Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Semaglutide for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: Background: Semaglutide, a newly once-weekly glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, has showed a favorable effect on glycaemic control and weight reduction in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of semaglutide in T2DM. Methods: A comprehensive searching was performed for Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which reported the efficacy and safety data of semaglutide and other therapies. The efficacy data expressed as weight mean difference (WMD) and the safety data expressed as risk ratios (RRs) were calculated by employing random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed through I2 test, and subgroup analyses were performed by different control groups, dosage of semaglutide, and durations of follow up. Results: 9 RCTs including 9,773 subjects met the inclusion criteria. For efficacy, compared with other therapies, semaglutide resulted in a significant reduction in glycosylated hemoglobin (weight mean difference, WMD: -0.93%, 95% CI: -1.24 to -0.62, P < 0.001), fasting plasma glucose (WMD: -1.15 mmol/L, 95% CI: -1.67 to -0.63, P < 0.001), mean self-monitoring of plasma glucose (WMD: -1.19 mmol/L, 95% CI: -1.68 to -0.70, P < 0.001), body weight (WMD: -3.47 kg, 95% CI: -3.96 to -2.98, P < 0.001), body mass index (WMD: -1.25 kg/m2, 95% CI: -1.45 to -1.04, P < 0.001), systolic blood pressure (WMD: -2.55 mmHg, 95% CI: -3.22 to -1.88, P < 0.001), with the exception of negative result of diastolic blood pressure (WMD: -0.29 mmHg, 95% CI: -0.65 to 0.07, P = 0.113) and increased impact on pulse rate (WMD: -2.21, 95% CI: 1.54 to 2.88, P < 0.001). The results were consistent across the key subgroups. For safety, semaglutide did not increase the risk of any adverse events, hypoglycemia and pancreatitis, but induced a higher risk of gastrointestinal disorders when compared with other therapies (RR: 1.98, 95%CI: 1.49 to 2.62, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Semaglutide was effective and acceptable in patients with T2DM except for a high risk of gastrointestinal disorders. The capacity of glycaemic and body weight control of semaglutide appeared more effective than other add-on therapies including other GLP-1 receptor agonists of exenatide release and dulaglutide.

SUBMITTER: Shi FH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5994433 | biostudies-other | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Semaglutide for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Shi Fang-Hong FH Li Hao H Cui Min M Zhang Zai-Li ZL Gu Zhi-Chun ZC Liu Xiao-Yan XY

Frontiers in pharmacology 20180604

<b>Background:</b> Semaglutide, a newly once-weekly glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, has showed a favorable effect on glycaemic control and weight reduction in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of semaglutide in T2DM. <b>Methods:</b> A comprehensive searching was performed for Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which reported the efficacy and safety data of semaglutide and other therapies. Th ...[more]

