4.4 Article

Real-world glycemic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating exenatide once weekly and liraglutide once daily: a retrospective cohort study

Journal

Publisher

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/DMSO.S103972

Keywords

diabetes; exenatide; outcomes

Funding

  1. AstraZeneca

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists exenatide once weekly (QW) and liraglutide once daily (QD) have demonstrated improvements in glycemic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in randomized clinical trials. However, little is known about their real-world comparative effectiveness. This retrospective cohort study used the Quintiles Electronic Medical Record database to evaluate the 6-month change in glycated hemoglobin (A1C) for patients initiating exenatide QW or liraglutide QD. Methods: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus prescribed exenatide QW (n = 664) or liraglutide QD (n = 3,283) between February 1, 2012 and May 31, 2013 were identified. Baseline A1C measures were from 75 days before to 15 days after initiating exenatide QW or liraglutide QD, with follow-up measures documented at 6 months (+/- 45 days). Adjusted linear regression models compared the difference in mean A1C change. A priori defined sensitivity analysis was performed in the subgroup of patients with baseline A1C >= 7.0% and no prescription for insulin during the 12-month pre-index period. Results: For exenatide QW and liraglutide QD, respectively, mean (SD) age of the main study cohort was 58.01 (10.97) and 58.12 (11.05) years, mean (SD) baseline A1C was 8.4% (1.6) and 8.4% (1.6), and 48.2% and 54.2% of patients were women. In adjusted models, change in A1C did not differ between exenatide QW and liraglutide QD during 6 months of follow-up. Results were consistent in the subgroup analyses. Conclusion: In a real-world setting, A1C similarly improves in patients initiating exenatide QW or liraglutide QD.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available