Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Experimental Diabetes Research logoLink to Experimental Diabetes Research
. 2011 Apr 26;2011:215764. doi: 10.1155/2011/215764

Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists and Cardiovascular Events: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Matteo Monami 1,*, Francesco Cremasco 2, Caterina Lamanna 2, Claudia Colombi 2, Carla Maria Desideri 1, Iacopo Iacomelli 1, Niccolò Marchionni 1, Edoardo Mannucci 1, 2, 3,2,3
PMCID: PMC3092497  PMID: 21584276

Abstract

Objective. Data from randomized clinical trials with metabolic outcomes can be used to address concerns about potential issues of cardiovascular safety for newer drugs for type 2 diabetes. This meta-analysis was designed to assess cardiovascular safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists. Design and Methods. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized trials of GLP-1 receptor agonists (versus placebo or other comparators) with a duration ≥12 weeks, performed in type 2 diabetic patients. Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (MH-OR) was calculated for major cardiovascular events (MACE), on an intention-to-treat basis, excluding trials with zero events. Results. Out of 36 trials, 20 reported at least one MACE. The MH-OR for all GLP-1 receptor agonists was 0.74 (0.50–1.08), P = .12 (0.85 (0.50–1.45), P = .55, and 0.69 (0.40–1.22), P = .20, for exenatide and liraglutide, resp.). Corresponding figures for placebo-controlled and active comparator studies were 0.46 (0.25–0.83), P = .009, and 1.05 (0.63–1.76), P = .84, respectively. Conclusions. To date, results of randomized trials do not suggest any detrimental effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists on cardiovascular events. Specifically designed longer-term trials are needed to verify the possibility of a beneficial effect.

1. Introduction

Cardiovascular safety is a growing concern for drugs used for chronic conditions, such as diabetes. Among glucose-lowering agents, sulfonylureas [1, 2], insulin [3, 4], and thiazolidinediones [5–7], have been suspected of adverse cardiovascular effects, although some of those preoccupations have not been confirmed [8–11]. Following these concerns, the Food and Drug Administration issued a guidance for companies submitting new chemical entities as treatments for type 2 diabetes, requiring that, either in phase II-III trials, or in a subsequent phase IV specifically designed randomized clinical trial, a sufficient amount of information is collected so as to exclude a risk increase of over 30% (i.e., the upper limit—two-sided—of 95% confidence interval for major cardiovascular events, in comparison with placebo and/or other treatments, should not exceed 1.30; http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM071627.pdf).

Two GLP-1 receptor agonists (exenatide and liraglutide) have been approved for human use, and several others are currently under clinical development. It has been observed that chronic stimulation of GLP-1 receptors could produce beneficial effects on several cardiovascular risk factors [12]; furthermore, preliminary data on humans suggest that GLP-1 could have direct effects on myocardial function [13]. However, no major trial assessing the effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality is available to date, nor will it be for a few years. In the meantime, the information on incident cases recorded as adverse events during trials designed for metabolic endpoints could provide some hints on the possible cardiovascular profile of these drugs. This meta-analysis was designed to assess the effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists, compared with placebo or active hypoglycemic drugs, on major cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetic patients, as derived from randomized controlled trials.

2. Research Design and Methods

2.1. Data Sources and Searches

An extensive Medline, Embase, and Cochrane database search for “exenatide,” “liraglutide,” “albiglutide,” “taspoglutide,” “lixisenatide,” and “semaglutide” was performed, collecting all randomized clinical trials on humans up to November 1th, 2010. The identification of relevant abstracts, the selection of studies based on the criteria described above, and the subsequent data extraction were performed independently by two of the authors (E. Mannucci and M. Monami), and conflicts resolved by the third investigator (N. Marchionni). Completed but still unpublished trials were identified through a search of http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ website. Food and Drug Administration (FDA, http://www.fda.gov/) and European Medicines Agency (EMEA, http://www.ema.europa.eu/) reviews of approved drugs, as well as published information provided to FDA in response to queries during the approval process, were also searched for retrieval of unpublished trials.

2.2. Study Selection

A meta-analysis was performed including all randomized clinical trials with a duration of at least 12 weeks, either with a cross-over or a parallel series design, enrolling patients with type 2 diabetes, comparing glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists with placebo or active drugs (oral hypoglycemic agents and/or insulin) of other classes. Trials enrolling nondiabetic, or type 1 diabetic, subjects were also excluded. No review protocol was published elsewhere.