PMID: 29915538

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOne hundred years have passed since the discovery of insulin, which is one of the most relevant events of the 20th century. This period resulted in extraordinary progress in the development of novel molecules to improve glucose control, simplify the insulin regimen, and ameliorate the quality of life. In late March 2024, the first once-weekly basal analog Icodec was approved for diabetes mellitus, generating high expectations. Our aim was to systematically review and meta-analyze the efficacy and safety of Icodec compared to once-daily insulin analogs in type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D).MethodsPubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Studies were included for the synthesis according to the following prespecified inclusion criteria: uncontrolled T1D or T2D, age ≥ 18 years, insulin Icodec vs. active comparators (Degludec U100, Glargine U100, Glargine U300, and Detemir), phase 3, multicenter, double-blind or open-label RCTs, and a study duration ≥ 24 weeks.ResultsThe systematic review included 4347 patients with T1D and T2D inadequately controlled (2172 randomized to Icodec vs. 2175 randomized to once-daily basal analogs). Icodec, compared to once-daily basal analogs, slightly reduced the levels of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of -0.14% [95%CI -0.25; -0.03], p = 0.01, and I2 68%. Patients randomized to Icodec compared to those on once-daily basal analogs had a greater probability to achieve HbA1c < 7% without clinically relevant or severe hypoglycemic events in 12 weeks from randomization with an estimated risk ratio (ERR) of 1.17, [95%CI 1.01, 1.36], p = 0.03, and I2 66%. We did not find a difference in fasting glucose levels, time in range, and time above range between Icodec and comparators. Icodec, compared to once-daily basal analogs, resulted in a slight but statistically significant weight gain of 0.62 kg [95%CI 0.25; 0.99], p = 0.001, and I2 25%. The frequency of hypoglycemic events (ERR 1.16 [95%CI 0.95; 1.41]), adverse events (ERR 1.04 [95%CI 1.00; 1.08]), injection-site reactions (ERR 1.08 [95%CI 0.62; 1.90]), and the discontinuation of treatments were similar between the two groups. Icodec was found to work better when used in a basal-only than basal-bolus regimen with an ETD in HbA1c of -0.22%, a probability of achieving glucose control of +33%, a probability of achieving glucose control without clinically relevant or severe hypoglycemia of +28%, more time spent in target (+4.55%) and less time spent in hyperglycemia (-5.14%). The risk of clinically relevant or severe hypoglycemic events was significantly higher when background glinides and sulfonylureas were added to basal analogs (ERR 1.42 [95%CI 1.05; 1.93]).ConclusionInsulin Icodec is substantially non-inferior to once-daily insulin analogs in T2D, either insulin-naïve or insulin-treated. However, Icodec works slightly better than competitors when used in a basal-only rather than basal-bolus regimen. Weight gain and hypoglycemic risk are substantially low but not negligible. Patients' education, adequate lifestyle and pharmacological interventions, and appropriate therapy adjustments are essential to minimize risks. This systematic review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42024568680.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough global studies have investigated the combination of dulaglutide with insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), differences in lean body mass and dulaglutide dosing can complicate the extrapolation of global study results to Japanese patients. This phase 4, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, and subsequent open-label study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide 0.75 mg in combination with insulin therapy in patients with T2DM.MethodsPatients enrolled in this multicenter study were Japanese with T2DM who had inadequate glycemic control (HbA1c 7.5-10.5%) with insulin therapy (basal insulin, premixed insulin, or basal/mealtime insulin) in combination with or without one or two oral antidiabetic agents (OADs). Patients were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to dulaglutide or placebo. The first 16 weeks was the double-blind period with stable insulin dosing, and patients taking placebo were switched to dulaglutide for an additional 36-week open-label period in which all patients took dulaglutide (52 weeks total).ResultsPatients (N = 159) were randomized to dulaglutide (n = 120) or placebo (n = 39). The least-squares (LS) mean changes from baseline in HbA1c at week 16 were dulaglutide - 1.45% and placebo 0.06%. The LS mean and 95% confidence interval for the difference were - 1.50% (- 1.73%, - 1.28%) and dulaglutide was superior to placebo. There were no significant differences between treatment groups in changes from baseline in body weight and insulin dose. The most frequently observed treatment-emergent adverse events in dulaglutide were nasopharyngitis, constipation, abdominal discomfort, nausea, and decreased appetite. The incidence rates of hypoglycemic events by week 16 were dulaglutide 42.5% and placebo 30.8% (P = 0.258).ConclusionOnce-weekly dulaglutide 0.75 mg was superior to once-weekly placebo in glycemic control improvement and well tolerated in patients with T2DM in combination with insulin therapy with or without OADs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02750410.FundingEli Lilly and Company.

