diabetes, and this can contribute to poor glycemic control, increased hospitalization, and the development of diabetic complications. Reported adherence rates to antihyperglycemics vary widely among studies, and this may be related to differences in methodology for measuring adherence, patient populations, and other factors. Poor adherence may occur regardless of the specific regimen used and whether therapy is oral or injectable, and can be especially common in chronic, asymptomatic conditions, such as type 2 diabetes. More convenient drug-administration regimens and advances in formulations and delivery devices are among strategies shown to improve adherence to antihyperglycemic therapy, especially for injectable therapy. This is exemplified by technological developments made in the drug class of glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonists, which are a focus of this narrative review. Dulaglutide, albiglutide, and prolonged-release exenatide have an extended duration of action and can be administered once weekly, whereas such agents as liraglutide require once-daily administration. The convenience of once-weekly versus once-daily administration is associated with better adherence in real-world studies involving this class of agent. Moreover, provision of a user-friendly delivery device has been shown to overcome initial resistance to injectable therapy among patients with type 2 diabetes. This suggests that recent innovations in drug formulation (eg, ready-to-use formulations) and delivery systems (eg, single-dose prefilled pens and hidden, ready-attached needles) may be instrumental in encouraging patient acceptance. For physicians who aim to improve their patients' adherence to antihyperglycemic medications, it is thus important to consider the patient's therapeutic experience (treatment frequency, drug formulation, delivery device). Better adherence, powered by recent technological advances in the delivery of glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonists, may thus lead to improved clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes.

An evaluation of the impact of antidiabetic medication on treatment satisfaction and quality of life in patients of diabetes mellitus

Aims:

This study aims to measure the quality of life (QOL), treatment satisfaction, and tolerability of antidiabetic drugs in patients suffering from type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM).

Methods:

The prospective, observational study was conducted in consenting patients of type 2 DM attending the outpatient department of a tertiary care hospital in Western India. The QOL instrument for Indian diabetes (QOLID) patients questionnaire and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire were administered to all patients at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months of treatment. Tukey–Kramer comparison test was used to analyze the difference in QOLID scores in various domains at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. WHO-UMC scale, Naranjo's probability scale, Hartwig and Siegel, and Schumock and Thornton modified criteria were used to analyze the adverse drug reactions.

Results:

A male preponderance was observed in 200 patients enrolled in the study. The mean duration of diabetes was 10.96 ± 5.99 years. The patients received metformin alone (40), metformin and glipizide (47), metformin, glipizide and other oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) (78), and OHAs and insulin (35). A significant improvement in fasting and postprandial blood sugar was observed at 6 months as compared to the baseline (P < 0.05). A total of 39 (19.5%) patients suffered from adverse effects to metformin and insulin. Physical health and physical endurance improved in patients receiving metformin alone or in combination with glipizide as compared to patients receiving other OHAs and/or insulin. Treatment satisfaction, highest in patients receiving metformin and least in those receiving insulin, was unaltered during the study period.

Conclusions:

While polypharmacy is evident, using lesser medicines offers better treatment satisfaction and QOL in DM. Periodic assessment of QOL and treatment satisfaction are recommended in DM.

Three approaches to glucose monitoring in non-insulin treated diabetes: a pragmatic randomized clinical trial protocol

Background

For the nearly 75% of patients living with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) that do not use insulin, decisions regarding self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) can be especially problematic. While in theory SMBG holds great promise for sparking favorable behavior change, it is a resource intensive activity without firmly established patient benefits. This study describes our study protocol to assess the impact of three different SMBG testing approaches on patient-centered outcomes in patients with non-insulin treated T2DM within a community-based, clinic setting.

Methods/Design

Using stakeholder engagement approach, we developed and implemented a pragmatic trial of patient with non-insulin treated T2DM patients from five primary care practices randomized to one of three SMBG regimens: 1) no testing; 2) once daily testing with standard feedback consisting of glucose values being immediately reported to the patient through the glucose meter; and 3) once daily testing with enhanced patient feedback consisting of glucose values being immediately reported to the patient PLUS automated, tailored feedback messaging delivered to the patient through the glucose meter following each testing. Main outcomes assessed at 52 weeks include quality of life and glycemic control.

Discussion

This pragmatic trial seeks to better understand the value of SMBG in non-insulin treated patients with T2DM. This paper outlines the protocol used to implement this study in fifteen community-based primary care practices and highlights the impact of stakeholder involvement from the earliest stages of project conception and implementation. Plans for stakeholder involvement for result dissemination are also discussed.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02033499, January 9, 2014.

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.

