Effectiveness of Liraglutide in Type II Diabetes Mellitus Management: Experience in Emirati Patients

Abstract

Objective: To measure effectiveness of liraglutide in reducing glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C), weight, and systolic blood pressure (SBP) in Emirati patients.

Design: A retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Endocrinology clinic in a 300-bed military hospital.

Patients: A total of 152 patients who qualified for liraglutide between September 21, 2012, (first patient visit) and May 5, 2014 (last patient visit).

Methods: Team collected demographic and clinical data using a standard form. Data keeper performed univariate analyses to measure the effect of liraglutide in reducing the three outcomes of interest; namely, HbA1C, weight, and SBP.

Results: One hundred patients had at least the first visit in the clinic and 98 patients came for a second follow-up visit while on the medication. Adherence of clinicians to the internal criteria for prescribing liraglutide was 92%. Patients' ages were 47.9 ± 11.7 years. Male-to-female ratio was almost 1:1. Overall, in the paired analyses, HbA1C decreased from first to second visits (8.7 ± 1.9 vs. 7.6 ± 1.8, P > 0.0001) and remained unchanged in subsequent visits (eg, in visit 3, HbA1C was 7.4 ± 1.8). Patients lost an average of 1.3 kg between the first and second visits (99.3 ± 19.3 vs. 98.0 ± 19.5, P = 0.0003). The reduction in SBP between visits 1 and 2 was less (130.9 ± 15.8 vs. 129.9 ± 16.5, P = 0.5896). ANOVA yielded a significant reduction in HbA1C at 4 months and 6 months (P values < 0.05). SBP dropped by about 3.6 mmHg and weight by about 2.3 kg (P values > 0.05).

Conclusions: Liraglutide is effective in reducing HbA1C, weight, and to a lesser extent, SBP in Emirati patients.

Keywords: Emirati; diabetes mellitus; liraglutide; type II.

Figure 1

Unpaired comparison of HbA1C in % mean ± 95% confidence interval error bounds. Months of follow-up (visits) on X axis. ANOVA P value < 0.05. All P values between visits were non-significant except for comparisons between visits on months 0 with months 4 or 6.

Figure 2

Unpaired comparison of weights in kg mean ± 95% confidence interval error bounds. Months of follow-up (visits) on X axis. ANOVA P value > 0.05. All P values between visits were non-significant.

Figure 3

Unpaired comparison of SBP in mmHg mean ± 95% confidence interval error bounds. Months of follow-up (visits) on X axis. ANOVA P value > 0.05. All P values between visits were non-significant.