Purpose The effect and safety of Semaglutide and Liraglutide on weight loss in people with obesity or overweight were evaluated by a Network Meta-Analysis system to provide an evidence-based reference for clinical treatment. Methods Computer searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to collect Liraglutide and Semaglutide injection monotherapy RCTs until April 2022, using Stata 16 software for Network Meta-Analysis. Results Twenty-three RCTs study with 11,545 patients and 4 interventions (semaglutide 2.4mg, semaglutide 1.0mg, liraglutide 3.0mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg) were finally included. In terms of efficacy, semaglutide 2.4mg (−12.47 kg) had the best weight loss, followed by liraglutide 3.0mg (−5.24 kg), semaglutide 1.0mg (−3.74 kg) and liraglutide 1.8mg (−3.29 kg). In terms of decreased HbA1c, semaglutide 2.4mg (MD=−1.48%, 95% CI [−1.93, −1.04]), semaglutide 1.0mg (MD=−1.36%, 95% CI [−1.72, −1.01]), liraglutide 1.8mg (MD=−1.23%, 95%Cl [−1.66, −0.80]) more effective than placebo. In terms of safety, the total incidence of adverse events was semaglutide 2.4mg > liraglutide 3.0mg > liraglutide 1.8mg > semaglutide 1.0mg compare to placebo, the incidence of serious adverse events was liraglutide 3.0mg > liraglutide 1.8mg > semaglutide 2.4mg > semaglutide 1.0mg, the incidence of hypoglycemic events was semaglutide 2.4mg > liraglutide 3.0mg > semaglutide 1.0mg > liraglutide 1.8mg. Conclusion This meta-analysis indicates that all GLP-1RAs were more efficacious than placebo in people with obesity or overweight on efficacy. Semaglutide 2.4mg has an absolute advantage in weight loss and decreased HbA1c, but the incidence of total adverse events is also the highest and can cause hypoglycemia. In addition, although liraglutide 3.0mg was less effective than semaglutide 2.4mg, serious adverse events were still the most elevated.

Background: Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) and vonoprazan are recommended as first-line therapies for erosive esophagitis (EE). However, it is uncertain how the magnitude of efficacy and safety of first-line therapy, the choice of individual PPIs or vonoprazan in the treatment of EE remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan and PPIs in healing esophageal mucosal injury in patients with EE.Methods: Relevant databases were searched to collect randomized controlled trials of proton pump inhibitors and vonoprazan in the treatment of reflux esophagitis up to December 2021. Studies on standard-dose PPIs or vonoprazan that were published in Chinese or English and assessed healing effects in EE were included in the analysis. Stata16.0 was used to conduct a network Meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the treatment.Results: A total of 41 literatures were included with 11,592 enrolled patients. For the endoscopic cure rate, all the PPIs and vonoprazan significantly improve compared to Placebo; Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, Ilaprazole ranked first, followed by esomeprazole, vonoprazan, pantoprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole, rabeprazole and placebo therapy ranked the last. For the rate of adverse events, there was no significant difference among all the PPIs, vonoprazan, and placebo.Conclusions: Ilaprazole, esomeprazole and vonoprazan have more advantages in mucosal erosion healing, there was no significant difference in the comparative safety among all interventions.Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval, EE = erosive esophagitis, GERD = gastroesophageal reflux disease, NMA = network meta-analysis, OR = odds ratio, PPIs = proton-pump inhibitors, SUCRA = surface under the cumulative ranking curve.

Purpose According to the requirements of the “Quick Guide for Drug Evaluation and Selection in Chinese Medical Institutions”, this health technology assessment provides an evidence-based basis for drug selection and rational clinical use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist drugs in medical institutions. Methods We consult the drug instructions, clinical treatment guidelines and search relevant documents in databases such as China national knowledge infrastructure, Wanfang, PubMed, and government websites such as National Medical Products Administration, Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency to collect and sort out the relevant information of the indications, pharmacological effects, guideline recommendations, drug prices and other information of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, using a percentile system systematically evaluate the five dimensions of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in terms of pharmaceutical properties, efficacy, safety, economy, and other attributes. Results The final scores of the evaluation results from high to low are semaglutide (71.00 points), dulaglutide (68.75 points), liraglutide (67.50 points), exenatide (67.00 points), lixisenatide (63.50 points), polyethylene glycol loxenatide (58.00 points) and benaglutide (49.00 points). Conclusion In clinical practice, semaglutide and dulaglutide are the top two drugs that can be used as recommended drugs. This health technology assessment can provide an evidence-based basis for hospital selection and rational use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Clinicians can rationally choose and use drugs according to the patient’s conditions and needs.

No abstract