Real-world comparison of treatment patterns and effectiveness of albiglutide and liraglutide

Buysman, Erin; Sikirica, Mirko; Thayer, Sarah; Bogart, Michael; DuCharme, Mary; Joshi, Ashish V.

doi:10.2217/cer-2017-0032

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The remaining 7 studies were included in the meta‐analysis and evaluated 75 159 patients (range: 2886‐30 097) with type 2 diabetes receiving injectable GLP‐1RAs (Table 1). 17‐23 A total of 49 307 (65.6%) patients received agents with once daily dosing, while 25 852 (34.4%) patients received once weekly dosing. GLP‐1RAs dosed once weekly were either dulaglutide, albiglutide or exenatide ER; while liraglutide was the once daily agent evaluated in all included studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medication adherence to injectable glucagon‐like peptide‐1 (GLP‐1) receptor agonists dosed once weekly vs once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta‐analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Suboptimal medication adherence has been associated with increased resource utilisation and mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (GLP‐1RAs) are becoming increasingly important in the treatment of T2D. However, medications in this class differ considerably in their dosing frequency, which may impact adherence. We sought to perform a meta‐analysis to compare adherence to injectable GLP‐1RAs dosed once weekly vs once daily in patients with T2D. Methods Medline and Scopus were searched from 1/2005 to 7/2020 using keywords and MeSH terms pertaining to adherence and GLP‐1RAs. Studies of adults with T2D were included if they compared adherence (as measured by proportion of days covered [PDC]) to injectable GLP‐1RAs dosed once weekly vs once daily. A meta‐analysis of non‐overlapping studies was performed to evaluate the primary outcome of non‐adherence, defined as the proportion of patients with a PDC < 80. Results A total of 7 studies evaluating 75 159 patients (range: 2886‐30 097) with T2D were included. The follow‐up periods of included studies ranged from 6 to 12 months. Injectable GLP‐1RAs dosed once weekly were either dulaglutide, albiglutide or exenatide extended release; while liraglutide was the injectable once daily agent evaluated in all included studies. Upon meta‐analysis, once weekly GLP‐1RA dosing was associated with an 11% lower risk of non‐adherence compared to once daily dosing (risk ratio = 0.89; 95% confidence interval = 0.83‐0.95; I2 = 89%). Conclusion Once weekly dosing of injectable GLP‐1RAs was associated with better adherence vs once daily dosing among patients with T2D. These findings coupled with the known detrimental consequences of non‐adherence suggest that dosing frequency is an important factor to consider when selecting a GLP‐1RA.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medication adherence to injectable glucagon‐like peptide‐1 (GLP‐1) receptor agonists dosed once weekly vs once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta‐analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While there is obvious overlap in participants in studies utilising the same database with a common treatment arm, a more difficult to identify issue of overlapping participants may occur if the treatment arms used are not common between the studies. In this case study, multiple studies utilised the Optum Research database [34,35]. One study compared the use of albiglutide to liraglutide between July 2014-December 2015 [35] while another compared canagliflozin to dapagliflozin users between January 2014-September 2016 [34].…”

Section: Case Study 3 -Use Of Sglt-2is and Glp-1ras In Type 2 Diabetesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this case study, multiple studies utilised the Optum Research database [34,35]. One study compared the use of albiglutide to liraglutide between July 2014-December 2015 [35] while another compared canagliflozin to dapagliflozin users between January 2014-September 2016 [34]. In both studies, participants could be on background therapies in addition to the study treatment.…”

Section: Case Study 3 -Use Of Sglt-2is and Glp-1ras In Type 2 Diabetesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Double-counting of populations in evidence synthesis in public health: a call for awareness and future methodological development

