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.

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.

Obesity continues to pose a major public health risk to the United States and across the world, with an estimated one-third of adult Americans being defined as obese. Obesity treatment guidelines recommend the use of pharmacologic therapy in adults who have a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m(2) or higher or in patients with a BMI of 27 kg/m(2) or higher who have at least one weight-related comorbid condition (e.g., hypertension, dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes mellitus). Liraglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist that has been successfully used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes for several years. Weight loss has been well described as an additional benefit with liraglutide therapy, which prompted the manufacturer to evaluate and develop a higher dose formulation specifically for the treatment of obesity. Liraglutide 3 mg/day was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for this indication in December 2014. We performed a search of the Medline database to identify relevant literature focused on liraglutide's role specifically in treating obesity. Five clinical trials with this primary end point were identified. Data demonstrated that liraglutide can successfully achieve weight-loss benchmarks of 5% or more and 10% or more loss from baseline. The most common adverse effects were gastrointestinal and mild to moderate in intensity. The cost of therapy is high, averaging over $1000/month for out-of-pocket expenses if insurance coverage is not available. Liraglutide is also available for delivery only by subcutaneous injection, which may represent a barrier for patients. Liraglutide 3 mg/day represents another pharmacologic option for the treatment of obesity.

This study aimed to investigate the attitudes, perceptions, and experiences of side effects with the COVID-19 vaccines in Malaysia among participants in the National Vaccination Program. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among a sample of vaccine-eligible and vaccinated individuals in Malaysia between May and July 2021. A total of 428 respondents completed the survey. A vast majority (98.6%) of the respondents had registered to be vaccinated. Twenty participants (4.7%) expressed concerns about either registering or receiving the COVID-19 vaccination, mainly due to their uncertainty of vaccine safety. Approximately 77.5% received their vaccinations. Of them, 76.8% had experienced vaccine-related side effects. About 40% of the side effects occurred more with the second dose, particularly those who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (p < 0.0005). Pain at the injection site (61.1%) and tiredness (48.8%) were the most reported side effects. Compared to those aged ≥60 years, all age groups were more likely to exhibit vaccine-related side effects; meanwhile, males (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.27–0.93) were less likely to experience side effects than females. Those who received the Sinovac vaccine were at lower risk of experiencing side effects (OR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03–0.22) and were more likely to report fewer side effects than Pfizer-BioNTech (p = 0.012) and Oxford-AstraZeneca groups (p = 0.001). The overall attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccination program were positive. Several differences in the experiences of vaccine-related side effects, in terms of prevalence and numbers, were attributed to age, gender, and received vaccine type.