A review of glycemic efficacy of liraglutide once daily in achieving glycated hemoglobin targets compared with exenatide twice daily, or sitagliptin once daily in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

Incretin-based therapies such as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RA) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors have gained prominence in recent years for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Such therapies offer the potential to stimulate endogenous insulin activity in proportion to circulating glucose levels; thereby, lowering the risk of hypoglycemic episodes. The synthetic GLP-1 RA exenatide, the human GLP-1 RA liraglutide, and the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin are the first agents in their respective classes to be approved for the treatment of T2D and their efficacy and safety has been studied extensively in clinical trials. This article reviewed the efficacy of liraglutide once daily in achieving clinical guidelines-recommended glycated hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with T2D compared with exenatide twice daily, or sitagliptin once daily, based on published literature, with an aim to elucidate the preferred choice of incretin-related therapy in treating uncontrolled T2D.

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.

Effects of exenatide and liraglutide on 24-hour glucose fluctuations in type 2 diabetes

We evaluated the influence of short-term treatment with exenatide twice daily or liraglutide once daily on daily blood glucose fluctuations in 40 patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by sulfonylureas. The patients in a multicenter, open-label trial were randomly assigned to receive add-on exenatide (10 μg/day, n = 21) or add-on liraglutide (0.3-0.9 mg/day, n = 19), and underwent 24-hour continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring. There was no significant between-group difference in glucose fluctuations during the day, as assessed by calculating mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (MAGE) and standard deviation (SD). However, the mean blood glucose levels at 3 hours after breakfast and dinner were significantly lower in the exenatide group than the liraglutide group (breakfast: 127.3 ± 24.1 vs. 153.4 ± 28.7 mg/dL; p = 0.006, dinner: 108.7 ± 17.3 vs. 141.9 ± 24.2 mg/dL; p < 0.001). In contrast, mean blood glucose levels and their SD were significantly lower between 0000 h and 0600 h in the liraglutide group than the exenatide group (average glucose: 126.9 ± 27.1 vs. 107.1 ± 24.0 mg/dL; p = 0.029, SD: 15.2 ± 10.5 vs. 8.7 ± 3.8; p = 0.020). Both groups had similar glucose fluctuations despite differences in 24-hour blood glucose profiles. Therefore, each of these agents may have advantages or disadvantages and should be selected according to the blood glucose profile of the patient.

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.

GLP-1 receptor agonists: a review of head-to-head clinical studies

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) are attractive options for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) because they effectively lower A1C and weight while having a low risk of hypoglycemia. The GLP-1 RA class has grown in the last decade with several agents available for use in the US and Europe and several more in development. Since the efficacy and tolerability, dosing frequency, administration requirements, and cost may vary between agents within the class, each agent may offer unique advantages and disadvantages. Through a review of phase III clinical programs for exenatide twice daily, exenatide once weekly, liraglutide, albiglutide, lixisenatide, and dulaglutide, eight head-to-head trials have evaluated the safety and efficacy of GLP-1 RA active comparators. The purpose of this review is to provide an analysis of these trials. The GLP-1 RA head-to-head clinical studies have demonstrated that all GLP-1 RA agents are effective therapeutic options at reducing A1C. However, differences exist in terms of magnitude of effect on A1C and weight as well as frequency and severity of adverse effects.

Efficacy and safety of liraglutide monotherapy compared with metformin in Japanese overweight/obese patients with type 2 diabetes

There is little information on direct comparison between metformin and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in the Asian population. This study examined the efficacy and safety of liraglutide monotherapy compared with metformin monotherapy in overweight/obese Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). The study was a 24-week, open-labeled, randomized controlled study. Overweight or obese patients with T2DM aged 20-75 years with suboptimal glycemic control were randomized to liraglutide or metformin monotherapy. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c at week 24. Secondary endpoints included changes in daily glycemic profile, body weight, incidence of hypoglycemia and other adverse events. The study, which was originally planned to enroll 50 subjects in each group, was ended with insufficient recruitment. A total of 46 subjects completed the study, and analysis was conducted in this cohort. Reduction in HbA1c at week 24 was comparable between the metformin (n = 24) and liraglutide (n = 22) groups (-0.95 ± 0.80% vs. -0.80 ± 0.88%, p = 0.77), while the liraglutide group reached maximal reduction more rapidly than did the metformin group. There was no significant difference in weight gain or incidence of hypoglycemia between the groups. Diarrhea was more frequent in the metformin group, while constipation was more frequent in the liraglutide group. There was no significant difference in treatment satisfaction between the groups. In conclusion, liraglutide and metformin monotherapy showed similar reduction in HbA1c during 24 weeks, with no difference in weight gain or incidence of hypoglycemia in overweight or obese Japanese patients with T2DM.