2.3. Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Results of unpublished trials (characteristics of patients enrolled, treatments, and major cardiovascular events) were retrieved, if available, on http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/, http://www.novonordisk-trials.com/website/content/trial-results.aspx, http://www.lillytrials.com/results/results.html, or http://www.clinicalstudyresults.org/; Food and Drug Administration (FDA, http://www.fda.gov/) and European Medicines Agency (EMEA, http://www.ema.europa.eu/) reviews of approved drugs, as well as published information provided to FDA in response to queries during the approval process, were also searched for retrieval of unpublished information. All those sources were also used to complete information on results of published trials, when not reported in publications. For all published trials, results reported in papers were used as the primary source of information, when available.

The quality of trials was assessed using some of the parameters proposed by Jadad et al. [14]. The score was not used as a criterion for the selection of trials whereas some items were used only for descriptive purposes.

2.4. Data Synthesis and Analysis

The principal outcome was the effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists, compared with other hypoglycemic agents or placebo, on major cardiovascular events (MACE) as defined in the list provided by FDA for this purpose (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/EndocrinologicandMetabolicDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM148659.pdf), including cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke, and hospitalizations due to acute coronary syndromes and/or heart failure.

Predefined separate analyses were performed for trials with different GLP-1 receptor agonists, whenever possible.

Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (MH-OR) was calculated for each of the events defined above, on an intention-to-treat basis, excluding trials with zero events. A random effect model was used because of the impossibility of a reliable assessment of heterogeneity, due to the small number of events in each trial [15]. Publication bias was not assessed, considering that the small number of adverse cardiovascular events in each study was irrelevant for the decision to publish trials with metabolic endpoints. The main expected bias is represented by the fact that the trials included were designed for noncardiovascular (metabolic) endpoint; this means that cardiovascular events were reported only as adverse events, without any systematic screening or predefined diagnostic criteria. The meta-analysis was reported following the PRISMA checklist [16]. All analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-analysis Version 2, Biostat (Englewood, NJ, USA) and SPSS 16.0.

This research was performed independently of any funding, as part of the institutional activity of the investigators.

3. Results

The trial flow is summarized in Figure 1. A total of 36 trials, 3 of which unpublished, were retrieved. Information on major cardiovascular events was reported in 33 trials, 20 of which with at least one event. The analysis on MACE was therefore performed on 20 trials, enrolling 6,490 and 3,995 patients (3.467 and 2.172 patient* years) in the GLP-1 receptor agonist and comparator groups, respectively. The characteristics of the retrieved trials, and of those which resulted to be complete but were undisclosed, or did not report information on MACE, are summarized in Tables 1, 2, and 3.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Trial flow diagram. RCT: randomized clinical trial; T2: type 2.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the unpublished and undisclosed studies.

Study Number of patients planned Comparator Add-on to Trial duration (wks) Design Study end date* Sponsor
Exenatide
NCT00434954 488 Aspart Metformin 26 PS, DB August 2009 Amylin
Liraglutide
NCT00696657 415 Placebo None 12 PS, DB February 2009 Novo
Taspoglutide
NCT00809705 60 Placebo None 12 PS, DB February 2010 Hoff-Roche
Open in a new tab

PS: parallel series; DB: double blind; Hoff. Roche: Hoffman-La Roche; Novo: Novo Nordisk.

Table 2.

Characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis.

