Comparative Safety and Efficacy of Insulin Degludec with Insulin Glargine in Type 2 and Type 1 Diabetes: a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Xiao-Wen Zhang,Xin-Lin Zhang,Biao Xu,Li-Na Kang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-018-1107-1

2018-01-01

Acta Diabetologica

Abstract:To determine the safety and efficacy of insulin degludec versus glargine in patients with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 (T2D) diabetes mellitus.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Efficacy and Tolerability of Insulin Degludec Versus Other Long-acting Basal Insulin Analogues in the Treatment of Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Zhi-Yuan Dong,Ji-Hua Feng,Jian-Feng Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2022.09.012

Abstract:Purpose: The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of insulin degludec with those of other long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir) in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus (T1D or T2D). Methods: Those randomized controlled trials comparing insulin degludec with other long-acting insulin analogues in the treatment of patients with T1D or T2D published on or before August 21, 2022, were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. The efficacy end points were the changes from baseline in hemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). The tolerability end point was the prevalence of hypoglycemia confirmed throughout the treatment period. Findings: Data from a total of 20 trials (19,048 patients) were included. The differences in the reductions in glycosylated hemoglobin between insulin degludec and other long-acting basal insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir) used for the treatment of patients with T1D or T2D were not significant. However, the reduction in FPG was greater with insulin degludec (-0.370 mmol/L; 95% CI, -0.473 to -0.267 mmol/L; P ≤ 0.001). Throughout the treatment periods of all of the available trials, the estimated rate ratios of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia were significantly decreased with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine or insulin detemir in patients with T1D or T2D; the differences in the risks for severe hypoglycemia were not significant. Implications: Compared with other long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir), insulin degludec was associated with a significantly decreased FPG, with lower prevalences of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia.
Insulin Degludec, a Novel Ultra-Long-Acting Basal Insulin Versus Insulin Glargine for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Wenchuan Zhou,Jinxin Tao,Xiaodong Zhou,Hongxia Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-019-0624-4

2019-01-01

Diabetes Therapy

Abstract:The purpose of this study was to compare insulin degludec with insulin glargine in terms of efficacy and safety in patients with type 2 diabetes. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials published prior to 13 August 2018 (no language restrictions) which compared insulin degludec with insulin glargine. Our main endpoints were glycemic control, hypoglycemic event, weight gain, and serious adverse events (SAEs). We assessed pooled data using random-effects models. A total of 15 studies that included 9619 patients in the insulin degludec arm of the studies and 7075 patients in the insulin glargine arm were identified and subsequently assessed. Our analysis showed that compared with insulin glargine, insulin degludec yielded an improved mean reduction in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (weighted mean difference [WMD] − 5.20 mg/dL, 95% confidence interval [CI] − 7.34, − 3.07, P < 0.00001) and a lower ratio of participants experiencing ≥ 1 severe hypoglycemic event (relative risk [RR] 0.68, 95% CI 0.50, 0.93, P = 0.01) and nocturnal hypoglycemia (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75, 0.88, P < 0.0001); however, in the insulin degludec group there was a lower ratio of participants with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of ≤ 7.0% (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86, 0.98, P = 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups for HbA1c reduction (WMD 0.03, 95% CI − 0.00, 0.07, P = 0.08), body weight gain (WMD 0.12, 95% CI − 0.19, 0.43, P = 0.46), and proportion of participants with SAEs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92, 1.02, P = 0.20). Insulin degludec and insulin glargine provide similar glycemic control, but insulin degludec also lowers the risk of hypoglycemia. Consequently, insulin degludec may be an alternative treatment for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes who are prone to hypoglycemia with insulin glargine.
The Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine in Insulin-Naive Subjects with Type 2 Diabetes: Results of a Chinese Cohort from a Multinational Randomized Controlled Trial

Y M Mu,L X Guo,L Li,Y M Li,X J Xu,Q M Li,M T Xu,L Y Zhu,G Y Yuan,Y Liu,C Xu,Z J Wang,F X Shen,Y Luo,J Y Liu,Q F Li,W H Wang,X Y Lai,H F Xu,C Y Pan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0578-1426.2017.09.008

