Liraglutide QD Research Articles

1139-P: Influence of Screening HbA1c Levels on Glucose Control Achieved when Switching to iGlarLixi in T2D Inadequately Controlled on GLP-1RA and OAD(s)

Effects of switching to a titratable fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) in patients (pts) with T2D on GLP-1 RAs have been unknown. LixiLan-G (NCT02787551), a randomized, open-label, 26-week trial, compared switching to iGlarLixi vs. continued GLP-1 RA use in pts with T2D and HbA1c 7-9% despite receiving a maximum tolerated dose of a GLP-1 RA (liraglutide QD, exenatide BID, exenatide extended-release QW, albiglutide QW, or dulaglutide QW) with metformin ± pioglitazone ± SGLT2i. Treatment effects seen across baseline factors, such as BMI, GLP-1 RA type, and pioglitazone or SGLT2i use, were consistent with the primary analysis. This exploratory analysis examined HbA1c change at week 26 and documented symptomatic hypoglycemia in 26-week completers (modified ITT) by screening subgroup HbA1c levels (≤7.5%, >7.5-≤8%, and >8%). At week 26, mean HbA1c levels for iGlarLixi were 6.6%, 6.6%, and 6.9%, respectively, vs. 7.2%, 7.4%, and 7.5%, respectively, for GLP-1 RAs. Reductions were greater for iGlarLixi than for GLP-1 RAs in all subgroups (p<0.0001; Figure). Symptomatic hypoglycemia rates were low overall but higher with iGlarLixi than with GLP-1 RAs (Figure). In conclusion, in pts with T2D inadequately controlled on GLP-1 RA and OAD(s), iGlarLixi demonstrated additional glycemic benefit across a broad range of HbA1c levels. Disclosure S. Del Prato: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline plc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. Board Member; Self; AstraZeneca. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. L. Blonde: Consultant; Self; Gilead Sciences, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi US. Research Support; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi US. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi US. R.R. Henry: Advisory Panel; Self; Elcelyx Therapeutics, Inc. Consultant; Self; Diasome Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Research Support; Self; AstaReal, Hitachi, Ltd., Viacyte, Inc. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Servier. Other Relationship; Self; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Intarcia Therapeutics, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Sanofi-Aventis. V.R. Aroda: Consultant; Self; ADOCIA, AstraZeneca, Becton, Dickinson and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi, Zafgen, Inc. Employee; Spouse/Partner; Merck & Co., Inc. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Calibra Medical, Eisai Inc., Janssen Research & Development, Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi, Theracos, Inc. N. Shehadeh: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi-Aventis. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. E. Niemoeller: Employee; Self; Sanofi. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Sanofi. E. Souhami: Employee; Self; Sanofi Research & Development. J. Wu: Employee; Self; Sanofi. X. Wang: Employee; Self; Sanofi Research & Development. C. Ji: Employee; Self; Sanofi Research & Development. J. Rosenstock: Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Genentech, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc., Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Melior Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bukwang Pharm. Co., Ltd., Merck & Co., Inc., Oramed Pharmaceuticals, PegBio Co., Ltd., Pfizer Inc. Other Relationship; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Intarcia Therapeutics, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Funding Sanofi

149-OR: LixiLan-G: A Randomized Trial Assessing Switching to iGlarLixi vs. Continuation of Daily or Weekly GLP-1RA in T2D Inadequately Controlled by a GLP-1RA and OAD(s)

