AIM: Liraglutide (LIRA) once-daily has provided greater A1C reductions than either exenatide (EXEN) twice-daily or sitagliptin (SITA) once-daily in head-to-head trials. The objective of this analysis is to compare the real-world clinical effectiveness of these agents in the USA. METHODS: Using the IMS Health (Alexandria, VA, USA) integrated claims database, A1C outcomes in patients aged ≥ 18 years with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who initiated either LIRA, EXEN or SITA (including SITA/metformin) were retrospectively compared. Patients included in the analysis had ≥ 1 prescription for LIRA, EXEN or SITA between January and December 2010 (index period) and persisted with their index treatment regimens for 6 months post-index. Outcomes included changes in A1C from baseline (45 days pre-index through 7 days post-index) to follow-up [6 months post-index (± 45)] and the proportion of patients reaching A1C<7%. Multivariable regression models adjusted for confounding factors (e.g. age, comorbidities, baseline A1C and background antidiabetic therapy). RESULTS: The predicted change in A1C from baseline was greater for LIRA patients compared with both SITA (-1.08 vs. -0.68%; treatment difference 0.40%, p < 0.0001) and EXEN (-1.08 vs. -0.75%; treatment difference 0.32%, p < 0.001). Predicted A1C goal achievement, derived from the multivariate logistic regression model, was higher with LIRA compared with both SITA [64.4% (95% confidence interval, CI: 63.5-65.3) vs. 49.4% (95% CI: 48.5-50.4); p < 0.0001] and EXEN [64.4% (95% CI: 63.5-65.3) vs. 53.6% (95% CI: 52.6-54.6); p < 0.0001]. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, LIRA was associated with significantly greater reductions in A1C and improved glycaemic goal attainment compared with either EXEN or SITA among adult patients with T2D.
AIM: Liraglutide (LIRA) once-daily has provided greater A1C reductions than either exenatide (EXEN) twice-daily or sitagliptin (SITA) once-daily in head-to-head trials. The objective of this analysis is to compare the real-world clinical effectiveness of these agents in the USA. METHODS: Using the IMS Health (Alexandria, VA, USA) integrated claims database, A1C outcomes in patients aged ≥ 18 years with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who initiated either LIRA, EXEN or SITA (including SITA/metformin) were retrospectively compared. Patients included in the analysis had ≥ 1 prescription for LIRA, EXEN or SITA between January and December 2010 (index period) and persisted with their index treatment regimens for 6 months post-index. Outcomes included changes in A1C from baseline (45 days pre-index through 7 days post-index) to follow-up [6 months post-index (± 45)] and the proportion of patients reaching A1C<7%. Multivariable regression models adjusted for confounding factors (e.g. age, comorbidities, baseline A1C and background antidiabetic therapy). RESULTS: The predicted change in A1C from baseline was greater for LIRA patients compared with both SITA (-1.08 vs. -0.68%; treatment difference 0.40%, p < 0.0001) and EXEN (-1.08 vs. -0.75%; treatment difference 0.32%, p < 0.001). Predicted A1C goal achievement, derived from the multivariate logistic regression model, was higher with LIRA compared with both SITA [64.4% (95% confidence interval, CI: 63.5-65.3) vs. 49.4% (95% CI: 48.5-50.4); p < 0.0001] and EXEN [64.4% (95% CI: 63.5-65.3) vs. 53.6% (95% CI: 52.6-54.6); p < 0.0001]. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, LIRA was associated with significantly greater reductions in A1C and improved glycaemic goal attainment compared with either EXEN or SITA among adult patients with T2D.