2017-01-01

Abstract:Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of insulin degludec (IDeg) with those of insulin glargine (IGlar) in insulin-naive subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Methods: This was a 26-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial in 560 Chinese subjects with T2DM (men/women: 274/263, mean age 56 years, mean diabetes duration 7 years) inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Subjects were randomized 2∶1 to once-daily IDeg (373 subjects) or IGlar(187 subjects), both in combination with metformin. The primary endpoint was changes from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin(HbA1c) after 26 weeks. Results: Mean HbA1c decreased from 8.2% in both groups to 6.9% in IDeg and 7.0% in IGlar, respectively. Estimated treatment difference (ETD) of IDeg-IGlar in change from baseline was -0.10% points (95%CI-0.25-0.05). The proportion of subjects achieving HbA1c<7.0% was 56.3%and 49.7% with IDeg and IGlar, respectively [estimated odds ratio of IDeg/IGlar: 1.26(95%CI 0.88-1.82)]. Numerically lower rateof overall confirmed hypoglycaemia and statistically significantly lower nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia were associated with IDeg compared with IGlar, respectively [estimated rateratio of IDeg/IGlar 0.69(95%CI 0.46-1.03), and 0.43(95%CI 0.19-0.97)]. No differences in other safety parameters were found between the two groups. Conclusions: IDeg was non-inferior to IGlar in terms of glycaemic control, and was associated with a statistically significantly lower rate of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia. IDeg is considered to be suitable for initiating insulin therapy in Chinese T2DM patients on OADs requiring intensified treatment. Clinical trail registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01849289.
Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Detemir and Insulin Glargine in Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Crossover Trial

Tong Zhang,Mingrun Lin,Wangen Li,Xiuyun Fan,Tao Du,Yunjuan Zhao,Xiaodan Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-016-0288-7

2016-01-01

Advances in Therapy

Abstract:Previous studies comparing insulin detemir versus insulin glargine showed conflicting results, and included only outpatients. This study compared the two insulin analogs once daily in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).
Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart versus Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Yan-Li Niu,Ye Zhang,Zhi-Yong Song,Chuan-Zhi Zhao,Yun Luo,Yan Wang,Jing Yuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v53i2.14916

2024-02-18

Iranian Journal of Public Health

Abstract:Background: We systematically reviewed and analyzed the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: We used computers to search the Embase, PubMed, Clinical Trials, and the Cochrane Library database, and collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of IDegAsp versus BIAsp 30 in T2D patients. The research period was from the establishment of the database to May 19, 2023. We used Review Manager 5.20 statistical software for systematic meta-analysis. Results: We included 8 RCTs with 2281 participants. IDegAsp was better to BIAsp30 in improving fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels (P<0.001) and reducing the endpoint daily average insulin dose (P<0.01). Furthermore, compared with BIAsp30, IDegAsp significantly reduced the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemic events (P<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the improvement of body weight change (P=0.99), glycosylated hemoglobin (P=0.50), the overall risk of hypoglycemic events (P=0.57) and adverse events (P=0.89) between the two groups. Conclusion: Compared with BIAsp30, IDegAsp could significantly reduce FPG levels, insulin dosage, and the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemic events in T2D patients, without increasing the overall risk of adverse events.

public, environmental & occupational health
Efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 units/mL vs insulin degludec in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Eman N. Alhmoud,Mohamed Omar Saad,Nabil Elhadi Omar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2023.1285147

