Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2015-01
Gastrointestinal Adverse Events of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are a new class of drugs used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) are the most frequently reported treatment-related AEs for GLP-1 RAs. We aim to evaluate the effect of GLP-1 RAs on the incidence of GI AEs of T2DM.
Materials and Methods:
The overview of the GI events of GLP-1 RAs has been performed on relevant publications through the literature search, such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov The manufacturer was contacted regarding unpublished data. We analyzed direct and indirect comparisons of different treatments using Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Results:
Taspoglutide 30 mg once weekly (TAS30QW) and lixisenatide 30 μg twice daily (LIX30BID) were ranked the top two drugs in terms of GI AEs versus placebo. The odds ratios of nausea and vomiting for TAS30QW were 11.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.89, 46.9) and 51.7 (95% CI, 7.07, 415), respectively, and that of diarrhea was 4.93 (95% CI, 1.75, 14.7) for LIX30BID.
Conclusions:
Our study found all GLP-1 RA dose regimens significantly increased the incidence of GI AEs, compared with placebo or conventional treatment. The occurrence of GI AEs was different with diverse dose regimens of GLP-1 RAs. TAS30QW had the maximum probability to occur nausea and vomiting, whereas LIX30BID had the maximum probability to cause development of diarrhea versus other treatments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
WhitingDR, GuariguataL, WeilC, et al.: IDF diabetes atlas: global estimates of the prevalence of diabetes for 2011 and 2030. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2011; 94:311–321.
2.
LevetanC: Oral antidiabetic agents in type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin, 2007; 23:945–952.
3.
PratleyRE: Overview of glucagon-like peptide-1 analogs and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes. Medscape J Med, 2008; 10:171.
4.
HansenKB, KnopFK, HolstJJ, et al.: Treatment of type 2 diabetes with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Int J Clin Pract, 2009; 63:1154–1160.
5.
DruckerDJ, NauckMA: The incretin system: glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes. Lancet, 2006; 368:1696–1705.
6.
TzefosM, HarrisK, BrackettA: Clinical efficacy and safety of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists in development for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults. Ann Pharmacother, 2012; 46:68–78.
7.
ZinmanB, SchmidtWE, MosesA, et al.: Achieving a clinically relevant composite outcome of an HbA1c of <7% without weight gain or hypoglycaemia in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of the liraglutide clinical trial programme. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2012; 14:77–82.
8.
AmoriRE, LauJ, PittasAG. Efficacy and safety of incretin therapy in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA, 2007; 298:194–206.
9.
NorrisSL, LeeN, ThakurtaS, et al.: Exenatide efficacy and safety: a systematic review. Diabet Med, 2009; 26:837–846.
10.
ShyangdanDS, RoyleP, ClarC, et al.: Glucagon-like peptide analogues for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2011;(10):CD006423.
11.
LiWX, GouJF, TianJH, et al.: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists versus insulin glargine for type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp, 2010; 71:211–238.
12.
MontanyaE, SestiG: A review of efficacy and safety data regarding the use of liraglutide, a once-daily human glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue, in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther, 2009; 31:2472–2488.
13.
JadadAR, MooreRA, CarrollD, et al.: Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials, 1996; 17:1–12.
14.
KeusF, WetterslevJ, GluudC, et al.: Robustness assessments are needed to reduce bias in meta-analyses that include zero-event randomized trials. Am J Gastroenterol, 2009; 104:546–551.
15.
FleissJL: The statistical basis of meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res, 1993; 2:121–145.
16.
LuG, AdesAE: Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med, 2004; 23:3105–3124.
17.
AdesAE, SculpherM, SuttonA, et al.: Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics, 2006; 24:1–19.
18.
SalantiG, MarinhoV, HigginsJP: A case study of multiple-treatments meta-analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009; 62:857–864.
19.
SpiegelhalterDJ, BestNG, CarlinBP, et al.: Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc B, 2002; 64:583–639.
20.
SalantiG, AdesAE, IoannidisJP: Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol, 2011; 64:163–171.
21.
EbertEC: Gastrointestinal complications of diabetes mellitus. Dis Mon, 2005; 51:620–663.
22.
SogabeM, OkahisaT, TsujigamiK, et al.: Ultrasonographic assessment of gastric motility in diabetic gastroparesis before and after attaining glycemic control. J Gastroenterol, 2005; 40:583–590.