Study* (ref.) NCT/FDA-reference Add-on to Description of randomization Description of allocation Description of blinding Reporting of drop-out Intention-to-treat
Albiglutide versus placebo
Rosenstock et al. [19] NCT00518115 None/Metf. NA NA A A Yes
Exenatide versus placebo
Gill et al. [20] NCT00516074 Metf./TZD NA NA A A Yes
Kadowaki et al. [21] NCT00382239 Sulfonylurea A NA A A Yes
Zinman et al. [22] NCT00099320 TZD A A A A Yes
Gao et al. [23] NCT00324363 SU + Metf. A NA A A Yes
DeFronzo et al. [24] NCT00135330 Rosiglitazone A NA OL A Yes
Apovian et al. [25] NR Multiple A A A A Yes
Moretto et al. [26] NCT00381342 None A A A A Yes
Liutkus et al. [27] NR Metf/TZD + Met A A A A Yes
DeFronzo et al. [28] NCT00039013 Metformin A NA A A Yes
Buse et al. [29] NCT00039026 Sulfonylurea A NA A A Yes
Kendall et al. [30] NCT00035984 SU + Metf. NA NA A A Yes
Exenatide versus rosiglitazone
DeFronzo#et al. [24] NCT00135330 None A NA OL A Yes
Exenatide versus glibenclamide
Derosa et al. [31] NCT00135330 None A NA OL A Yes
Exenatide versus BiAsp 30/70
Bergenstal et al. [32] NCT00097877 SU + Metf. A A OL A Yes
Nauck et al. [33] NCT00082407 SU + Metf. A A OL A Yes
Exenatide versus glargine
Barnett et al. [34] NCT00099619 SU + Metf. A A OL A Yes
NCT00360334 [35] NCT00360334 OAD NR NR OL A Yes
Heine et al. [36] NCT00082381 SU + Metf. A A OL A Yes
Bunck et al. [37] NCT00097500 Metformin A NA OL A Yes
Diamant et al. [38] NCT00641056 SU + Metf./Metf A A OL A Yes
Exenatide versus insulin
Davis et al. [39] NCT00099333 SU/Metf. NA NA OL A Yes
Exenatide LAR versus placebo
Kim et al. [40] NCT00103935 Metf./None A A A A Yes
Exenatide LAR versus pioglitazone
Bergenstal et al. [41] NCT00637273 None A A A A Yes
Exenatide LAR versus sitagliptin
Bergenstal et al. [41]# NCT00637273 None A A A A Yes
Liraglutide versus placebo
Madsbad et al. [42] FDA_1310 None NA NA A A Yes
Vilsbøll [43] NCT00154401 None NA NA A A Yes
Seino et al. [44] FDA_1334 None A A A A Yes
Kaku et al. [45] NCT00395746 Sulfonylurea NA NA NA NA Yes
Russell-Jones et al. [46] NCT00331851 SU + Metf. A A A A Yes
Zinman et al. [47] NCT00333151 Metf. + TZD A A A A Yes
Marre et al. [48] NCT00318422 Sulfonylurea NA NA A A Yes
Nauck et al. [49] NCT00318461 Metformin A A A A Yes
Liraglutide versus metformin
Feinglos et al. [50] NR None NA NA NA A No
Liraglutide versus rosiglitazone
Marre#et al. [48] NCT00318422 Sulfonylurea NA NA A A Yes
Liraglutide versus glimepiride
Madsbad#et al. [42] NR None NA NA OL A Yes
NCT00614120 [35] NCT00614120 Metformin NR NR OL NR NR
Nauck#et al. [49] NCT00318461 Metformin A A OL A Yes
Garber et al. [51] NCT00294723 None A A OL A Yes
Liraglutide versus glibenclamide
NCT00393718 [35] NCT00393718 None NR NR OL NR NR
Liraglutide versus sitagliptin
Pratley et al. [52] NCT00700817 None A A OL A Yes
Liraglutide versus glargine
Russell-Jones#et al. [46] NCT00331851 SU + Metf. A A A A Yes
Open in a new tab

*All the studies are multicenter and designed as parallel series, with the exception of NCT00099619 which is a cross-over trial; #studies with multiple comparators. Metf.: metformin; NA: not adequate or not adequately reported; A: adequate; TZD: thiazolidinediones; TZD + Met.: thiazolidinediones + metformin; SU + Metf.: sulfonylureas and metformin; OL: open-label; OAD: oral antidiabetic drugs; NR: not reported; SU/Metf: sulfonylureas or metformin; LAR: long-acting release.

Table 3.

Moderators and outcome variables in individual studies included in the meta-analysis.