IF: 6.055

2024-01-20

Frontiers in Endocrinology

Abstract:Background: Ultra-long-acting insulin analogs [insulin degludec (IDeg) and insulin glargine 300 units/mL (IGla-300)] offer a longer duration of action with less risk of hypoglycemia compared to other long-acting insulins. However, data about the comparative efficacy and safety are inconsistent. Methods: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ICTRP Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov on 7 October 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the safety and efficacy of IDeg (100 or 200 units/mL) and IGla-300 in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes were included. Three review authors independently selected trials, assessed the risk of bias, extracted data, and evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The primary outcomes were the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and any hypoglycemia; the secondary outcomes were the change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and severe and nocturnal hypoglycemia. Results: Four open-label RCTs were included (2727 participants), 3 parallel and 1 cross-over. Overall, the risk of bias assessment yielded some concern or high risk. There was a comparable change in HbA1c from baseline to the end of treatment, a mean difference of 0.07% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 – 0.19; p = 0.29; 3 trials; 2652 patients; very low-certainty evidence), and a comparable rate of any hypoglycemia, rate ratio 1.02 (95% CI 0.8 – 1.3; p = 0.87; 3 trials; 2881 patients; very low-certainty evidence). IDeg resulted in more reduction in FPG compared to IGla-300, mean difference of 10.27 mg/dL (95% CI 7.25 – 13.29; p < 0.001; 3 trials; 2668 patients; low-certainty evidence). Similar rates of nocturnal and severe hypoglycemia were observed, rate ratio of 1.13 (95% CI 0.72 – 1.78; p = 0.54; 3 trials; 2668 patients; very low-certainty evidence) and 1.4 (95% CI 0.41 – 4.73; p = 0.59; 2 trials; 1952 patients; very low-certainty evidence), respectively. Conclusion: There is no evidence of a difference between IDeg and IGla-300 in the mean change in HbA1c and the risk of anytime, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemia. IDeg appeared to cause a higher reduction in FPG compared to IGla-300. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of trials included and their high risk of bias. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022364891, identifier CRD42022364891.

endocrinology & metabolism
The efficacy and safety of GLP-1 analogue and glargine on type 2 diabetic patients:A meta-analysis

刘敏,田浩明,冯玮,高赟

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-6187.2015.04.015

2015-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of GLP‐1 analogue and glargine in T2DM patients with unsatisfactory glycemic control using oral antidiabetic drug (OAD). Methods Quality assessments of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in accordance with the inclusive criteria which were retrieved from Medline ,PubMed ,Embase ,The National Register ,Cochrane ,Current Controlled Trials ,CBMdisc ,CJFD ,VIP ,CNKI and Wanfang database. The analysis were performed using Revman version5.2.Results 7RCTswith2653patientswereincorporatedintoourstudy:1347patientsin GLP‐1 analogue group and 1306 patients in glargine group. The results showed that ,FPG and HbA1c were all reduced in both GLP‐1 analogue and glargine group. Compared with glargine group ,the reduction of HbA1c level was relatively lower in GLP‐1 analogue group. The reduction of FPG was greater in Glargine group than GLP‐1 analogue group ( P< 0.01 ). Weight was decreased in GLP‐1 analogue group ,but increased in glargine group. There were statistically significant differences in weight change between two groups (P<0.01). The rate of hypoglycaemia events in GLP‐1 analogue group had a 43% reduction than glargine group (P<0.01). The gastrointestinal side effect in GLP‐1 analogue group were more frequently than glargine group ,such as nausea and vomiting ,slight and transient. Conclusion Both GLP‐1 analogue and glargine could reduce FPG and HbA1 c level in T2DM patients with unsatisfactory glycemic control using OAD. GLP‐1 analogue could significantly reduce weight ,has lower hypoglycaemia risk and slight and transient gastrointestinal side effect. It has become a new choice of T2DM.
Meta-analysis of Glargine Combined with Glipizide Extended - Release Tablets in the Treatment of Type Ⅱ Diabetes Patients

