Evidence review : liraglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of liraglutide in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, based upon the manufacturer’s submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The manufacturer proposed the use of liraglutide as a second or third drug in patients with type 2 diabetes whose glycaemic control was unsatisfactory with metformin, with or without a second oral glucose-lowering drug. The submission included six manufacturer-sponsored trials that compared the efficacy of liraglutide against other glucose-lowering agents. Not all of the trials were relevant to the decision problem. The most relevant were Liraglutide Effects and Actions in Diabetes 5 (LEAD-5) (liraglutide used as part of triple therapy and compared against insulin glargine) and LEAD-6 [liraglutide in triple therapy compared against another glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist, exenatide]. Five of the six trials were published in full and one was then unpublished. Two doses of liraglutide, 1.2 and 1.8 mg, were used in some trials, but in the two comparisons in triple therapy, against glargine and exenatide, only the 1.8-mg dose was used. Liraglutide in both doses was found to be clinically effective in lowering blood glucose concentration [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)], reducing weight (unlike other glucose-lowering agents, such as sulphonylureas, glitazones and insulins, which cause weight gain) and also reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP). Hypoglycaemia was uncommon. The ERG carried out meta-analyses comparing the 1.2- and 1.8-mg doses of liraglutide, which suggested that there was no difference in control of diabetes, and only a slight difference in weight loss, insufficient to justify the extra cost. The cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out using the Center for Outcomes Research model. The health benefit was reported as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The manufacturer estimated the cost-effectiveness to be £15,130 per QALY for liraglutide 1.8 mg compared with glargine, £10,054 per QALY for liraglutide 1.8 mg compared with exenatide, £10,465 per QALY for liraglutide 1.8 mg compared with sitagliptin, and £9851 per QALY for liraglutide 1.2 mg compared with sitagliptin. The ERG conducted additional sensitivity analyses and concluded that the factors that carried most weight were: in the comparison with glargine, the direct utility effects of body mass index (BMI) changes and SBP, with some additional contribution from HbA1c in the comparison with exenatide, HbA1c, with some additional effects from cholesterol and triglycerides in the comparison with sitagliptin, HbA1c and direct utility effects of BMI changes. The European Medicines Agency has approved liraglutide in dual therapy with other oral glucose-lowering agents. NICE guidance recommends the use of liraglutide 1.2 mg in triple therapy when glycaemic control remains or becomes inadequate with a combination of two oral glucose-lowering drugs. The use of liraglutide 1.2 mg in a dual therapy is indicated only in patients who are intolerant of, or have contraindications to, three oral glucose-lowering drugs. The use of liraglutide 1.8 mg was not approved by NICE. The ERG recommends research into the (currently unlicensed) use of liraglutide in combination with long-acting insulin

Combination GLP-1 and Insulin Treatment Fails to Alter Myocardial Fuel Selection Versus Insulin Alone in Type 2 Diabetes

Context Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and the clinically available GLP-1 agonists have been shown to exert effects on the heart. It is unclear whether these effects occur at clinically used doses in vivo in humans, possibly contributing to CVD risk reduction. Objective To determine whether liraglutide at clinical dosing augments myocardial glucose uptake alone or in combination with insulin compared to insulin alone in metformin-treated Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Design Comparison of myocardial fuel utilization after 3 months of treatment with insulin detemir, liraglutide, or combination detemir+liraglutide. Setting Academic hospital Participants Type 2 diabetes treated with metformin plus oral agents or basal insulin. Interventions Insulin detemir, liraglutide, or combination added to background metformin Main Outcome Measures Myocardial blood flow, fuel selection and rates of fuel utilization evaluated using positron emission tomography, powered to demonstrate large effects. Results We observed greater myocardial blood flow in the insulin-treated groups (median[25th, 75th percentile]: detemir 0.64[0.50, 0.69], liraglutide 0.52[0.46, 0.58] and detemir+liraglutide 0.75[0.55, 0.77] mL/g/min, p=0.035 comparing 3 groups and p=0.01 comparing detemir groups to liraglutide alone). There were no evident differences between groups in myocardial glucose uptake (detemir 0.040[0.013, 0.049], liraglutide 0.055[0.019, 0.105], detemir+liraglutide 0.037[0.009, 0.046] µmol/g/min, p=0.68 comparing 3 groups). Similarly there were no treatment group differences in measures of myocardial fatty acid uptake or handling, and no differences in total oxidation rate. Conclusions These observations argue against large effects of GLP-1 agonists on myocardial fuel metabolism as mediators of beneficial treatment effects on myocardial function and ischemia protection

Liraglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes : a single technology appraisal

This paper presents a summary of the Evidence Review Group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of liraglutide in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, based upon the manufacturer’s submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The manufacturer proposed the use of liraglutide as a second or third drug in patients with type 2 diabetes whose glycaemic control was unsatisfactory with metformin, with or without a second oral glucoselowering drug. The submission included six manufacturer-sponsored trials that compared the efficacy of liraglutide against other glucose-lowering agents. Not all of the trials were relevant to the decision problem. The most relevant were Liraglutide Effects and Actions in Diabetes 5 (LEAD-5) (liraglutide used as part of triple therapy and compared against insulin glargine) and LEAD-6 [liraglutide in triple therapy compared against another glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, exenatide]. Five of the six trials were published in full and one was then unpublished. Two doses of liraglutide, 1.2 and 1.8 mg, were used in some trials but in the two comparisons in triple therapy, against glargine and exenatide, only the 1.8-mg dose was used. Liraglutide in both doses was found to be clinically effective in lowering blood glucose concentration [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)], reducing weight (unlike other glucose-lowering agents, such as sulphonylureas, glitazones and insulins, which cause weight gain) and also reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP). Hypoglycaemia was uncommon. The ERG carried out meta-analyses comparing the 1.2- and 1.8-mg doses of liraglutide, which suggested that there was no difference in control of diabetes, and only a slight difference in weight loss, insufficient to justify the extra cost

Liraglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes

Background The cardiovascular effect of liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue, when added to standard care in patients with type 2 diabetes, remains unknown. Methods In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk to receive liraglutide or placebo. The primary composite outcome in the time-to-event analysis was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The primary hypothesis was that liraglutide would be noninferior to placebo with regard to the primary outcome, with a margin of 1.30 for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio. No adjustments for multiplicity were performed for the prespecified exploratory outcomes. Results A total of 9340 patients underwent randomization. The median follow-up was 3.8 years. The primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the liraglutide group (608 of 4668 patients [13.0%]) than in the placebo group (694 of 4672 [14.9%]) (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 0.97; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.01 for superiority). Fewer patients died from cardiovascular causes in the liraglutide group (219 patients [4.7%]) than in the placebo group (278 [6.0%]) (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93; P=0.007). The rate of death from any cause was lower in the liraglutide group (381 patients [8.2%]) than in the placebo group (447 [9.6%]) (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.97; P=0.02). The rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure were nonsignificantly lower in the liraglutide group than in the placebo group. The most common adverse events leading to the discontinuation of liraglutide were gastrointestinal events. The incidence of pancreatitis was nonsignificantly lower in the liraglutide group than in the placebo group. Conclusions In the time-to-event analysis, the rate of the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus was lower with liraglutide than with placebo. (Funded by Novo Nordisk and the National Institutes of Health; LEADER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01179048 .)

Liraglutide and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes

In a randomized, controlled trial that compared liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue, with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk who were receiving usual care, we found that liraglutide resulted in lower risks of the primary end point (nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes) and death. However, the long-term effects of liraglutide on renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes are unknown

Pramlintide but Not Liraglutide Suppresses Meal-Stimulated Glucagon Responses in Type 1 Diabetes

Postprandial hyperglycemia remains a challenge in type 1 diabetes (T1D) due, in part, to dysregulated increases in plasma glucagon levels after meals

Novel skeletal effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) leads to bone fragility and predisposes to increased risk of fracture, poor bone healing and other skeletal complications. In addition, some anti-diabetic therapies for T2DM can have notable detrimental skeletal effects. Thus, an appropriate therapeutic strategy for T2DM should not only be effective in re-establishing good glycaemic control but also in minimising skeletal complications. There is increasing evidence that glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), now greatly prescribed for the treatment of T2DM, have beneficial skeletal effects although the underlying mechanisms are not completely understood. This review provides an overview of the direct and indirect effects of GLP-1RAs on bone physiology, focusing on bone quality and novel mechanisms of action on the vasculature and hormonal regulation. The overall experimental studies indicate significant positive skeletal effects of GLP-1RAs on bone quality and strength although their mechanisms of actions may differ according to various GLP-1RAs and clinical studies supporting their bone protective effects are still lacking. The possibility that GLP-1RAs could improve blood supply to bone, which is essential for skeletal health, is of major interest and suggests that GLP-1 anti-diabetic therapy could benefit the rising number of elderly T2DM patients with osteoporosis and high fracture risk

Effects of exenatide and liraglutide on heart rate, blood pressure and body weight : systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives: To synthesise current evidence for the effects of exenatide and liraglutide on heart rate, blood pressure and body weight. Design: Meta-analysis of available data from randomised controlled trials comparing Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues with placebo, active antidiabetic drug therapy or lifestyle intervention. Participants: Patients with type 2 diabetes. Outcome measures: Weighted mean differences between trial arms for changes in heart rate, blood pressure and body weight, after a minimum of 12-week follow-up. Results: 32 trials were included. Overall, GLP-1 agonists increased the heart rate by 1.86 beats/min (bpm) (95% CI 0.85 to 2.87) versus placebo and 1.90 bpm (1.30 to 2.50) versus active control. This effect was more evident for liraglutide and exenatide long-acting release than for exenatide twice daily. GLP-1 agonists decreased systolic blood pressure by −1.79 mm Hg (−2.94 to −0.64) and −2.39 mm Hg (−3.35 to −1.42) compared to placebo and active control, respectively. Reduction in diastolic blood pressure failed to reach statistical significance (−0.54 mm Hg (−1.15 to 0.07) vs placebo and −0.50 mm Hg (−1.24 to 0.24) vs active control). Body weight decreased by −3.31 kg (−4.05 to −2.57) compared to active control, but by only −1.22 kg (−1.51 to −0.93) compared to placebo. Conclusions: GLP-1 analogues are associated with a small increase in heart rate and modest reductions in body weight and blood pressure. Mechanisms underlying the rise in heart rate require further investigation

The cardiovascular safety of incretin-based therapies: a review of the evidence

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in people with diabetes and therefore managing cardiovascular (CV) risk is a critical component of diabetes care. As incretin-based therapies are effective recent additions to the glucose-lowering treatment armamentarium for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), understanding their CV safety profiles is of great importance. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have been associated with beneficial effects on CV risk factors, including weight, blood pressure and lipid profiles. Encouragingly, mechanistic studies in preclinical models and in patients with acute coronary syndrome suggest a potential cardioprotective effect of native GLP-1 or GLP-1 receptor agonists following ischaemia. Moreover, meta-analyses of phase 3 development programme data indicate no increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with incretin-based therapies. Large randomized controlled trials designed to evaluate long-term CV outcomes with incretin-based therapies in individuals with T2D are now in progress, with the first two reporting as this article went to press