RESUMEN
AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety profiles of recent innovations in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), which include once-weekly formulations such as tirzepatide, a dual glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonist, and once-weekly insulin options such as icodec and basal insulin Fc. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases was conducted. The network meta-analysis protocol was registered at OSF registries (https://osf.io/gd67x). The primary outcome of interest was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), with change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), body weight, incidence of hypoglycaemia, and treatment discontinuation as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Tirzepatide exhibited superior efficacy in reducing HbA1c levels compared with insulin therapies, with the 15-mg dose showing the most significant reduction (mean difference [MD] -1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.49; -1.0). In terms of FPG reduction, tirzepatide 15 mg ranked highest (MD -0.70, 95% CI -1.05; -0.34), followed by tirzepatide 10 mg and 5 mg. Additionally, tirzepatide led to substantial weight loss, with the 15-mg dose exhibiting the most pronounced effect (MD -12.13, 95% CI -13.98; -10.27). However, a higher incidence of adverse events (AEs) and treatment discontinuation were associated with tirzepatide, particularly at higher doses. CONCLUSION: Tirzepatide, particularly at higher doses, demonstrates superior efficacy in lowering HbA1c and reducing hypoglycaemia risk compared with weekly insulin. However, its use is also associated with a higher incidence of AEs and treatment discontinuation.
RESUMEN
Background: Advancements in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) therapy, notably with weekly agents like glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-RAs) such as dulaglutide, offer promising outcomes in clinical practice. The emergence of once-weekly insulin adds to this therapeutic arsenal. This research aims to explore and compare the efficacy and safety profiles of these agents in diabetes management, facilitating informed decision-making for optimizing their utilization in clinical practice. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases was conducted. The research protocol was registered at OSF registries (https://osf.io/gd67x). The primary outcome of interest was the change in hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c), with secondary outcomes including the change in fasting plasma glucose, body weight, prevalence of hypoglycemia, and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. The evaluation of bias risk was conducted utilizing the RoB2 tool developed by the Cochrane Collaboration. Statistical analysis was performed using RStudio version 4.3.2 with the meta package version 7.0-0 and the netmeta package version 2.9-0. Confidence in network meta-analysis estimates was evaluated using the CINeMA (Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis). Heterogeneity was assessed by comparing the magnitude of the common between-study variance (τ2) for each outcome with empirical distributions of heterogeneity variances. Results: Dulaglutide 1.5 mg (mg) weekly demonstrated superior reduction in hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) compared to insulin, with a mean difference (MD) of -0.35 (95 % CI: -0.51 to -0.19). Additionally, Dulaglutide 1.5 mg exhibited greater weight loss, with an MD of -3.12 (95 % CI: -3.55 to -2.68). However, it also showed a higher rate of adverse events, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.40 (95 % CI: 1.12 to 1.75) compared to insulin. Both doses of Dulaglutide (1.5 mg and 0.75 mg) had lower prevalence of hypoglycemia compared to insulin, with ORs of 0.60 (95 % CI: 0.41 to 0.87) and 0.59 (95 % CI: 0.41 to 0.86), respectively. There was no significant difference in treatment discontinuation among the treatment groups. Conclusion: Dulaglutide, particularly at higher doses, demonstrates superior efficacy in lowering hemoglobin A1C and reducing hypoglycemia risk compared to Icodec insulin in type 2 diabetes management. However, its use is also associated with a higher incidence of adverse events. Clinicians should carefully consider these factors when selecting optimal treatment strategies for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