Study (ref.) Number of patients (ID/C) Trial duration (wks) Age (ys) Duration of DM (ys) HbA1c/FPG baseline (%/mmol/L) BMI baseline (Kg/m2) MACE (n,ID/C) All-cause mortality (n,ID/C) Cardiovasc. mortality (n,ID/C)
Albiglutide versus placebo
Rosenstock et al. [19] 128/50 16 54 5 8.0/9.7 32.0 0/3 NR/NR NR/NR
Exenatide versus placebo
Gill et al. [20] 27/25 12 55 NR 7.3/NR NR 0/0 0/0 0/0
Kadowaki et al. [21] 115/40 12 59 11 8.0/9.1 25.9 0/0 0/0 0/0
Zinman et al. [22] 121/112 16 56 8 7.9/8.9 34.0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Gao et al. [23] 234/232 16 55 8 8.3/9.3 26.2 0/1 0/0 0/0
DeFronzo et al. [24] 47/45 20 56 NR 7.9/NR NR 0/0 0/0 0/0
Apovian et al. [25] 96/98 24 55 5 7.6/8.6 33.7 0/0 0/0 0/0
Moretto et al. [26] 155/77 24 54 1 7.8/8.7 31.5 0/0 0/0 0/0
Liutkus et al. [27] 111/54 26 54 6 8.2/9.1 33.5 0/0 0/0 0/0
DeFronzo et al. [28] 223/113 30 53 6 8.2/9.4 34.0 1/2 0/0 0/0
Buse et al. [29] 248/123 30 55 6 8.6/10.3 33.5 1/2 0/0 0/0
Kendall et al. [30] 486/247 30 55 9 8.5/9.9 34.0 7/6 0/1 0/1
Exenatide versus rosiglitazone
DeFronzo#et al. [24] 45/45 20 56 NR 7.9/NR NR 0/0 0/0 0/0
Exenatide versus glibenclamide
Derosa et al. [31] 63/65 52 56 NR 8.8/7.9 28.6 NR/NR 0/0 0/0
Exenatide versus BiAsp 30/70
Bergenstal et al. [32] 124/248 24 52 NR 10.1/11.4 33.8 NR/NR 0/1 0/1
Nauck et al. [33] 253/248 52 58 10 8.6/11.1 30.4 10/5 2/1 1/1
Exenatide versus glargine
Barnett et al. [34] 138/138 16 55 7 8.9/12.0 31.3 0/0 0/0 0/0
NCT00360334 [35] 118/116 26 56 NR 8.6/10.8 34.1 2/2 NR/NR NR/NR
Heine et al. [36] 282/267 26 59 9 8.2/10.2 31.3 5/3 0/0 0/0
Bunck et al. [37] 36/33 52 58 5 7.5/9.1 30.6 NR/NR NR/NR NR/NR
Diamant et al. [38] 233/232 26 58 8 8.3/9.8 32.0 1/0 0/0 0/0
Exenatide versus insulin
Davis et al. [39] 33/16 16 53 11 8.1/8.7 34.0 1/0 0/0 0/0
Exenatide LAR versus placebo
Kim et al. [40] 30/14 15 53 4 8.4/10.7 36.0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Exenatide LAR versus pioglitazone
Bergenstal et al. [41] 160/165 26 52 6 8.5/9.1 32.0 0/3 0/0 0/0
Exenatide LAR versus sitagliptin
Bergenstal et al. [41]# 160/166 26 52 6 8.5/9.1 32.0 0/1 0/1 0/0
Liraglutide versus placebo
Madsbad et al. [42] 135/29 12 57 4 7.5/NR 30.4 0/0 0/0 0/0
Vilsbøll [43] 123/40 14 56 4 8.3/11.8 30.1 0/0 0/0 0/0
Seino et al. [44] 180/46 14 57 8 8.3/NR 23.9 0/0 0/0 0/0
Kaku et al. [45] 176/88 24 60 10 8.4/NR 24.9 1/1 0/0 0/0
Russell-Jones et al. [46] 232/115 26 57 9 8.3/9.2 30.6 5/1 1/2 0/2
Zinman et al. [47] 355/175 26 55 9 8.5/10.1 33.7 1/0 0/0 0/0
Marre et al. [48] 695/114 26 56 6 8.4/9.7 29.7 3/2 0/0 0/0
Nauck et al. [49] 724/121 26 57 7 8.4/10.0 31.2 6/0 1/0 0/0
Liraglutide versus metformin
Feinglos et al. [50] 176/34 12 53 5 7.0/NR 34,5 0/0 0/0 0/0
Liraglutide versus rosiglitazone
Marre#et al. [48] 695/232 26 56 6 8.4/9.7 29.7 3/0 0/0 0/0
Liraglutide versus glimepiride
Madsbad#et al. [42] 135/26 12 57 4 7.5/NR 30.4 0/0 0/0 0/0
NCT00614120 [35] 698/231 16 53 7 NR/NR 25.5 3/2 0/0 0/0
Nauck#et al. [49] 724/121 26 57 7 8.4/10.0 31.2 6/2 1/0 0/0
Garber et al. [51] 498/248 52 53 5 8.3/9.4 33.0 2/2 0/1 0/0
Liraglutide versus glibenclamide
NCT00393718 [35] 268/132 24 58 8 8.3/NR 24.8 4/3 1/0 0/0
Liraglutide versus sitagliptin
Pratley et al. [52] 446/219 26 55 6 8.4/10.0 32.8 1/1 1/1 0/1
Liraglutide versus glargine
Russell-Jones#et al. [46] 232/234 26 57 9 8.3/9.2 30.6 5/1 1/1 0/1
Open in a new tab