李敏,梁悦,叶弛霞,陈小英

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-2124.2008.07.007

2008-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE: To conduct a meta-analysis on the clinic trials of the Glargine combined with glipizide extended-release tablets in the treatment of type 2 diabetes patients with an emphasis to compare the efficacy and the adverse effects between the Glargine combined with glipizide extended-release tablets and Human NPH and to evaluate the therapeutic outcome.METHODS: The pertinent domestic literature about the Glargine combined with glipizide extended-release tablets in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus from 2000 to 2007 were reviewed,and the data were analyzed using the software.RESULTS: The homogeneity test showed that the cited studies of the efficacy and safety were homogeneous with χ2=11.35,χ2=22.54,P0.05;In the combined tests,the validity value of OR merging was equal to minus 0.17,the confidence interval was-0.20 to-0.13 of OR merging 95%;In the difference of adverse effects test,the value of OR merging was equal to 0.52,the confidence interval was-0.20 to-0.13 of OR merging 95%.CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in the efficacy for diabetes between the insulin Glargine and Human NPH,but the incidence of hypoglycaemia in insulin glargine-treated group is lower than in NPH-treated group.
Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists versus insulin glargine for type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Wei-Xin Li,Jian-Feng Gou,Jin-Hui Tian,Xiang Yan,Lin Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.curtheres.2010.08.003

2010-01-01

Current Therapeutic Research

Abstract:Background: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are a new class of hypoglycemic drugs, including exenatide, liraglutide, albiglutide, lixisenatide, and taspoglutide. Insulin glargine is a standard agent used to supplement basal insulin in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Glucose-Lowering Drugs as Monotherapy for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Indirect Treatment Comparison

Shuyan Gu,Xiaoqian Hu,Xuemei Zhen,Lizheng Shi,Xueshan Sun,Minzhuo Huang,Yuxuan Gu,Yuanyuan Li,Hengjin Dong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3918870

2021-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Background: There are multiple alternative glucose-lowering drugs available as initial monotherapy for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) with contraindications or intolerance of metformin. However, little systematic and comparative data is available for them as initial monotherapy. We compared the efficacy and safety of them as monotherapy for T2DM. Methods: In this systematic review and indirect treatment comparison, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, and Chongqing VIP were searched for randomized controlled trials (1990-2020) comparing a glucose-lowering drug monotherapy with placebo (or lifestyle-intervention) in adult T2DM patients. The drug classes included metformin, SUs, TZDs, glinides, AGIs, DPP-4is, SGLT2is, GLP-1RAs, and insulins. The drugs were firstly compared with placebo/lifestyle-intervention using meta-analysis, then compared against each other using indirect treatment comparison. Weighted mean difference with 95% CIs were calculated for HbA1c, FPG, BMI, TC, HDL-C, and SBP. Relative risk with 95% CIs were calculated for hypoglycemia. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020170769). Findings: 185 studies assessing 23 drugs from eight drug classes were included (no eligible study was found for insulin). SUs were most efficacious in reducing HbA1c and FPG but increased hypoglycemic risks. Metformin was most efficacious in lowering BMI. GLP-1RAs were most efficacious in reducing TC. TZDs were most efficacious in increasing HDL-C. SGLT2is were most efficacious in lowering SBP. Overall, GLP-1RAs comprehensively controlled HbA1c, FPG, BMI, TC, and SBP, whilst metformin controlled HbA1c, FPG, BMI, TC, and HDL-C, and both of them did not increase hypoglycemic risks. Our observations also showed that although drug class is important, drugs within the same class may display important differences in treatment effects. Interpretation: Our results, along with individualized patient characteristics, preferences, and clinical needs, should be considered when selecting a drug as monotherapy for T2DM in clinical practice. Funding: National Natural Science Foundation of China.Declaration of Interest: None to declare.
Efficacy and safety of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Rui Wang,Shuoming Luo,Zilin Xiao,Zhiguang Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.3752