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is a growing interest in the inclusion of real-world and observational studies in evidence synthesis such as meta-analysis and network meta-analysis in public health. While this approach offers great epidemiological opportunities, use of such studies often introduce a significant issue of double-counting of participants and databases in a single analysis. Therefore, this study aims to introduce and illustrate the nuances of double-counting of individuals in evidence synthesis including real-world and observational data with a focus on public health. Methods The issues associated with double-counting of individuals in evidence synthesis are highlighted with a number of case studies. Further, double-counting of information in varying scenarios is discussed with potential solutions highlighted. Results Use of studies of real-world data and/or established cohort studies, for example studies evaluating the effectiveness of therapies using health record data, often introduce a significant issue of double-counting of individuals and databases. This refers to the inclusion of the same individuals multiple times in a single analysis. Double-counting can occur in a number of manners, such as, when multiple studies utilise the same database, when there is overlapping timeframes of analysis or common treatment arms across studies. Some common practices to address this include synthesis of data only from peer-reviewed studies, utilising the study that provides the greatest information (e.g. largest, newest, greater outcomes reported) or analysing outcomes at different time points. Conclusions While common practices currently used can mitigate some of the impact of double-counting of participants in evidence synthesis including real-world and observational studies, there is a clear need for methodological and guideline development to address this increasingly significant issue.

show abstract

“…Detailed evaluation led to the inclusion of 12 RCTs involving 6423 subjects with T2D, which met all the inclusion criteria. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Seven studies were excluded; among them, 1 was a retrospective database analysis using administrative claims data, [35] 1 assessed CV outcomes of albiglutide without assessing glycemic efficacy outcomes, [25] 1 was an extension study of Rosenstock 2014, [36] 2 were pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics studies with short duration, [37,38] 1 was nonrandomized, open-label, phase 3 study without a placebo group; [26] the other study compared the efficacy and safety of albiglutide from a ready-to-use, single dose, autoinjector system with the lyophilized product without a placebo group. [39]…”

Section: Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and safety of albiglutide, a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Kamrul-Hasan,

Dutta,

Nagendra

et al. 2024

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: No meta-analysis has holistically analyzed and summarized the therapeutic efficacy and safety of albiglutide in type 2 diabetes (T2D). This meta-analysis addresses this knowledge gap. Methods: Randomized controlled trials involving patients with T2D receiving albiglutide in the intervention arm and either a placebo or an active comparator in the control arm were searched through electronic databases. The primary outcome was the change from baseline (CFB) in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c); secondary outcomes included CFB in fasting plasma glucose, body weight, and adverse events (AE). Results: From 443 initially screened articles, data from 12 randomized controlled trials involving 6423 subjects were analyzed. Albiglutide, at both doses, outperformed placebo in terms of HbA1c reductions (for albiglutide 30 mg: mean differences −1.04%, 95% confidence interval [CI] [−1.37–−0.72], P < .00001, I 2 = 89%; and for albiglutide 50 mg: mean differences −1.10%, 95% CI [−1.45–−0.75], P < .00001, I 2 = 90%). Higher proportions of subjects achieved HbA1c < 7% in the albiglutide arm than in placebo (for albiglutide 30 mg: odds ratio 6.26, 95% CI [2.50–15.70], P < .0001, I 2 = 82%; and for albiglutide 50 mg: odds ratio 5.57, 95% CI [2.25–13.80], P = .0002, I 2 = 84%). Albiglutide had glycemic efficacy comparable to other glucose-lowering drugs. CFB in body weight was similar with albiglutide and placebo. AE profile, including gastrointestinal AE, was identical with albiglutide and placebo, except for higher drug-related AE and injection-site reaction with albiglutide. Conclusion: Albiglutide provides reassuring data on good glycemic efficacy, tolerability, and safety over an extended period of clinical use in patients with T2D. Albiglutide 30 mg has comparable efficacy and safety profiles to albiglutide 50 mg.

show abstract

Real-world comparison of treatment patterns and effectiveness of albiglutide and liraglutide

Cited by 3 publications

References 23 publications

Medication adherence to injectable glucagon‐like peptide‐1 (GLP‐1) receptor agonists dosed once weekly vs once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta‐analysis

Medication adherence to injectable glucagon‐like peptide‐1 (GLP‐1) receptor agonists dosed once weekly vs once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta‐analysis

Double-counting of populations in evidence synthesis in public health: a call for awareness and future methodological development

Efficacy and safety of albiglutide, a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About