#Studies with multiple comparators; DM: diabetes mellitus; FPG: fasting plasma glucose; MACE: major cardiovascular events; cardiovasc.: cardiovascular; NR: not reported.

The total number of patients with events was 65 (0.01%) and 49 (0.01%) in the GLP-1 receptor agonists and comparator groups, respectively. Treatment with the experimental drugs was not associated with an increased incidence of MACE (MH-OR.0.74 (0.50–1.08); P = .12). A significant reduction of cardiovascular events with GLP-1 receptor agonists was observed in placebo-controlled trials but not in studies versus active comparators (Figure 2). No consistent pattern suggesting differences between exenatide and liraglutide emerged across analyses. In comparisons with insulin (5 trials with events) and sulfonylureas (4 trials with events), the MH-OR for GLP-1 receptor agonists was 1.77 (0.91–3.44), P = .09, and 0.49 (0.22–1.10), P = .085, respectively.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists on fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events (MACE). Forest plot of individual studies. GLP-1 RA: glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. #Studies with multiple comparators.

All-cause mortality was reported in 33 trials, 9 of which with at least one event (8 and 7) in GLP-1 receptor agonists and comparator, respectively; MH-OR for experimental drugs was 0.67 [0.26–1.78], P = .43.

4. Conclusions

The reduction of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality is one of the main aims of long-term treatment of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes. Therefore, the possibility of an increased cardiovascular risk associated with some hypoglycemic treatments [1, 3–7] is almost paradoxical. Although some data on adverse cardiovascular effects of specific drugs were not confirmed by subsequent investigations [8–11], the concerns of health authorities about the safety of new compounds appear to be justified (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM071627.pdf). In order to reach definitive conclusions on cardiovascular safety of any drug, large-scale, long-term trials should be performed prior to marketing; unfortunately, this effort would be economically unfeasible for pharmaceutical companies. The FDA accepted a compromise, allowing the organization of such trials after drug approval, as a condition for the maintenance of marketing authorization. The limit of this approach is that cardiovascular safety of new drugs will be established only several years after their approval, leaving clinicians without reliable information on this critical point in the meantime.

Meta-analyses of cardiovascular events recorded as adverse events in randomized clinical trials designed for other purposes can represent an additional source of information. This approach has several limitations, most notably the lack of predefined diagnostic criteria and screening methods for incident cardiovascular disease, with the risk of misdiagnosis and underdiagnosis. It should also be recognized that in some of the trials included, cardiovascular events were reported only as adverse events, without being prospectively adjudicated. Moreover, the limited duration of trials designed for metabolic purposes can impair their ability to detect longer-term effects on atherogenesis. Furthermore, the meta-analysis of small trials with few events each poses some specific, and complex, statistical problems [17]. All these limitations affected the reliability of results of some meta-analyses [6, 7] on cardiovascular safety of hypoglycemic drugs [10, 17, 18].

Those considerations should be taken into account when interpreting the results of the present meta-analysis, which exclude, at least in the short term, any major adverse effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists on cardiovascular morbidity. Interestingly, those drugs, as a class, are below to the 1.3 threshold chosen by the FDA for the upper limit of 95% confidence interval to establish the cardiovascular safety of a new drug.

Interestingly, a significant reduction of cardiovascular morbidity with GLP-1 receptor agonists was observed in comparison with placebo. This result should be discussed with great caution, considering the limitations highlighted above; in fact, a meta-analysis of trials performed for different (noncardiovascular) endpoints provides reliable information on safety, but not on efficacy. Speculatively, several mechanisms could underlie a beneficial effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists on cardiovascular risk. Reduction of blood glucose, body weight, and blood pressure, as well as favorable effects on lipid profile, have all been reported. Direct myocardial effects of GLP-1 receptor stimulation could theoretically reduce the functional impact of myocardial ischemia [13], leading to clinical improvements. However, the possibility of a beneficial action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on cardiovascular events should be confirmed through specifically designed randomized clinical trials.