Abstract:Background: The efficacy and safety of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) for type 2 diabetes (T2DM) were extensively investigated by the global DUAL trials. However, the evidence on its efficacy and safety in T2DM has not been systematically reviewed. Methods: Randomized controlled trials published in English that compared IDegLira with placebo or GLP-1 agonists or insulin in patients with T2DM were selected up to December 2022. Data on the study characteristics, efficacy and safety outcomes were extracted. We compared the efficacy and safety between "IDegLira versus Insulin," "IDegLira versus GLP-1RA," and "IDegLira versus Placebo". The risk of potential bias was assessed. Results: In terms of glycaemic efficacy, IDegLira reduced levels of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; weighted mean differences (WMDs) 0.52%, 95% CI 0.33%-0.71%); fasting blood glucose (0.32 mg/dL, 0.14-0.50 mg/dL), and the nine-point self-measured plasma glucose (0.25 mmol/L, 0.25-0.36 mmol/L). Furthermore, IDegLira was generally better in the attainment of HbA1c < 7.0% or ≤6.5%, HbA1c < 7.0% or ≤6.5% without weight gain and/or without severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes. In non-glycaemic efficacy aspects, IDegLira decreased systolic blood pressure but elevated heart rate. In terms of safety outcomes, IDegLira did not appear to be associated with a risk of hypoglycaemia (RR 1.23, 0.85-1.78) and nocturnal hypoglycaemia (0.89, 0.52-1.52) occurring when compared with other hypoglycaemic agents or placebo. Conclusions: IDegLira improves better glycaemic and non-glycaemic outcomes without weight gain and/or without severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes in T2DM. Side effects of IDegLira are mild.
Efficacy and Safety of Additional Basal Insulin or Oral Antidiabetic Drug in Type 2 Diabetes Poorly Controlled with One Oral Antidiabetic Drug

BU Shi,YANG Wen-ying,LU Ju-ming,HONG Tian-pei,LI Qiang,LI Hong,YU Ye-rong,WENG Jian-ping,ZHOU Zhi-guang,JI Qiu-he,ZHU Da-long,ZOU Da-jin,CHEN Ding-yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-5809.2012.02.007

2015-01-01

Abstract:Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine vs additional oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) combined with one basic OAD in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods A total of 387 patients (mean age 54 years ) with T2DM who were inadequately controlled with one kind of sulfonylureas (SU) or metformin for at least 3 months were eligible for enrollment from 12 centres of China from June 2006 to December 2007.All the patients were randomized to receive insulin glargine (Group A,n =193 ) or an additional OAD (Group B,n =194) for 24 weeks.The changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level,blood glucose parameters,and C-peptide level and incidence of hypoglycemia were assessed and compared between the two groups at 24 weeks.Student' s t test was used for data analysis. Results A total of 375 patients were included in the final analysis ( 186 in Group A and 189 in Group B).After 24-week treatment,the reduction of HbA1c from baseline was 1.5％ in Group A and 1.3％ in Group B (t =-7802.0,-6983.5,both P＜0.01),and the reduction was comparable between the two groups (Z =- 1.3914,P =0.1641 ).The reduction of HbAlc from baseline to 24 weeks in the subgroup of insulin glargine ≥0.2 U · kg 1 · d-1 (n =114) was significantly larger than that of Group B ( ( 1.6 ± 1.2) ％ vs ( 1.3 ± 1.3) ％,Z =- 1.9962,P =0.0459).The reduction of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and 2-h plasma glucose ( 2-h PG) from baseline to 24 weeks in Group A was significantly larger than that in Group B (Z =- 5.5516,- 3.9158,both P ＜ 0.01 ).The changes of 0 or 2-h C-peptide level from baseline to 24 weeks were significantly different between the two groups( Z =-5.3894,-2.7775,both P ＜ 0.01 ). The incidence of hypoglycemia was comparable between the two groups.Conclusion These findings show that additional treatment with insulin glargine or another OAD could contribute to effective control of blood glucose,and insulin glargine may boast stronger effectiveness when the dosage is titrated sufficiently.
Efficacy and safety of insulin detemir versus glargine in patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Soheila Rezaei,Ali Taheri,Saeed Taheri,Sara Kasirzadeh,Behzad Fatemi,Mende M Sorato

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17512433.2022.2078700

Abstract:Objectives: Performing an updated meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of insulin glargine and insulin detemir in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Methods: Electronic databases were searched up to 18 August 2021. A random-effects model was applied to pool data from included studies to calculate the standardized mean differences (SMDs) for the continuous variables and relative risks (RRs) for the dichotomous variable. Results: Nine studies compared insulin detemir and insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes and three studies in patients with type 1 diabetes. The pooled SMD of weight gain was -0.59 (95% CI -1.05 to -0.14; P=0.01; I2=98%) in patients with type 2 diabetes. The pooled RR of severe hypoglycemia was 0.28 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.63; P=0.002; I2=0%) in patients with type 1 diabetes. The effects of detemir and glargine on HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, nocturnal hypoglycemia, and overall hypoglycemia were not statistically different (P>0.05). Conclusions: It was found that there is no clinically considerable difference between the impacts of insulin detemir and insulin glargine in diabetic patients. The only statistically significant differences were less weight gain in type 2 diabetes and fewer episodes of severe hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes with insulin detemir.
Comparative efficacy and safety of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: A network meta-analysis

