4.3 Article

Reductions in systolic blood pressure with liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes: Insights from a patient-level pooled analysis of six randomized clinical trials

Journal

JOURNAL OF DIABETES AND ITS COMPLICATIONS
Volume 28, Issue 3, Pages 399-405

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2014.01.009

Keywords

Type 2 diabetes; Hypertension; Blood pressure; Liraglutide

Funding

  1. Novo Nordisk
  2. Novo Nordisk and Laura Elson of Watermeadow Medical, UK

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: To quantify the effect of liraglutide on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and pulse in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and assess the influence of covariates on observed SBP reductions. Methods: A patient-level pooled analysis of six phase 3, randomized trials was conducted. Results: The analysis included 2792 randomized patients. In the intention-to-treat population (n = 2783), mean [+/- SE] SBP reductions from baseline with liraglutide 1.2 mg (2.7 [0.8] mmHg) and 1.8 mg (2.9 [0.7] mmHg) once daily were significantly greater than with placebo (0.5 [0.9] mmHg; P = 0.0029 and P = 0.0004, respectively) after 26 weeks, and were evident after 2 weeks. Liraglutide was also associated with significantly greater SBP reductions than glimepiride and, at a dose of 1.8 mg, insulin glargine and rosiglitazone. SBP reductions with liraglutide weakly correlated with weight loss (Pearson's correlation coefficient: 0.08-0.12; P <= 0.0148). No dependence of these reductions on concomitant antihypertensive medications was detected (P = 0.1304). Liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg were associated with mean increases in pulse of 3 beats per minute (bpm), versus a 1 bpm increase with placebo (P < 0.0001 for each dose versus placebo). Conclusions: Liraglutide reduces SBP in patients with T2D, including those receiving concomitant antihypertensive medication. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available