IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0103798.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of GLP-1 Analogues versus Sitagliptin in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Head-to-Head Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Tiansheng Wang
  • Zhuoyue Gou
  • Fei Wang
  • Manling Ma
  • Suo-di Zhai

Abstract

Background: Incretin–based therapies which include glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are recommended by several practice guidelines as second-line agents for add-on therapy to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who do not achieve glycemic control with metformin plus lifestyle interventions alone. The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis of existing head to head studies to compare the efficacy and safety of GLP-1 analogues with DPP-4 inhibitors. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head studies to compare GLP-1 analogues with DPP-4 inhibitors in the management of type 2 diabetes. A random effects model was selected to perform the meta-analyses, results were expressed as weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risks for dichotomous outcomes, both with 95% confidence intervals, and with I2 values and P values as markers of heterogeneity. Results: Four head-to-head randomized controlled studies with 1755 patients were included. Compared to sitagliptin, GLP-1 analogues are more effective in reducing HbA1C (weight mean difference −0.41%, 95% CI −0.51 to −0.31) and body weight (weight mean difference −1.55 kg, 95% CI −1.98 to −1.12). Conversely, GLP-1 analogues are associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events compared to sitagliptin: nausea (relative risk 3.14, 95% CI 2.15 to 4.59), vomiting (relative risk 2.60, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.56), diarrhea (relative risk 1.82, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.69), and constipation (relative risk 2.50, 95% CI 1.33 to 4.70). Conclusions: The result of this meta-analysis demonstrates that compared to sitagliptin, GLP-1 analogues are more effective for glycemic control and weight loss, but have similar efficacy in reducing blood pressure and lipid parameters, however, GLP-1 analogues are associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events and a similar incidence of hypoglycemia compared to sitagliptin.

Suggested Citation

  • Tiansheng Wang & Zhuoyue Gou & Fei Wang & Manling Ma & Suo-di Zhai, 2014. "Comparison of GLP-1 Analogues versus Sitagliptin in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Head-to-Head Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-10, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0103798
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103798
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103798
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103798&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0103798?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dongsheng Cheng & Yang Fei & Yumei Liu & Junhui Li & Yuqiang Chen & Xiaoxia Wang & Niansong Wang, 2014. "Efficacy and Safety of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients with Moderate to Severe Renal Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-11, October.
    2. Sarah Batson & Hannah Burton, 2016. "A Systematic Review of Methods for Handling Missing Variance Data in Meta-Analyses of Interventions in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-10, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0103798. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.