Han Chen,Xin-Zhu Li,Jia-Qing Chen,Tian-Shu Ren,Ying-Shi Zhang,Yi-Nuo Wang,Qing-Chun Zhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000034122

2023-07-07

Abstract:Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of 4 weekly formulations of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) on glycemic control, including glycemic control, by using a network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception until June 10, 2022. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) enrolling participants with diabetes mellitus type 2 and a follow-up of at least 12 weeks were included, for which 4 eligible GLP-1RAs Exenatide, Dulaglutide, Semaglutide, Loxenatide were compared with either each other or placebo. The primary outcome is the change of hemoglobin A1c level. Secondary outcomes including additional glycemic control indicators and adverse events (AE). Frequentist random-effect NMA were conducted for effect comparison. This meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42022342241. Results: The NMA synthesized evidence from 12 studies covering 6213 patients and 10 GLP-1RA regimens. A pairwise comparison of glycosylated hemoglobin type A1C (HbA1c) lowering effects showed that once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists were significantly better than placebo, and their glucose-lowering intensity was Semaglutide 2.0mg, Semaglutide 1.0mg, Dulaglutide 4.5mg, and Semaglutide 0.5mg, Dulaglutide 3.0mg, PEX168 200ug, Dulaglutide 1.5mg, PEX168 100ug and Dulaglutide 0.75mg. The GLP-1RA regimen has a comparable safety profile for hypoglycemia. And with the exception of PEX168, all other long-acting GLP-1RA drugs had lower rates of diarrhea, nausea and vomiting than placebo. Conclusion: Regimens of GLP-1RAs had differential glycemic control. The efficacy and safety of Semaglutide 2.0mg in comprehensively lowering blood sugar showed the best performance.
Comparison of efficacy and safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and DPP-4 inhibitors combined with metformin against type 2 diabetes: a systematic review

Ke-ke GAI,Rong DUAN,Zheng-xiang LI

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13286/j.cnki.chinhosppharmacyj.2017.07.16

2017-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy and safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors combined with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes.METHODS Based on the data from Pubmed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,VIP,WanFang,CBM database by June 1,2016,randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing GLP-1RA and DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes were included.Two investigators screened literatures according to inclusion and excluding criteria,extracted data and evaluated the quality of included studies.The meta-analysis was conducted with Rev-Man 5.3.5.RESULTS A total of fourteen studies were included.The results of meta-analysis showed that GLP-1RA + Metformin was associated with higher reduction of haemoglobinA1c (HbA1c),fasting plasma glucose (FPG),body weight,systolic pressure,and the differences were statistically significant;DPP-4 inhibitors + metformin produced lower incidence of adverse events with statistically significant difference.However,the incidence of hypoglycaemia and the reduction of diastolic blood pressure were comparable between the two groups.CONCLUSION GLP-1RA + metformin is superior to DPP-4 inhibitors + metformin in the reduction of HbA1c,FPG,body weight and systolic pressure,but DPP-4 inhibitors + metformin is associated with lower incidence of adverse events.
Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec/insulin Aspart Versus Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Chinese Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Phase III, Open‐label, 2:1 Randomized, Treat‐to‐target Trial

Wenying Yang,Jianhua Ma,Tianpei Hong,Ming Liu,Heng Miao,Yongde Peng,Changjiang Wang,Xiangjin Xu,Tao Yang,Anne M. Nielsen,Lili Pan,Weihong Liu,Weigang Zhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.13703