Fixed-ratio combinations (FRCs) of basal insulin plus a GLP-1 receptor agonist (RA) offer simple administration of complementary injectable therapies for T2D. Effects of switching to a titratable FRC of insulin glargine plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) in T2D patients (pts) receiving GLP-1 RAs have been unknown. LixiLan-G (NCT02787551), a randomized, open-label, 26-week trial, compared switching to iGlarLixi vs. continuing a GLP-1 RA in T2D pts with HbA1c 7‒9%, receiving a maximum tolerated dose of a QD/BID GLP-1 RA (60% of pts: liraglutide QD, exenatide BID), or a QW GLP-1 RA (40% of pts: dulaglutide, exenatide extended-release, or albiglutide) with metformin ± pioglitazone ± SGLT2i. Adherence to randomized treatment was reinforced and monitored throughout the study. iGlarLixi (n=257) provided greater HbA1c reductions than GLP-1 RA (n=257), from 7.8% at baseline to 6.7% and 7.4%, respectively (LS mean difference [primary endpoint] ‒0.6%; p<0.0001 [Table]). More iGlarLixi pts achieved HbA1c targets and the composite of HbA1c <7% without documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL). Documented symptomatic hypoglycemia, nausea, and vomiting rates were low but greater with iGlarLixi vs. GLP-1 RA. In conclusion, switching to iGlarLixi can further improve glucose control for T2D pts receiving the maximum tolerated GLP-1 RA dose with OAD(s). Disclosure L. Blonde: Consultant; Self; Gilead Sciences, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi US. Research Support; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi US. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi US. J. Rosenstock: Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Genentech, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc., Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Melior Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bukwang Pharm. Co., Ltd., Merck & Co., Inc., Oramed Pharmaceuticals, PegBio Co., Ltd., Pfizer Inc. Other Relationship; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Intarcia Therapeutics, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. S. Del Prato: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline plc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. Board Member; Self; AstraZeneca. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. R.R. Henry: Advisory Panel; Self; Elcelyx Therapeutics, Inc. Consultant; Self; Diasome Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Research Support; Self; AstaReal, Hitachi, Ltd., Viacyte, Inc. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Servier. Other Relationship; Self; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Intarcia Therapeutics, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Sanofi-Aventis. N. Shehadeh: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi-Aventis. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. E. Niemoeller: Employee; Self; Sanofi. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Sanofi. E. Souhami: Employee; Self; Sanofi Research & Development. J. Wu: Employee; Self; Sanofi. X. Wang: Employee; Self; Sanofi Research & Development. C. Ji: Employee; Self; Sanofi Research & Development. V.R. Aroda: Consultant; Self; ADOCIA, AstraZeneca, Becton, Dickinson and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi, Zafgen, Inc. Employee; Spouse/Partner; Merck & Co., Inc. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Calibra Medical, Eisai Inc., Janssen Research & Development, Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi, Theracos, Inc. Funding Sanofi

1146-P: Switching to iGlarLixi vs. Continued Treatment of GLP-1RA: Comparative Analysis by Daily or Weekly GLP-1RAs in the LixiLan-G Trial

LixiLan-G (NCT02787551) was a randomized, open-label, 26-week trial in T2D participants (pts) with HbA1c 7‒9%, receiving maximum tolerated doses of a once- or twice-daily (QD/BID) GLP-1 RA or a once-weekly (QW) GLP-1 RA with metformin ± pioglitazone ± SGLT2i. Pts were randomized to continue their GLP-1 RA regimen with supported adherence or switch to a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine and lixisenatide (iGlarLixi). This exploratory analysis assessed efficacy and safety by daily or weekly GLP-1 RA use at screening. Among 514 randomized pts, 60% and 40% were on daily and weekly GLP-1 RA, respectively, at screening (liraglutide QD 54%, dulaglutide QW 20%, exenatide extended-release QW 18%, exenatide BID 5%, albiglutide QW 2% [all % rounded]); GLP-1 RA treatment and T2D duration were slightly longer in the QD/BID vs. QW subgroup (Table). Change in HbA1c was larger with iGlarLixi vs. GLP-1 RA regardless of GLP-1 RA subtype (LS mean difference: −0.7 [95% confidence interval (CI): −0.8, −0.5] with QD/BID formulations, −0.6 [95% CI: −0.8, −0.4] with QW formulations). Similar results were observed for FPG and 2-hour PPG (Table). Safety profiles of iGlarLixi and GLP-1 RA were consistent with previous publications. In conclusion, benefits of switching to iGlarLixi vs. continued GLP-1 RA in inadequately controlled T2D are observed irrespective of daily or weekly GLP-1 RA use. Disclosure J. Rosenstock: Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Genentech, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc., Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Melior Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bukwang Pharm. Co., Ltd., Merck & Co., Inc., Oramed Pharmaceuticals, PegBio Co., Ltd., Pfizer Inc. Other Relationship; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Intarcia Therapeutics, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. L. Blonde: Consultant; Self; Gilead Sciences, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi US. Research Support; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi US. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi US. S. Del Prato: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline plc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. Board Member; Self; AstraZeneca. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. R.R. Henry: Advisory Panel; Self; Elcelyx Therapeutics, Inc. Consultant; Self; Diasome Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Research Support; Self; AstaReal, Hitachi, Ltd., Viacyte, Inc. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Servier. Other Relationship; Self; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Intarcia Therapeutics, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Sanofi-Aventis. N. Shehadeh: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi-Aventis. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. E. Niemoeller: Employee; Self; Sanofi. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Sanofi. E. Souhami: Employee; Self; Sanofi Research & Development. J. Wu: Employee; Self; Sanofi. X. Wang: Employee; Self; Sanofi Research & Development. C. Ji: Employee; Self; Sanofi Research & Development. V.R. Aroda: Consultant; Self; ADOCIA, AstraZeneca, Becton, Dickinson and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi, Zafgen, Inc. Employee; Spouse/Partner; Merck & Co., Inc. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Calibra Medical, Eisai Inc., Janssen Research & Development, Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi, Theracos, Inc. Funding Sanofi

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.

