Effectiveness of dulaglutide vs liraglutide and exenatide once-weekly. A real-world study and meta-analysis of observational studies
- PMID: 32109448
- DOI: 10.1016/j.metabol.2020.154190
Effectiveness of dulaglutide vs liraglutide and exenatide once-weekly. A real-world study and meta-analysis of observational studies
Abstract
Introduction and aim: Real-word data on the head-to-head comparisons among glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) are scant. Therefore, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of dulaglutide versus liraglutide and exenatide once weekly (exeOW) in type 2 diabetic (T2D) patients under routine care.
Methods: This was a retrospective, multicenter, real-world study on patients with T2D (aged 18-80) initiating a GLP-1RA between 2010 and 2018 at specialist outpatient clinics. We compared the effectiveness of dulaglutide versus liraglutide and exeOW on the changes in HbA1c (primary outcome), body weight, blood pressure and fasting glucose (secondary outcomes). Average follow-up was 5.9 months. Channelling biases were addressed with propensity score matching or multivariable adjustment. Meta-analyses of observational studies, covering the same comparisons, are also presented.
Results: 849, 1371 and 198 patients were included in the dulaglutide, liraglutide and exeOW groups, respectively. The reduction of HbA1c was greater with dulaglutide than with liraglutide (-0.24 ± 0.08%; p = 0.003), and was confirmed in the meta-analysis of observational studies. In our study, dulaglutide showed similar effectiveness compared to exeOW. When these results were pooled with other observational studies, dulaglutide showed a greater reduction of HbA1c (-0.19%; p = 0.003) and body weight (-0.8 kg; p = 0.007).
Conclusions: In a real-world scenario, dulaglutide reduced HbA1c more than liraglutide. Conversely, we found similar effect of dulaglutide and exeOW, with statistical differences arising solely when results were meta-analysed with those from other observational studies. Lack of up-titration for liraglutide and higher discontinuation rate for exeOW likely influenced the estimated treatment difference.
Keywords: Effectiveness; GLP-1; HbA1c; Observational; Propensity score matching; Real-word.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of competing interest MLM received grant support or lecture fees from Servier and Amryt. MR received lecture and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novonordisk and Sanofi Aventis. VF served as consultant for NovoNordisk. NS received lecture or consultancy fees from Astra-Zeneca, Boehringer-Lilly, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Abbott and research support from NovoNordisk. AL received grant support, lectures or advisory board fees from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Abbott, Eli Lilly. AA received research grants, lecture or advisory board fees from Merck Sharp & Dome, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Boeringher-Ingelheim, Sanofi, Mediolanum, Janssen, Novo Nordisk. GPF received grant support, lecture or advisory board fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Mundipharma, NovoNordisk, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Genzyme. FT, and MDA declare no conflict of interest.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