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.

Liraglutide achieves A1C targets more often than sitagliptin or exenatide when added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes and a baseline A1C <8.0%

OBJECTIVE

Compare the safety and efficacy of liraglutide to that of sitagliptin or exenatide as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and glycated hemoglobin (A1C) <8.0%.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of 26-week data from liraglutide 1.8 mg once daily (OD) versus exenatide 10 μg twice daily (LEAD-6) and liraglutide 1.8 mg OD versus sitagliptin 100 mg OD (LIRA-DPP-4); only patients treated as add-on to metformin with baseline A1C <8.0% were included. Efficacy analysis was performed on the intention-to-treat population with missing values imputed by last observation carried forward.

RESULTS

More patients achieved A1C targets (<7.0% and ≤6.5%) with liraglutide versus exenatide or sitagliptin; the difference was greatest for A1C ≤6.5% (LEAD-6: 65% versus 35%; odds ratio [OR]=3.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.31-8.63; P = .01 or LIRA-DPP-4: 53% versus 19%; OR = 4.78, 95% CI 2.10 to 10.87; P = .0002). Significantly more patients achieved a composite endpoint of A1C <7.0% with no weight gain or hypoglycemia with liraglutide compared with exenatide (78% versus 42%; OR = 4.99, 95% CI: 1.77 to 14.04; P = .0023) or sitagliptin (61% versus 21%; OR = 5.95, 95% CI: 2.66 to 13.29; P<.0001). All treatments were well tolerated, there was no major hypoglycemia and few patients (8 to 10%) experienced minor hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

When added to metformin in patients with an A1C <8.0%, more patients using liraglutide 1.8 mg reached A1C targets than with exenatide or sitagliptin. Sitagliptin had particularly low efficacy in this analysis. These data support the use of liraglutide 1.8 mg as a safe and effective alternative to sitagliptin or exenatide following metformin failure in patients with an A1C <8.0%.

Obesity and weight management in the elderly: a focus on men

The rising rate of overweight/obesity among the ever-growing ageing population is imposing massive and rapidly changing burdens of ill health. The observation that the BMI value associated with the lowest relative mortality is slightly higher in older than in younger adults, mainly through its reduced impact on coronary heart disease, has often been misinterpreted that obesity is not as harmful in the elderly, who suffer a large range of disabling consequences of obesity. All medical consequences of obesity are multi-factorial and most alleviated by modest, achievable weight loss (5-10 kg) with an evidence-based maintenance strategy. But severe obesity, e.g. BMI >40 may demand greater weight loss e.g. >15 kg to reverse type 2 diabetes. Since relatively reduced physical activity and reduced muscle mass (sarcopenic obesity) are common in the elderly, combining exercise and modest calorie restriction optimally reduces fat mass and preserves muscle mass - age presents no obstacle and reducing polypharmacy is a valuable outcome. The currently licensed drug orlistat has no age-related hazards and is effective in a low fat diet, but the risks from bariatric surgery begin to outweigh benefits above age 60. For the growing numbers of obese elderly with diabetes, the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor analogue liraglutide appears a safe way to promote and maintain substantial weight loss. Obesity and sarcopenia should be prevented from younger age and during life-transitions including retiral to improve future health outcomes and quality of life, with a focus on those in "obese families".

Current issues in GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy for type 2 diabetes

The clinical management of hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is guided not only by published treatment algorithms, but also by consideration of recent evidence and through consultation with colleagues and experts. Recent studies have dramatically increased the amount of information regarding the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). Topics that may be of particular interest to clinicians who treat T2DM patients include relative glycemic control efficacy of GLP-1 RAs, use of GLP-1 RAs across T2DM progression and in combination with insulin, recent data regarding GLP-1 RA safety, nonglycemic actions of GLP-1 RAs, including weight effects, and impact of GLP-1 RAs on patient quality of life and treatment satisfaction. The following review includes expert consideration of these topics with emphasis on recent, relevant reports to illustrate current perspectives.

A patient-centred approach to treatment with incretin-based agents in patients with type 2 diabetes

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

The 2012 position statement from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) recommends a haemoglobin A1c level of <7% for most patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Initial therapy consists of lifestyle changes plus metformin, with an emphasis on a patient-centred approach to management. Addition of incretin-based therapy is recommended as an add-on after metformin failure, and later on in combination with basal insulin. Basal insulin is recommended from the onset in patients with A1c ≥10%. The possibility of incorporating incretin-based therapy in the patient-centred approach will be investigated both in the literature and clinical experience.