IntroductionThis 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.MethodsT2DM 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.Results510 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.ConclusionsAmong 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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13300-017-0237-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Treatment Attributes Important to Injection-Naïve Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Multinational Preference Study.

IntroductionGlucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) differ in efficacy, side effects, dosing frequency, and device-related attributes. This study assessed the relative importance of treatment-related attributes in influencing preferences for GLP-1RAs among injection-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsInjection-naïve T2DM patients from five countries completed a Web-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey. Patients chose between hypothetical treatment profiles reflecting important and differentiating attributes of GLP-1RAs. Eight attributes were included: efficacy, side effects, device size, needle size, titration, preparation, evidence of long-term efficacy/safety, and dosing frequency. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a conditional logit model to indicate the likelihood of choosing a treatment with a given attribute level versus a reference attribute level. The influence of individual attributes when considering full treatment profiles was examined using exenatide once weekly (QW) and liraglutide once daily (QD) as case examples.ResultsA total of 1482 patients with T2DM completed the DCE survey. Side effects, efficacy, and dosing frequency were the three most important attributes influencing preferences; needle size, device size, and required preparation were least important. Total sample analysis indicated that a profile of GLP-1RA approximating exenatide QW (single pen) was preferred over a profile approximating liraglutide QD (OR 3.36; p < 0.001), when efficacy was assumed to be equal.ConclusionThe most influential drivers of treatment preferences for a hypothetical GLP-RA profile were side effects, efficacy, and dosing frequency among injection-naïve T2DM patients. Preference elicitation can promote patient-centered care and inform new generations of T2DM treatments, which can lead to improved adherence and health outcomes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13300-017-0230-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist (GLP-1RA) Therapy Adherence for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in a Medicare Population.

IntroductionAnti-diabetes medication regimen adherence is a clinical challenge in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and other comorbidities associated with aging. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) therapies such as exenatide once weekly (QW), exenatide twice daily (BID), and liraglutide once daily (QD) are an increasingly used class of drugs with proven efficacy and tolerability. Real-world evidence on adherence to GLP-1RAs in elderly or disabled patients is limited. To further the understanding of this drug class, the current study examined medication adherence in Medicare patients aged ≥65 years with T2D initiating a GLP-1RA.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study used medical and pharmacy claims between 2010 and 2013 for Medicare members in a United States health plan diagnosed with T2D who were new initiators of either exenatide QW (n = 537), exenatide BID (n = 923), or liraglutide QD (n = 3,673). Included patients were between the ages of 65 and 89 and were continuously enrolled for 6 months pre- and post-index. Medication adherence was examined during the post-index period using proportion of days covered (PDC) ≥80% and ≥90%.ResultsA significantly higher percentage of patients receiving exenatide QW had a PDC ≥80% (43.2%) versus exenatide BID (39.0%, P < 0.01) and liraglutide QD (35.0%, P < 0.001). The patients receiving exenatide QW were significantly more likely to reach a PDC of ≥90% (37.2%, P < 0.001) than those initiating exenatide BID (20.6%) or liraglutide QD (23.3%).ConclusionsWhile results from this retrospective study suggest room for improvement in adherence to GLP-1RAs, medication adherence rates for patients initiating therapy with exenatide QW were higher than patients initiating therapy with exenatide BID or liraglutide QD. Further research is needed to validate these findings in other T2D patient populations. Funding: AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals.

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

AimThe 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.MethodsPatients 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.ResultsFor 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.ConclusionIn a real-world setting, A1C similarly improves in patients initiating exenatide QW or liraglutide QD.

PDB26 - Real-World adherence in Medicare Patients with type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2dm) for exenatide qw and Liraglutide qd

PDB26 - Real-World adherence in Medicare Patients with type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2dm) for exenatide qw and Liraglutide qd

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

BackgroundType 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsOur 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.