In conclusion, GLP-1 receptor agonists do not appear to increase cardiovascular morbidity in comparison with placebo or other active drugs. Any possible beneficial action should be assessed in further trials.

Author Contributions

M. Monami organized the collection of clinical data, prepared and revised the paper, and performed data analysis. F. Cremasco collected clinical data and assisted in study design and data analysis. C. Lamanna collected clinical data and revised the paper. C. Colombi collected clinical data and assisted in study design. S. Zannoni collected clinical data. I. Iacomelli collected clinical data N. Marchionni reviewed/edited the paper. E. Mannucci designed the study, prepared and revised the paper, and took part in data analysis.

Conflict of Interests

The corresponding author confirms that he had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. M. Monami has received speaking fees from Eli Lilly and Sanofi-Aventis. F. Cremasco is currently employed by Eli Lilly. N. Marchionni has received speaking fees from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi-Aventis, and research grants from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi-Aventis. E. Mannucci has received consultancy fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, speaking fees from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi-Aventis, and research grants from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi-Aventis.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the following persons who were involved in the organization of the study and in the collection and management of data: Ilaria Bracali, Rossella Del Bianco, Cristina Marchi, and Maria Vivarelli.

References

  • 1.The University Group Diabetes Program. A study of the effects of hypoglycemic agents on vascular complications in patients with adult-onset diabetes. V. Evaluation of pheniformin therapy. Diabetes. 1975;24(supplement 1):65–184. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rao AD, Kuhadiya N, Reynolds K, Fonseca VA. Is the combination of sulfonylureas and metformin associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease or all- cause mortality? A meta-analysis of observational studies. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(8):1672–1678. doi: 10.2337/dc08-0167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Finfer S, Bellomi R, Blair D, et al. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically Ill patients. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2009;360(13):1283–1297. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810625. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Malmberg K, Rydén L, Wedel H, et al. FASTTRACK intense metabolic control by means of insulin in patients with diabetes mellitus and acute myocardial infarction (DIGAMI 2): effects on mortality and morbidity. European Heart Journal. 2005;26(7):650–661. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lago RM, Singh PP, Nesto RW. Congestive heart failure and cardiovascular death in patients with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes given thiazolidinediones: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Lancet. 2007;370(9593):1129–1136. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61514-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nissen SE, Wolski K. Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2007;356(24):2457–2471. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa072761. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Singh S, Loke YK, Furberg CD. Long-term risk of cardiovascular events with rosiglitazone: a meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2007;298(10):1189–1195. doi: 10.1001/jama.298.10.1189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. The Lancet. 1998;352:854–865. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Home PD, Pocock SJ, Beck-Nielsen H, et al. Rosiglitazone evaluated for cardiovascular outcomes—an interim analysis. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2007;357(1):28–38. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa073394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mannucci E, Monami M, Marchionni N. Rosiglitazone and cardiovascular risk. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2007;357(9):938–940. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mannucci E, Monami M, Di Bari M, et al. Cardiac safety profile of rosiglitazone: a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. International Journal of Cardiology. 2010;143(2):135–140. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2009.01.064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mannucci E, Rotella CM. Future perspectives on glucagon-like peptide-1, diabetes and cardiovascular risk. Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases. 2008;18(9):639–645. doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2008.08.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sokos GG, Nikolaidis LA, Mankad S, Elahi D, Shannon RP. Glucagon-like peptide-1 infusion improves left ventricular ejection fraction and functional status in patients with chronic heart failure. Journal of Cardiac Failure. 2006;12(9):694–699. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2006.08.211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials. 1996;17(1):1–12. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Petitti DB. Approaches to heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine. 2001;20(23):3625–3633. doi: 10.1002/sim.1091. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009;151(4):264–269. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Diamond GA, Bax L, Kaul S. Uncertain effects of rosiglitazone on the risk for myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2007;147(8):578–581. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Shuster JJ, Jones LS, Salmon DA. Fixed vs random effects meta-analysis in rare event studies: the Rosiglitazone link with myocardial infarction and cardiac death. Statistics in Medicine. 2007;26(24):4375–4385. doi: 10.1002/sim.3060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rosenstock J, Reusch J, Bush M, Yang F, Stewart M. Potential of albiglutide, a long-acting GLP-1 receptor agonist, in type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial exploring weekly, biweekly, and monthly dosing. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(10):1880–1886. doi: 10.2337/dc09-0366. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Gill A, Hoogwerf BJ, Burger J, et al. Effect of exenatide on heart rate and blood pressure in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized pilot study. Cardiovascular Diabetology. 2010;9, article 6 doi: 10.1186/1475-2840-9-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kadowaki T, Namba M, Yamamura A, Sowa H, Wolka AM, Brodows RG. Exenatide exhibits dose-dependent effects on glycemic control over 12 weeks in Japanese patients with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes. Endocrine Journal. 2009;56(3):415–424. doi: 10.1507/endocrj.k08e-296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Zinman B, Hoogwerf BJ, Durán García S, et al. The effect of adding exenatide to a thiazolidinedione in suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2007;146(7):477–485. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-146-7-200704030-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gao Y, Yoon KH, Chuang LM, et al. Efficacy and safety of exenatide in patients of Asian descent with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin or metformin and a sulphonylurea. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice. 2009;83(1):69–76. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2008.09.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.DeFronzo RA, Triplitt C, Qu Y, Lewis MS, Maggs D, Glass LC. Effects of exenatide plus rosiglitazone on β-cell function and insulin sensitivity in subjects with type 2 diabetes on metformin. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(5):951–957. doi: 10.2337/dc09-1521. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Apovian CM, Bergenstal RM, Cuddihy RM, et al. Effects of exenatide combined with lifestyle modification in patients with type 2 diabetes. American Journal of Medicine. 2010;123(5):468.e9–468.e17. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.11.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Moretto TJ, Milton DR, Ridge TD, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of exenatide monotherapy over 24 weeks in antidiabetic drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Clinical Therapeutics. 2008;30(8):1448–1460. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2008.08.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Liutkus J, Rosas Guzman J, Norwood P, et al. A placebo-controlled trial of exenatide twice-daily added to thiazolidinediones alone or in combination with metformin. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism. 2010;12(12):1058–1065. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2010.01251.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.DeFronzo RA, Ratner RE, Han J, Kim DD, Fineman MS, Baron AD. Effects of exenatide (exendin-4) on glycemic control and weight over 30 weeks in metformin-treated patients with type 2. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(5):1092–1100. doi: 10.2337/diacare.28.5.1092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Buse JB, Henry RR, Han J, Kim DD, Fineman MS, Baron AD. Effects of exenatide (exendin-4) on glycemic control over 30 weeks in sulfonylurea-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(11):2628–2635. doi: 10.2337/diacare.27.11.2628. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kendall DM, Riddle MC, Rosenstock J, et al. Effects of exenatide (exendin-4) on glycemic control over 30 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin and a sulfonylurea. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(5):1083–1091. doi: 10.2337/diacare.28.5.1083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Derosa G, Maffioli P, Salvadeo SAT, et al. Exenatide versus glibenclamide in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics. 2010;12(3):233–240. doi: 10.1089/dia.2009.0141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bergenstal R, Lewin A, Bailey T, Chang D, Gylvin T, Roberts V. Efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 versus exenatide in subjects with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control with metformin and a sulfonylurea. Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2009;25(1):65–75. doi: 10.1185/03007990802597951. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Nauck MA, Duran S, Kim D, et al. A comparison of twice-daily exenatide and biphasic insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes who were suboptimally controlled with sulfonylurea and metformin: a non-inferiority study. Diabetologia. 2007;50(2):259–267. doi: 10.1007/s00125-006-0510-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Barnett AH, Burger J, Johns D, et al. Tolerability and efficacy of exenatide and titrated insulin glargine in adult patients with type 2 diabetes previously uncontrolled with metformin or a sulfonylurea: a multinational, randomized, open-label, two-period, crossover noninferiority trial. Clinical Therapeutics. 2007;29(11):2333–2348. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2007.11.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/, 2010.
