The association between postprandial urinary C‐peptide creatinine ratio and the treatment response to liraglutide: a multi‐centre observational study

Abstract

Postprandial urinary C-peptide creatinine ratios before and during liraglutide treatment were weakly associated with the glycaemic response to treatment. Low pretreatment urinary C-peptide creatinine ratio may be more useful than higher values by predicting poorer glycaemic response.

Insulin treatment and longer diabetes duration both predict poorer glycaemic response to liraglutide treatment in type 2 diabetes: the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists Nationwide Liraglutide Audit

“…13 Our findings might suggest that the therapeutic response to liraglutide may be influenced by background β-cell function, for which background diabetes treatment and duration of diabetes may act as surrogate markers. Consistent with this view, studies have shown that higher C-peptide secretion is predictive of a larger treatment response to liraglutide, 12,14 or a greater likelihood of success when switching patients to liraglutide from insulin. 15,16 The mean reduction in HbA1c with liraglutide was smaller for patients treated with insulin, relative to patients receiving other therapies, but nevertheless remained clinically significant.…”

Clinical Effectiveness of Liraglutide in Type 2 Diabetes Treatment in the Real-World Setting: A Systematic Literature Review

“…The majority of the studies assessed the clinical effectiveness of liraglutide without an active comparator (81.4%; N  = 35) [28, 29, 31, 34, 36–39, 41–49, 51–55, 57, 60–64, 66–71]. Real-world studies with comparators were less frequently observed (18.6%; N  = 8); the most common comparators for liraglutide were: sitagliptin or any DPP-4i ( N  = 6) [32, 33, 35, 40, 56, 58], exenatide ( N  = 3) [33, 35, 50], glimepiride or any other SUs ( N  = 2) [30, 35], pioglitazone or other TZDs ( N  = 1) [35], and MET ( N  = 1) [35]; note: these numbers do not add up because some studies had more than one comparator.…”

“…The most frequently observed follow-up duration from these publications was ≥12 months (46.5%; N  = 20) [28–47], followed by 6–12 months (34.9%; N  = 15) [48–62], and <6 months (18.6%; N  = 8) [63–70]. Real-world studies frequently reported data on the effect of liraglutide from outpatient settings (30.2%; N  = 13) [34, 39, 40, 42–44, 49, 55, 58, 60, 61, 66, 67]. The geographical scope of the review included studies from Europe ( N  = 24), the USA ( N  = 5), and Asia–Pacific ( N  = 14; see supplementary file 2).…”

“…Of these, 38 were full-text articles [28–34, 36–53, 55–60, 62, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70]. Study attributes and patient baseline characteristics from the included studies are provided in supplementary file 2.…”

“…Study attributes and patient baseline characteristics from the included studies are provided in supplementary file 2. Of the 38 full-text publications, 18 studies reported an average follow-up duration of ≥12 months [29–33, 36–40, 42–47], followed by 15 studies with an average follow-up period of ≥6–12 months [34, 48, 49, 52–60, 62, 73]. The remaining five studies had an average follow-up period of ≤6 months [64, 66, 67, 69, 70].…”