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

The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) exenatide once weekly (ExQW) and liraglutide once daily (QD) are indicated to improve glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Although glycaemic control with ExQW versus liraglutide QD 1.8 mg has been directly compared, no studies have compared ExQW with liraglutide QD 1.2 mg or determined the probable relative efficacies of various injectable therapies for glycaemic control; therefore, a network meta-analysis was performed to address these questions. A systematic review identified randomized controlled trials of ≥24 weeks that compared ExQW, liraglutide QD (1.2 mg, 1.8 mg), insulin glargine, exenatide twice daily (ExBID), or placebo. Twenty-two studies evaluating 11 049 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. Mean differences in HbA1c relative to placebo or each other and probability rankings were estimated. Estimated mean differences in HbA1c versus placebo were -1.15% (95% CrI: -1.31 to -1.00) for ExQW, -1.01% (95% CrI: -1.18 to -0.85) for liraglutide 1.2 mg, and -1.18% (95% CrI: -1.32 to -1.04) for liraglutide 1.8 mg. HbA1c differences for ExQW versus liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg were -0.14% (95% CrI: -0.34 to 0.06) and 0.03% (95% CrI: -0.14 to 0.18), respectively. The estimated mean difference in HbA1c between liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg was 0.17% (95% CrI: 0.02-0.30). Results were consistent when adjusted for background antihyperglycaemic medications and diabetes duration. This network meta-analysis did not identify meaningful differences in HbA1c lowering between ExQW and both liraglutide doses, suggesting that these GLP-1 RAs have similar glycaemic effects.

Exenatide BID and liraglutide QD treatment patterns among type 2 diabetes patients in Germany

Objectives:This study evaluated patient and prescriber characteristics, treatment patterns, average daily dose (ADD), and glycemic control of patients initiating glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in Germany.Methods:The LifeLink™ EMR-EU database was searched to identify patients initiating exenatide twice daily (BID) or liraglutide once daily (QD) during the index period (January 1, 2009–April 4, 2010). Eligible patients had ≥180 days pre-index history, ≥90 days post-index follow-up, and a pre-index type 2 diabetes diagnosis. Univariate tests were conducted at α = 0.05.Results:Six hundred and ninety-two patients were included (exenatide BID 292, liraglutide QD 400): mean (SD) age 59 (10) years, 59% male. Diabetologists prescribed liraglutide QD to a larger share of patients (65% vs 35% exenatide BID) than non-diabetologists (51% vs 49%). GLP-1 receptor agonist choice was not associated with age (p = 0.282), gender (p = 0.960), number of pre-index glucose-lowering medications (2.0 [0.9], p = 0.159), pre-index HbA1c (8.2 [1.5%], p = 0.231) or Charlson Comorbidity Index score (0.45 [0.78], p = 0.547). Mean (SD) ADD was 16.7 mcg (9.2, label range 10–20 mcg) for exenatide BID and 1.4 mg (0.7, label range 0.6–1.8 mg) for liraglutide QD. Among patients with post-index HbA1c tests, mean unadjusted values did not differ between cohorts. Exenatide BID patients were more likely than liraglutide QD patients to continue pre-index glucose-lowering medications (67.1% vs 60.3%, p = 0.027) or to start concomitant glucose-lowering medications at index (32.2% vs 25.0%, p = 0.013); exenatide BID patients were less likely to augment treatment with another drug post-index (15.8% vs 22.5%, p = 0.027).Limitations:Results may not be generalizable. Lab measures for clinical outcomes were available only for a sub-set of patients.Conclusions:Results suggested that some differences exist between patients initiating exenatide BID or liraglutide QD, with respect to prescribing physician specialty and pre- and post-index treatment patterns. Both GLP-1 receptor agonists showed comparable post-index HbA1c values in a sub-set of patients.

An overview of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists-available efficacy and safety data and perspectives for the future

Incretin-based therapies, such as the injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and orally administered dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, have recently been introduced into clinical practice. At present, the GLP-1 receptor agonists need to be administered once or twice daily. Several once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists are in phase 3 development. This review examines the efficacy, safety and perspective for the future of the once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists: exenatide once weekly, taspoglutide, albiglutide, LY2189265 and CJC-1134-PC, and compared them to the currently available agonists, exenatide BID and liraglutide QD. A greater reduction in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose was found with the once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists compared with exenatide BID, while the effect on postprandial hyperglycaemia was modest with the once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist. The reduction in HbA1c was in most studies greater compared to oral antidiabetic drugs and insulin glargine. The reduction in weight did not differ between the short- and long-acting agonists. The gastrointestinal side effects were less with the once-weekly agonists compared with exenatide BID, except for taspoglutide. Antibodies seem to be most frequent with exenatide once weekly, while hypersensitivity has been described in few patients treated with taspoglutide. Injection site reactions differ among the long-acting GLP-1 receptor agonists and are observed more frequently than with exenatide BID and liraglutide. In humans, no signal has been found indicating an association between the once-weekly agonists and C-cell cancer. The cardiovascular safety, durability of glucose control and effect on weight will emerge from several ongoing major long-term trials. The once-weekly GLP-1 receptor analogues are promising candidates for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, although their efficacy may not be superior to once-daily analogue liraglutide.