Project description:BackgroundRandomized controlled trials have found that once-weekly insulin resulted in greater glycemic control compared to once-daily insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, no direct comparisons have been made between different types of once-weekly insulin thus far. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of the two most advanced once-weekly insulin analogues, namely insulin icodec and insulin Fc, in patients with type 2 diabetes.MethodsWe conducted a thorough search in the databases PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The search included articles published from the beginning to October 10, 2023, with no language limitations. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials that investigated the effectiveness and safety of once-weekly insulin in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Our primary outcome was to evaluate excellent glycemic control, defined as patients achieving glycated hemoglobin levels below 7%.ResultsWe identified a total of 7 trials involving 2829 patients. The results showed that once-weekly insulin icodec is more effective than once-weekly insulin Fc (RR 1.59 [95% CI 1.08-2.38]), once-daily degludec (RR 1.43 [95% CI 1.14-1.83]), and once-daily glargine (RR 1.15 [95% CI 1.00-1.41]). Moreover, the incidence of severe hypoglycemia was lower with once-weekly insulin icodec compared to once-daily degludec (RR 0.00016 [95% CI 0 to 0.41]). However, no significant difference in the incidence of severe hypoglycemia was observed between once-weekly insulin icodec and once-daily glargine (RR 0.39 [95% CI 0.03 to 4.83]).ConclusionsIn patients with type 2 diabetes, once-weekly insulin icodec achieved superior glycemic control compared to once-weekly insulin Fc, with no significant difference in the occurrence of hypoglycemia. The ranking probability results have shown that one weekly icodec seems to be the preferred option in patients with type 2 diabetes.Trial registrationPROSPERO Identifier: CRD42023470894.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This study was designed to evaluate the efficiency and tolerability of empagliflozin (EMPA) as monotherapy or add-on to existing therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing efficacy and safety of EMPA vs placebo or EMPA plus other antidiabetes drugs vs placebo plus other oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) in T2DM were recruited from electronic database Pubmed, Web of Knowledge, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), supplemented by a hand search of the reference lists of selected articles. Main effect sizes were change from baseline on glycemia control, body weight, blood pressure, and complications (i.e., incidence of urinary and genital tract infections, and morbidity of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia). Random-effects model was used to account for clinical or methodologic heterogeneity across studies. RESULTS:Fifteen RCTs with a total number of 7891 individuals (5374 in EMPA group and 2517 in control group) were suitable for this meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that significant improvements in glycemia control, body weight, and blood pressure were associated with EMPA application (i.e., monotherapy and add-on therapy) in patient with T2DM when compared with placebo. Meanwhile, EMPA 10 and 20?mg improved glycemia, body weight, and blood pressure control for patients with T2DM. There was no significant difference in incidence of hypoglycemia and urinary tract infections across EMPA and placebo group. Significant reduced risk of hyperglycemia was revealed in EMPA group vs placebo (risk ratio: 0.34, 95%confidence interval: 0.23-0.49, P?<?.00001), except in patients on background insulin therapy. However, increased risk of genital infection was noted across EMPA vs placebo (risk ratio: 2.59, 95% confidence interval: 1.80-3.71, P?<?.00001). CONCLUSION:Our evidence supports the application of EMPA in treatment of patients with T2DM who are obesity or at risk of weight gain.

Project description:Background: Teneligliptin is a 3rd-generation dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor. There is a limited evidence regarding the effect of teneligliptin. Therefore, this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with inadequately glycemic controlled. Methods: A search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library during 2000.01-2018.03 was performed for randomized controlled trials of teneligliptin compared to placebo in patients with T2DM with monotherapy or add-on treatment. Results: Ten trials with 2119 patients were analyzed. Teneligliptin produced absolute reductions in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels (weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.82%, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-0.91 to -0.72], p < 0.00001) compared with placebo. However, after 36-42 weeks of follow-up (open-label), HbA1c level rise higher than duration (double-blind) in teneligliptin group. Teneligliptin led to greater decrease of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level (vs. placebo, WMD -18.32%, 95% CI [-21.05 to -15.60], p < 0.00001). Teneligliptin also significantly decreased the 2 h post-prandial plasma glucose (2 h PPG) (WMD -46.94%, 95% CI [-51.58 to -42.30], p < 0.00001) and area under the glucose plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 2 h (AUC0-2h) for PPG (WMD -71.50%, 95% CI [-78.09 to -64.91], p < 0.00001) compared with placebo. Patients treated with teneligliptin achieved increased homeostasis model assessment of β cell function (HOMA-β) with 9.31 (WMD, 95% CI [7.78-10.85], p < 0.00001). However, there was no significant difference between teneligliptin and placebo in overall adverse effects (0.96 risk ratio (RR), 95% CI [0.87, 1.06], p = 0.06). The risks of hypoglycemia were not significantly different between teneligliptin and placebo (1.16 RR, 95% CI [0.59, 2.26], p = 0.66). Conclusions: Teneligliptin improved blood glucose levels and β-cells function with low risk of hypoglycemia in patients with T2DM. Common adverse effects of teneligliptin including hypoglycemia were identified and reviewed. Risks of cardiovascular events are less certain, and more data for long-term effects are needed.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Semaglutide for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Publications

Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Semaglutide for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets