Does evidence matter? Comparative effectiveness research and prescribing of Type 2 diabetes mellitus drugs.

J Comp Eff Res · 2019

Last updated 2026-05-28

A study looked at how research comparing diabetes drugs influenced real-world prescribing from 2006 to 2016. For GLP-1 drugs, research showed one drug, Liraglutide, worked better than another, Exenatide twice daily, and prescribing of Exenatide dropped by 50 percentage points after Liraglutide became available. For another class of drugs, DPP4 inhibitors, research did not clearly show one drug was better than others, and the first drug to enter the market, Sitagliptin, remained the most prescribed.

AI summary of the abstract below.

Journal	J Comp Eff Res, 2019
Citations	0
Relative citation ratio	0.00
NIH percentile	0
Molecules	—
Conditions studied	Type 2 Diabetes

Abstract

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) can help ascertain value of new drugs; however, limited research assesses the translation of CER into clinical practice. The objective of this study was to analyze the association between CER evidence and prescribing trends within two markets of Type 2 diabetes mellitus.  A retrospective analysis to determine the prescribing trends from 2006 to 2016 and an electronic literature search to identify CER comparing different drugs was conducted.  In glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists market, CER showed superiority of Liraglutide. Prescribing of Exenatide twice daily dropped by 50% points as Liraglutide entered the market. In dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors market, CER did not suggest conclusive superiority. Nevertheless, Sitagliptin, the first entrant, continued to dominate throughout.  CER evidence appeared to be associated with prescribing trends in GLP-1 agonists market; however, no associations were found in DPP4 inhibitors market. The translation of evidence into practice can be limited by the availability of superiority trials and timing of their availability.

Verbatim abstract via PubMed 31789054 ↗