The present meta-analysis of real-world data does not suggest that IBT is associated with AP. Although we should continue to remain vigilant, IBTs should be regarded as reasonable options to consider adding to the regimen of a patient with type 2 diabetes.
BackgroundIncretin–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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsFour 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).ConclusionsThe 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.
Background
Evidence about remdesivir-associated acute kidney injury (AKI) among patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was controversial.
Aim
To investigate the signal of disproportionate reporting of remdesivir-related AKI in COVID-19 patients over time with data from US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System.
Method
Adverse events in COVID-19 patients reported between April 2020 and September 2022 were included. Reporting odds ratios (RORs) of AKI and renal disorders (a more sensitive definition for AKI) were estimated to compare remdesivir with other medications prescribed in comparable situations of COVID-19.
Results
During the entire study period, significant signals were identified for remdesivir-related AKI (ROR 2.00, 95% CI: 1.83–2.18) and renal disorder (ROR 2.35, 95% CI: 2.17–2.54) when compared to all comparable drugs. However, in the third quarter of 2022 (the most recent quarter) signals disappeared as the ROR of AKI was 1.50 (95% CI 0.91–2.45) and ROR of renal disorder was 1.69 (95% CI 1.06–2.70). Number of signals in sensitivity analyses and the proportion of AKI in remdesivir-associated events decreased over time.
Conclusion
In COVID-19 patients, we observed diminishing signals of remdesivir-associated AKI over time and no significant signal in the most recent quarter, suggesting remdesivir might not be nephrotoxic.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11096-023-01554-4.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.