2019-01-01

Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism

Abstract:AimsTo assess the efficacy and safety of twice‐daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) twice daily, both ± metformin, in Chinese adults (N = 543) with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on premixed/self‐mixed or basal insulin ± metformin.Materials and methodsWe conducted a 26‐week, phase III, open‐label, treat‐to‐target, 2:1 randomized trial. Hierarchical testing was used with non‐inferiority of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change from baseline to week 26 as the primary endpoint and superiority for the confirmatory secondary endpoints which were as follows: change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose (FPG); nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes (12:01–5:59 am, inclusive); total confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes (severe or plasma glucose <3.1 mmol/L with/without symptoms); body weight; and percentage of responders (HbA1c <53 mmol/mol [<7.0%]) without confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes.ResultsNon‐inferiority for change from baseline to week 26 in HbA1c and superiority of IDegAsp twice daily versus BIAsp 30 twice daily for change in FPG, nocturnal confirmed and total confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes, was demonstrated. Estimated rates of nocturnal confirmed and total confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes were 47% and 43% lower, respectively, with IDegAsp twice daily versus BIAsp 30 twice daily. Superiority for change in body weight was not confirmed. Participants were more likely to reach the HbA1c goal of <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%) without confirmed hypoglycaemia with IDegAsp twice daily versus BIAsp 30 twice daily by trial end. No new safety signals were identified.ConclusionsThe efficacy and safety of IDegAsp in Chinese patients with T2D was demonstrated, confirming results from international trials.
Safety and efficacy of GLP-1 and glucagon receptor dual agonist for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Bixin Deng,Tiechao Ruan,Wenting Lu,Junjie Ying,Shiping Li,Ruixi Zhou,Dezhi Mu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12020-024-03857-6

2024-05-15

Endocrine

Abstract:This study aimed to investigate the effects of randomized, placebo-controlled trials involving the GLP-1 and glucagon receptor dual agonists, mazdutide, and cotadutide, on glycaemic control and body weight changes in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), obesity, or both.

endocrinology & metabolism
Comparative efficacy and safety of 8 GLP-1RAs in patients with type 2 diabetes: A network meta-analysis

Lin Xia,Tiantian Shen,Wenliang Dong,Feng Su,Jiaxue Wang,Qian Wang,Suping Niu,Yi Fang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2021.108904

IF: 8.18

2021-01-01

Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

Abstract:Aims: To inform clinical practice by comparing and ranking the lowing blood glucose and weight-loss abilities of 8 glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from database inception to April 13, 2021. The outcomes were Delta HbA(1c), Delta weight, adverse events [AE] withdrawals, and incidence of hypoglycemia. We estimated standardized mean differences [SMD] and summary odds ratios (ORs) using frequentist network meta-analysis with random effects. Results: Retrieved trials included 11,126 patients, the overall mean age was 56.7 +/- 10.36 ye ars old. In terms of efficacy, all GLP-1RAs were more effective than the placebo except albiglutide-30 mg QW (Delta weight: SMD -0.26 kg [95 %CI: -1.10, 0.59 kg). When it came to safety, oral semaglutide-14mgQD, semaglutide-1mgQW, Liraglutide-1.8mgQD, and Exenatide-2ugBID were associated with an increased risk of AE withdrawals. And GLP-1RAs were associated with a higher incidence of hypoglycemia than placebo except albiglutide-30mgQW and orally administered semaglutide-14mgQD. Conclusion: Overall GLP-1RAs were more efficacious than placebo in patients with T2D on efficacy. Unfortunately, differences between GLP1-RAs regarding safety were mostly not significant. We may realize the individualized GLP-1RAs administration based on blood glucose level and obesity degree. (C) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of nateglinide in Asian type 2 diabetes