COMMENT

Incretin-based therapy targets multiple dysfunctional organ systems in T2D and provides sustained glycaemic control, with extraglycaemic benefits and low risk of hypoglycaemia. To initiate an incretin-based therapy that best fits an individual patient's needs, the patient's A1c level, preference and comorbid conditions should be considered along with any drug safety and adherence-related issues.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

There is good evidence to support the patient-centred approach to T2D management. This approach allows patient treatment goals and personal preferences to be matched with the clinical profile(s) of one or more agents to formulate a treatment plan that can best achieve the goals. Incretin-based therapies are an important class of agents to consider after metformin monotherapy failure and later in combination with basal insulin. By matching patient needs with the clinical profiles of the various treatment options, pharmacists can actively engage in the practice of patient-centred care and management.

Incretin-based therapies for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a review of direct comparisons of efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials comparing incretin-based therapies-glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (exenatide-twice daily and once weekly-and once-daily liraglutide) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (vildagliptin, sitagliptin, saxagliptin and linagliptin)-with placebo and oral antidiabetic drugs show that these therapies effectively control glycaemia, with low risk of hypoglycaemia. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are associated with weight loss and reductions in systolic blood pressure, while dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors are weight-neutral. Based on this, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends using these agents in patients with type 2 diabetes for whom excess weight and/or hypoglycaemia are problematic.

AIM OF THE REVIEW

This review aims to help decision making when selecting and using incretin-based therapies in type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

A search or MEDLINE and Cochrane clinical trials databases, limited to clinical trials in humans, was performed using the search criteria 'exenatide or liraglutide or vildagliptin or sitagliptin, or saxagliptin or linagliptin'. Abstracts presented at recent American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes meetings were also searched. Eighteen clinical trials directly comparing incretin-based therapies were identified.

RESULTS

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists achieved significantly greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin and weight than dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, which have a neutral effect on weight. Between-treatment differences were clinically important. Gastrointestinal side effects were more frequent with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. Comparisons between glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors showed that differences within the available agents in the two sub-classes are small. Greater treatment satisfaction was reported with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists achieve greater glycated hemoglobin reductions than dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, with concomitant weight loss. Probably due to the greater efficacy of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, patient satisfaction is greater with these agents compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors despite injectable versus oral administration and more frequent gastrointestinal side effects with the agonists.

A comparison of currently available GLP-1 receptor agonists for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are a valuable addition to the type 2 diabetes armamentarium. They increase insulin secretion and reduce glucagon secretion in a glucose-dependent manner, posing a relatively low hypoglycemia risk. GLP-1 receptor agonists also offer weight-loss benefits. Because GLP-1 receptor agonists are relatively new agents, there is limited direction on their use.

AREAS COVERED

This article aims to provide guidance to physicians when considering GLP-1 receptor agonist use in individual patients. It examines the clinical profiles of the currently available GLP-1 receptor agonists: exenatide twice-daily (BID), liraglutide once daily and exenatide extended release (ER) once weekly. Phase III clinical trial data on efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction are compared, with a primary focus on head-to-head trials.

EXPERT OPINION

Liraglutide seems to be the most effective GLP-1 receptor agonist in terms of HbA(1c) reduction and weight loss. Exenatide BID may offer an advantage where postprandial glucose control is a primary concern. Exenatide ER generally outperforms exenatide BID and is a good option for patients who struggle to adhere to more frequent regimens. The future may hold interesting developments in terms of reduced dosing frequency, oral formulations and alternative therapeutic uses.

An update in incretin-based therapy: a focus on glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists

The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, exenatide and liraglutide, offer a unique mechanism in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as part of the incretin system. Their mechanism of action is to increase insulin secretion, decrease glucagon release, reduce food intake, and slow gastric emptying. They target postprandial blood glucose values and have some effect on fasting levels as well. In addition, they promote weight loss and may help to preserve β-cell function, both major problems in T2DM patients. Changes in hemoglobin A1c are similar to those produced by other T2DM agents, including thiazolidinediones, low-dose metformin, and sulfonylureas, and better than those caused by α-reductase inhibitors and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. These agents have been safely studied in combination with metformin, sulfonylureas, meglitinides, thiazolidinediones, and insulin therapy. Overall, data are limited for head-to-head comparisons, but it appears that liraglutide may have better efficacy and tolerability compared with exenatide; however, more studies are needed. They are overall well tolerated, with the main adverse events being similar to those with metformin (gastrointestinal intolerances that are transient and dose dependent). However, patients must be monitored for pancreatitis as a rare but possible side effect. For T2DM patients willing to use an injectable agent, exenatide and liraglutide offer another therapeutic option to control hyperglycemia with the potential for weight loss and may be combined with other agents safely.

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.

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.