A systematic literature review on the efficacy-effectiveness gap : comparison of randomized controlled trials and observational studies of glucose-lowering drugs

AIM: To identify a potential efficacy-effectiveness gap and possible explanations (drivers of effectiveness) for differences between results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating glucose-lowering drugs. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in English language articles published between 1 January, 2000 and 31 January, 2015 describing either RCTs or observational studies comparing glucagon-like peptide-1 analogs (GLP-1) with insulin or comparing dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) with sulfonylurea, all with change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as outcome. Medline, Embase, Current Content, and Biosis were searched. Information on effect estimates, baseline characteristics of the study population, publication year, study duration, and number of patients, and for observational studies, characteristics related to confounding adjustment and selection- and information bias were extracted. RESULTS: From 312 hits, 11 RCTs and 7 observational studies comparing GLP-1 with insulin, and from 474 hits, 16 RCTs and 4 observational studies comparing DPP-4i with sulfonylurea were finally included. No differences were observed in baseline characteristics of the study populations (age, sex, body mass index, time since diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus, and HbA1c) or effect sizes across study designs. Mean effect sizes ranged from -0.43 to 0.91 and from -0.80 to 1.13 in RCTs and observational studies, respectively, comparing GLP-1 with insulin, and from -0.13 to 2.70 and -0.20 to 0.30 in RCTs and observational studies, respectively, comparing DPP-4i and sulfonylurea. Generally, the identified observational studies held potential flaws with regard to confounding adjustment and selection- and information bias. CONCLUSIONS: Neither potential drivers of effectiveness nor an efficacy-effectiveness gap were identified. However, the limited number of studies and potential problems with confounding adjustment, selection- and information bias in the observational studies, may have hidden a true efficacy-effectiveness gap

Assessment of channeling bias among initiators of glucose-lowering drugs : A UK cohort study

BACKGROUND: Channeling bias may occur when a newly marketed drug and an established drug, despite similar indications, are prescribed to patients with different prognostic characteristics (ie, confounding). AIM: To investigate channeling bias and its impact on relative effectiveness of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogs versus basal insulin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) versus sulfonylurea. METHODS: In the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, patients with type 2 diabetes initiating treatment between 2006 and 2015 were included. Analyses were stratified by years since first prescription of GLP-1 and DPP-4i, respectively. The characteristics of GLP-1 versus insulin and DPP-4i versus sulfonylurea initiators were compared over time. After propensity score matching, the relative effectiveness regarding 6-month changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight was estimated. RESULTS: In total, 8,398 GLP-1, 14,807 insulin, 24,481 DPP-4i, and 33,505 sulfonylurea initiators were identified. No major channeling was observed. Considerable overlap in distributions of characteristics allowed for propensity score-matched analyses. Relative effectiveness was similar across time. The overall relative effect of GLP-1 versus insulin showed no difference for HbA1c and relative increase in body weight (3.57 kg [95% confidence interval {CI}: 3.21, 3.92]) for insulin. The overall relative effect of DPP-4i versus sulfonylurea showed relative decrease in HbA1c (-0.34% [95% CI: -0.38, -0.30]) and increase in body weight (1.58 kg [95% CI: 1.38, 1.78]) for sulfonylurea. CONCLUSION: No major channeling was identified in the investigated glucose-lowering drugs. Relative effectiveness could be estimated already in the first year after launch and was consistent in the years thereafter

Assessment of channeling bias among initiators of glucose-lowering drugs : A UK cohort study

BACKGROUND: Channeling bias may occur when a newly marketed drug and an established drug, despite similar indications, are prescribed to patients with different prognostic characteristics (ie, confounding). AIM: To investigate channeling bias and its impact on relative effectiveness of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogs versus basal insulin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) versus sulfonylurea. METHODS: In the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, patients with type 2 diabetes initiating treatment between 2006 and 2015 were included. Analyses were stratified by years since first prescription of GLP-1 and DPP-4i, respectively. The characteristics of GLP-1 versus insulin and DPP-4i versus sulfonylurea initiators were compared over time. After propensity score matching, the relative effectiveness regarding 6-month changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight was estimated. RESULTS: In total, 8,398 GLP-1, 14,807 insulin, 24,481 DPP-4i, and 33,505 sulfonylurea initiators were identified. No major channeling was observed. Considerable overlap in distributions of characteristics allowed for propensity score-matched analyses. Relative effectiveness was similar across time. The overall relative effect of GLP-1 versus insulin showed no difference for HbA1c and relative increase in body weight (3.57 kg [95% confidence interval {CI}: 3.21, 3.92]) for insulin. The overall relative effect of DPP-4i versus sulfonylurea showed relative decrease in HbA1c (-0.34% [95% CI: -0.38, -0.30]) and increase in body weight (1.58 kg [95% CI: 1.38, 1.78]) for sulfonylurea. CONCLUSION: No major channeling was identified in the investigated glucose-lowering drugs. Relative effectiveness could be estimated already in the first year after launch and was consistent in the years thereafter

Body characteristics, dietary protein and body weight regulation. Reconciling conflicting results from intervention and observational studies?

Background/Objectives: Physiological evidence indicates that high-protein diets reduce caloric intake and increase thermogenic response, which may prevent weight gain and regain after weight loss. Clinical trials have shown such effects, whereas observational cohort studies suggest an association between greater protein intake and weight gain. In both types of studies the results are based on average weight changes, and show considerable diversity in both directions. This study investigates whether the discrepancy in the evidence could be due to recruitment of overweight and obese individuals into clinical trials. Subjects/Methods: Data were available from the European Diet, Obesity and Genes (DiOGenes) post-weight-loss weight-maintenance trial and the Danish Diet, Cancer and Health (DCH) cohort. Participants of the DCH cohort were matched with participants from the DiOGenes trial on gender, diet, and body characteristics. Different subsets of the DCH-participants, comparable with the trial participants, were analyzed for weight maintenance according to the randomization status (high or low protein) of the matched trial participants. Results: Trial participants were generally heavier, had larger waist circumference and larger fat mass than the participants in the entire DCH cohort. A better weight maintenance in the high-protein group compared to the low protein group was observed in the subgroups of the DCH cohort matching body characteristics of the trial participants. Conclusion: This modified observational study, minimized the differences between the RCT and observational data with regard to dietary intake, participant characteristics and statistical analysis. Compared with low protein diet the high protein diet was associated with better weight maintenance when individuals with greater body mass index and waist circumference were analyzed. Selecting subsets of large-scale observational cohort studies with similar characteristics as participants in clinical trials may reconcile the otherwise conflicting results