蔡晓凌,罗樱樱,韩学尧,纪立农

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-6187.2013.10.014

2013-01-01

Abstract:Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of nateglinide in Asian T2DM patients. Methods The MEDLINE?,EMBASE?and CENTRAL were searched and qualified studies were included. Results Totally 43qualified studies were included.In terms of HbA1c decline,nateglinide treatment was superior to placebo(WMD:-0.28%,95%CI:-0.41~-0.14)orα-glucosidase inhibitors(AGIs)(WMD:-0.27%,95%CI:-0.53~-0.02),and was comparable with repaglinide or mitiglinide or sulfonylureas(SUs).In terms of fasting glucose lowering,nateglinide treatment was comparable with placebo or AGIs,or SUs or mitiglinide,but was inferior to repaglinide(WMD:0.17mmol/L,95%CI:0.05~0.30).In terms of postprandial glucose lowering,nateglinide treatment was comparable with AGIs or repaglinide,or mitiglinide or SUs.In terms of fasting insulin secretion,nateglinide treatment was comparable with placebo or repaglinide or SUs.In terms of body weight lowering,nateglinide treatment was inferior to AGIs. Conclusion Both the efficacy and safety,as well as the progression of insulin secretion of nateglinide treatment were confirmed in this study.
The Safety and Efficacy of Sodium Glucose Co-transporter 2 Inhibitors Combined with Insulin in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Kexin Li,Gaosi Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-0407.12890

IF: 4.53

2019-01-01

Journal of Diabetes

Abstract:Background The safety and efficacy of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in a dose-dependent manner for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) are unclear. Methods Randomized clinical trials (RCT) were searched from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials until August 2018. Results Thirteen RCT with 5397 participants were included. SGLT2 inhibitors were proved to be effective in glycemic control and weight loss in T1DM. In the subgroups of different doses, SGLT2 inhibitors exhibited reductions in glycated haemoglobin, bodyweight, fasting plasma glucose, mean daily glucose, basal insulin dose, bolus insulin dose, estimated glomerular filtration rate and systolic blood pressure, and elevations in the mean amplitude of glucose excursions, and percentage of time in target glucose range in a dose-dependent manner. Reductions in total insulin dose and urinary glucose excretion were dose-independent. SGLT2 inhibitors did not induce hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, cardiovascular events, bone fracture and all-cause mortality, but increased the risk of adverse events (AE), adverse events related to the drug treatment, infections, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and renal disease correlated with dosage. Conclusions SGLT2 inhibitors in high and moderate doses can achieve a better outcome on efficacy, but may induce a higher risk of adverse events, especially DKA.

Comparative Safety and Efficacy of Insulin Degludec with Insulin Glargine in Type 2 and Type 1 Diabetes: a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Efficacy and Tolerability of Insulin Degludec Versus Other Long-acting Basal Insulin Analogues in the Treatment of Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Insulin Degludec, a Novel Ultra-Long-Acting Basal Insulin Versus Insulin Glargine for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine in Insulin-Naive Subjects with Type 2 Diabetes: Results of a Chinese Cohort from a Multinational Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Detemir and Insulin Glargine in Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Crossover Trial

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart versus Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 units/mL vs insulin degludec in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The efficacy and safety of GLP-1 analogue and glargine on type 2 diabetic patients:A meta-analysis

Meta-analysis of Glargine Combined with Glipizide Extended - Release Tablets in the Treatment of Type Ⅱ Diabetes Patients

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists versus insulin glargine for type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Glucose-Lowering Drugs as Monotherapy for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Indirect Treatment Comparison

Efficacy and safety of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Efficacy and Safety of Additional Basal Insulin or Oral Antidiabetic Drug in Type 2 Diabetes Poorly Controlled with One Oral Antidiabetic Drug

Efficacy and safety of insulin detemir versus glargine in patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparative efficacy and safety of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: A network meta-analysis

Comparison of efficacy and safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and DPP-4 inhibitors combined with metformin against type 2 diabetes: a systematic review

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec/insulin Aspart Versus Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Chinese Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Phase III, Open‐label, 2:1 Randomized, Treat‐to‐target Trial

Safety and efficacy of GLP-1 and glucagon receptor dual agonist for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Comparative efficacy and safety of 8 GLP-1RAs in patients with type 2 diabetes: A network meta-analysis

Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of nateglinide in Asian type 2 diabetes

The Safety and Efficacy of Sodium Glucose Co-transporter 2 Inhibitors Combined with Insulin in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.