A retrospective, case-note survey of type 2 diabetes patients prescribed incretin-based therapies in clinical practice.
Diabetes Ther · 2013
Last updated 2026-05-28In a study of 1,114 type 2 diabetes patients in the UK, those taking liraglutide saw a greater improvement in blood sugar control compared to exenatide or DPP-4 inhibitors. Weight loss was similar for liraglutide and exenatide but greater than for DPP-4 inhibitors. About 32% of liraglutide users and 24% of exenatide users met NICE criteria for continuing treatment, compared to 61% of DPP-4 inhibitor users. More patients (62.5%) preferred GLP-1 receptor agonists over DPP-4 inhibitors.
AI summary of the abstract below.
| Journal | Diabetes Ther, 2013 |
|---|---|
| Citations | 29 |
| Relative citation ratio | 1.04 |
| NIH percentile | 52 |
| Molecules | — |
| Conditions studied | Type 2 Diabetes |
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: While incretin-based therapies have been compared in clinical trials, data comparing their relative efficacy in clinical practice remain limited, particularly when prescribed according to clinical guidelines. This study assessed the clinical and cost-effectiveness of, and patient preference for, incretin-based therapies initiated according to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommendations in UK clinical practice.
METHODS: In a retrospective chart audit, anonymized data were collected for patients receiving incretin-based therapy according to NICE recommendations in clinical practice in Wales, UK. Parameters assessed included glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), weight, achievement of NICE treatment continuation criteria, adverse events, treatment discontinuation, and drug cost-effectiveness based on observed treatment effects. Treatment preference for a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) was assessed prospectively.
RESULTS: Patients (1,114) were followed-up for a median of 48 weeks (256 received liraglutide, 148 received exenatide twice daily, and 710 received a DPP-4i). Liraglutide reduced HbA1c significantly more versus exenatide or DPP-4i (both P < 0.05). Weight changes were similar for GLP-1RAs but significantly greater vs. DPP-4is (both P < 0.05). NICE treatment continuation criteria were met by 32% and 24% of liraglutide 1.2 mg- and exenatide-treated patients (≥1% HbA1c reduction, ≥3% weight loss), and 61% of DPP-4i-treated patients (≥0.5% HbA1c reduction). Life-years gained per patient were 0.12, 0.08, and 0.07, and costs per quality-adjusted life-year were £16,505, £16,648, and £20,661 for liraglutide, exenatide, and DPP-4is, respectively. More patients (62.5%) preferred the GLP-1RA profile, with these patients having higher baseline body mass index score and HbA1c values, and longer diabetes duration than those preferring the DPP-4i profile.
CONCLUSION: When prescribed according to NICE recommendations, incretin-based therapies are both clinically and cost-effective options, with liraglutide providing greatest HbA1c reductions. Greater body weight reductions occur with GLP-1RAs compared with DPP-4is. Patients with higher baseline HbA1c and longer diabetes duration prefer a GLP-1RA profile versus a DPP-4i.
Verbatim abstract via PubMed 23225378 ↗