Helena M de Wit1, Maarten Te Groen1, Maroeska M Rovers2, Cees J Tack1. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 2. Departments of Operating Rooms and Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
AIMS: The size of the placebo response in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) treatment and its relation to the route of drug administration have not been systematically reviewed. We aimed to determine weight loss, change in HbA1c and incidence of adverse events after treatment with injectable placebo GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1ra), compared with oral placebo DPP-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) and placebo SGLT-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and Central were searched up to September 2014 for randomized placebo controlled trials investigating GLP-1ra, DPP-4i or SGLT2-i. Data on placebo groups were extracted and pooled using a generic inverse variance random effects model. RESULTS: Sixty-seven trials were included, involving 2522, 5290 and 2028 patients randomized to placebo GLP-1ra, placebo DPP-4i and placebo SGLT-2i, respectively. Body weight decreased by -0.67 kg (95% CI -1.03, -0.31) after treatment with placebo GLP-1ra (-0.76 kg [95% CI -1.10, -0.43] with placebo short acting GLP-1ra and -0.32 kg [95% CI -1.75, 1.10] with placebo long acting GLP-1ra) and by -0.31 kg (95% CI -0.64, 0.01) with placebo DPP-4i (P = 0.06 for difference with placebo short acting GLP-1ra). Placebo SGLT-2i resulted in an intermediate -0.48 kg (95% CI -0.81, -0.15) weight loss. Weight loss with placebo showed a strong correlation with the active comparator drug (r(2) = 0.40-0.78). HbA1c changed little with placebo treatment (-0.23%, 0.10% and -0.13% for placebo GLP-1ra, DPP-4i and SGLT-2i). Adverse events occurred frequently with placebo, were often similar to the active comparator drug and led to drop-out in 2.0-2.7% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The response to placebo treatment was related to its active comparator, with injectable placebo GLP-1ra showing a relevant response on weight, whereas oral placebo DPP4i showed no significant response. These findings may suggest that subjective expectations influence T2DM treatment efficacy, which can possibly be employed therapeutically.
AIMS: The size of the placebo response in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) treatment and its relation to the route of drug administration have not been systematically reviewed. We aimed to determine weight loss, change in HbA1c and incidence of adverse events after treatment with injectable placebo GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1ra), compared with oral placebo DPP-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) and placebo SGLT-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and Central were searched up to September 2014 for randomized placebo controlled trials investigating GLP-1ra, DPP-4i or SGLT2-i. Data on placebo groups were extracted and pooled using a generic inverse variance random effects model. RESULTS: Sixty-seven trials were included, involving 2522, 5290 and 2028 patients randomized to placebo GLP-1ra, placebo DPP-4i and placebo SGLT-2i, respectively. Body weight decreased by -0.67 kg (95% CI -1.03, -0.31) after treatment with placebo GLP-1ra (-0.76 kg [95% CI -1.10, -0.43] with placebo short acting GLP-1ra and -0.32 kg [95% CI -1.75, 1.10] with placebo long acting GLP-1ra) and by -0.31 kg (95% CI -0.64, 0.01) with placebo DPP-4i (P = 0.06 for difference with placebo short acting GLP-1ra). Placebo SGLT-2i resulted in an intermediate -0.48 kg (95% CI -0.81, -0.15) weight loss. Weight loss with placebo showed a strong correlation with the active comparator drug (r(2) = 0.40-0.78). HbA1c changed little with placebo treatment (-0.23%, 0.10% and -0.13% for placebo GLP-1ra, DPP-4i and SGLT-2i). Adverse events occurred frequently with placebo, were often similar to the active comparator drug and led to drop-out in 2.0-2.7% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The response to placebo treatment was related to its active comparator, with injectable placebo GLP-1ra showing a relevant response on weight, whereas oral placebo DPP4i showed no significant response. These findings may suggest that subjective expectations influence T2DM treatment efficacy, which can possibly be employed therapeutically.
Authors: W David Strain; Valentina Lukashevich; Wolfgang Kothny; Marie-José Hoellinger; Päivi Maria Paldánius Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Bo Ahrén; Susan L Johnson; Murray Stewart; Deborah T Cirkel; Fred Yang; Caroline Perry; Mark N Feinglos Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: K Stenlöf; W T Cefalu; K-A Kim; M Alba; K Usiskin; C Tong; W Canovatchel; G Meininger Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2013-01-24 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: Anastasia Ivanova; Elliot Israel; Lisa M LaVange; Michael C Peters; Loren C Denlinger; Wendy C Moore; Leonard B Bacharier; M Alison Marquis; Nathan M Gotman; Michael R Kosorok; Chalmer Tomlinson; David T Mauger; Steve N Georas; Rosalind J Wright; Patricia Noel; Gary L Rosner; Praveen Akuthota; Dean Billheimer; Eugene R Bleecker; Juan Carlos Cardet; Mario Castro; Emily A DiMango; Serpil C Erzurum; John V Fahy; Merritt L Fajt; Benjamin M Gaston; Fernando Holguin; Sonia Jain; Nicholas J Kenyon; Jerry A Krishnan; Monica Kraft; Rajesh Kumar; Mark C Liu; Ngoc P Ly; James N Moy; Wanda Phipatanakul; Kristie Ross; Lewis J Smith; Stanley J Szefler; W Gerald Teague; Michael E Wechsler; Sally E Wenzel; Steven R White Journal: J Biopharm Stat Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 1.051