23.
QuanC, TalleyNJ, JonesMP, et al.: Gain and loss of gastrointestinal symptoms in diabetes mellitus: associations with psychiatric disease, glycemic control, and autonomic neuropathy over 2 years of follow-up. Am J Gastroenterol, 2008; 103:2023–2030.
24.
MerianF, MalageladaJR: Gastroparesis and dyspepsia in patients with diabetes mellitus. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 1995; 7:713–723.
25.
RaynerCK, SamsomM, JonesKL, et al.: Relationships of upper gastrointestinal motor and sensory function with glycemic control. Diabetes Care, 2001; 24:371–381.
26.
FinemanMS, BicsakTA, ShenLZ, et al.: Effect on glycemic control of exenatide (synthetic exendin-4) additive to existing metformin and/or sulfonylurea treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2003; 26:2370–2377.
27.
BytzerP, TalleyNJ, JonesMP, et al.: Oral hypoglycaemic drugs and gastrointestinal symptoms in diabetes mellitus. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2001; 15:137–142.
28.
IshiiM, NakamuraT, KasaiF, et al.: Altered postprandial insulin requirement in IDDM patients with gastroparesis. Diabetes Care, 1994; 17:901–903.
29.
ShyangdanDS, RoylePL, ClarC, et al.: Glucagon-like peptide analogues for type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Endocr Disord, 2010; 10:20.
30.
MacconellL, BrownC, GurneyK, et al.: Safety and tolerability of exenatide twice daily in patients with type 2 diabetes: integrated analysis of 5594 patients from 19 placebo-controlled and comparator-controlled clinical trials. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes, 2012; 5:29–41.
31.
CaiL, CaiY, LuZJ, et al.: The efficacy and safety of vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Clin Pharm Ther, 2012; 37:386–398.
32.
NauckMA, RatnerRE, KapitzaC, et al.: Treatment with the human once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 analog taspoglutide in combination with metformin improves glycemic control and lowers body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin alone: a double-blind placebo-controlled study. Diabetes Care, 2009; 32:1237–1243.
33.
RazI, FonsecaV, KipnesM, et al.: Efficacy and safety of taspoglutide monotherapy in drug-naive type 2 diabetic patients after 24 weeks of treatment: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study (T-emerge 1). Diabetes Care, 2012; 35:485–487.
34.
MorettoTJ, MiltonDR, RidgeTD, 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. Clin Ther, 2008; 30:1448–1460.
35.
NauckM, FridA, HermansenK, et al.: Efficacy and safety comparison of liraglutide, glimepiride, and placebo, all in combination with metformin, in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2009; 32:84–90.
36.
KadowakiT, NambaM, YamamuraA, et al.: Exenatide exhibits dose-dependent effects on glycemic control over 12 weeks in Japanese patients with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes. Endocr J, 2009; 56:415–424.
37.
BlevinsT, PullmanJ, MalloyJ, et al.: DURATION-5: exenatide once weekly resulted in greater improvements in glycemic control compared with exenatide twice daily in patients with type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2011; 96:1301–1310.
38.
DruckerDJ, BuseJB, TaylorK, et al.: Exenatide once weekly versus twice daily for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority study. Lancet, 2008; 372:1240–1250.
39.
BuseJB, HenryRR, HanJ, et al.: Effects of exenatide (exendin-4) on glycemic control over 30 weeks in sulfonylurea-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2004; 27:2628–2635.
40.
PratleyR, NauckM, BaileyT, et al.: One year of liraglutide treatment offers sustained and more effective glycaemic control and weight reduction compared with sitagliptin, both in combination with metformin, in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised, parallel-group, open-label trial. Int J Clin Pract, 2011; 65:397–407.
41.
BuseJB, RosenstockJ, SestiG, et al.: Liraglutide once a day versus exenatide twice a day for type 2 diabetes: a 26-week randomised, parallel-group, multinational, open-label trial (LEAD-6). Lancet, 2009; 374:39–47.
42.
BuseJB, SestiG, SchmidtWE, et al.: Switching to once-daily liraglutide from twice-daily exenatide further improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes using oral agents. Diabetes Care, 2010; 33:1300–1303.
43.
CaldwellDM, AdesAE, HigginsJP: Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ, 2005; 331:897–900.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