  • 36.Heine RJ, Van Gaal LF, Johns D, Mihm MJ, Widel MH, Brodows RG. Exenatide versus insulin glargine in patients with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2005;143(8):559–569. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-143-8-200510180-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bunck MC, Diamant M, Cornér A, et al. One-year treatment with exenatide improves β-cell function, compared with insulin glargine, in metformin-treated type 2 diabetic patients: a randomized, controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(5):762–768. doi: 10.2337/dc08-1797. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Diamant M, Van Gaal L, Stranks S, et al. Once weekly exenatide compared with insulin glargine titrated to target in patients with type 2 diabetes (DURATION-3): an open-label randomised trial. The Lancet. 2010;375(9733):2234–2243. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60406-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Davis SN, Johns D, Maggs D, Xu H, Northrup JH, Brodows RG. Exploring the substitution of exenatide for insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin in combination with oral antidiabetes agents. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(11):2767–2772. doi: 10.2337/dc06-2532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kim D, MacConell L, Zhuang D, et al. Effects of once-weekly dosing of a long-acting release formulation of exenatide on glucose control and body weight in subjects with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(6):1487–1493. doi: 10.2337/dc06-2375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Bergenstal RM, Wysham C, MacConell L, et al. Efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly versus sitagliptin or pioglitazone as an adjunct to metformin for treatment of type 2 diabetes (DURATION-2): a randomised trial. The Lancet. 2010;376:431–439. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60590-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Madsbad S, Schmitz O, Ranstam J, Jakobsen G, Matthews DR. Improved glycemic control with no weight increase in patients with type 2 diabetes after once-daily treatment with the long-acting glucagon-like peptide 1 analog liraglutide (NN2211): a 12-week, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(6):1335–1342. doi: 10.2337/diacare.27.6.1335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Vilsbøll T. Liraglutide: a once-daily GLP-1 analogue for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs. 2007;16(2):231–237. doi: 10.1517/13543784.16.2.231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Seino Y, Rasmussen MF, Zdravkovic M, Kaku K. Dose-dependent improvement in glycemia with once-daily liraglutide without hypoglycemia or weight gain: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice. 2008;81(2):161–168. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2008.03.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kaku K, Rasmussen MF, Clauson P, Seino Y. Improved glycaemic control with minimal hypoglycaemia and no weight change with the once-daily human glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue liraglutide as add-on to sulphonylurea in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism. 2010;12(4):341–347. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2009.01194.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Russell-Jones D, Vaag A, Schmitz O, et al. Liraglutide vs insulin glargine and placebo in combination with metformin and sulfonylurea therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus (LEAD-5 met+SU): a randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia. 2009;52(10):2046–2055. doi: 10.1007/s00125-009-1472-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Zinman B, Gerich J, Buse JB, et al. Efficacy and safety of the human glucagon-like peptide-1 analog liraglutide in combination with metformin and thiazolidinedione in patients with type 2 diabetes (LEAD-4 Met + TZD) Diabetes Care. 2010;32:1224–1230. doi: 10.2337/dc08-2124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Marre M, Shaw J, Brändle M, et al. Liraglutide, a once-daily human GLP-1 analogue, added to a sulphonylurea over 26 weeks produces greater improvements in glycaemic and weight control compared with adding rosiglitazone or placebo in subjects with Type 2 diabetes (LEAD-1 SU) Diabetic Medicine. 2009;26(3):268–278. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2009.02666.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Nauck M, Frid A, Hermansen K, et al. Efficacy and safety comparison of liraglutide, glimepiride, and placebo, all in combination with metformin, in type 2 diabetes: the LEAD (liraglutide effect and action in diabetes)-2 study. Diabetes Care. 2009;32:84–90. doi: 10.2337/dc08-1355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Feinglos MN, Saad MF, Pi-Sunyer FX, An B, Santiago O. Effects of liraglutide (NN2211), a long-acting GLP-1 analogue, on glycaemic control and bodyweight in subjects with Type 2 diabetes. Diabetic Medicine. 2005;22(8):1016–1023. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01567.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Garber A, Henry R, Ratner R, et al. Liraglutide versus glimepiride monotherapy for type 2 diabetes (LEAD-3 Mono): a randomised, 52-week, phase III, double-blind, parallel-treatment trial. The Lancet. 2009;373(9662):473–481. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61246-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Pratley RE, Nauck M, Bailey T, et al. Liraglutide versus sitagliptin for patients with type 2 diabetes who did not have adequate glycaemic control with metformin: a 26-week, randomised, parallel-group, open-label trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9724):1447–1456. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60307-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Experimental Diabetes Research are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES