Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists for the management of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Karagiannis T, Liakos A, Bekiari E, Athanasiadou E, Paschos P, Vasilakou D, Mainou M, Rika M et al.

Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2015

16 participants

Abstract

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of recently approved once-weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing any GLP-1 RA licensed for once-weekly dosing (albiglutide, dulaglutide or exenatide extended release) with placebo or other antidiabetic agents. We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and grey literature for articles published up to December 2014 and extracted data in duplicate.

RESULTS: In our systematic review we included 33 trials with a total of 16 003 participants. Compared with placebo the change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration was -0.66% [six studies; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.14 to -0.19; I(2) = 88%] with albiglutide, and -1.18% (seven studies; 95% CI -1.34 to -1.02; I(2) = 65%) with dulaglutide. Based on data from placebo-controlled trials, we did not detect statistically significant weight-sparing benefits for albiglutide or dulaglutide. Compared with other antidiabetic agents, once-weekly GLP-1 RAs outperformed sitagliptin, daily exenatide and insulin glargine in terms of HbA1c-lowering (mean differences -0.40%; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.14; I(2) = 85%, -0.44%; 95% CI -0.58 to -0.29; I(2) = 40% and -0.28; 95% CI -0.45 to -0.10; I(2) = 81%, respectively). The main adverse effects of treatment included gastrointestinal and injection site reactions.

CONCLUSIONS: Given their dosing…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 16 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free