Search

Zeyu Xie, Jia Hu, Mengting Li, Xiao Hu, Jisheng Chen Key Specialty of Clinical Pharmacy, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of ChinaCorrespondence: Jisheng Chen, Key Specialty of Clinical Pharmacy, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou, 510080, People’s Republic of China, Tel +86 20-87622305, Fax +86 20-61321967, Email cjslym@163.comPurpose: This study provides a reference for healthcare organizations in the selection and rational use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), based on the Rapid Guide for Drug Evaluation and Selection in Chinese Medical Institutions (Second Edition).Methods: According to the Rapid Guide for Drug Evaluation and Selection in Chinese Medical Institutions (Second Edition) released in 2023, relevant databases such as PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase, drug labels, and clinical guidelines were searched for drug information. We systematically evaluated 7 GLP-1RAs marketed in China for safety, efficacy, economy, pharmacological properties, and other attributes using a percentage scoring method.Results: The final assessment result scores from highest to lowest were semaglutide (71.5 points), dulaglutide (68.9 points), liraglutide (68.7 points), exenatide (62.5 points), lixisenatide (59.9 points), polyethylene glycol loxenatide (55.9 points), and benaglutide (45.1 points).Conclusion: When a healthcare organization introduces GLP-1RAs to their hospital, they can refer to the assessment results and use the top three recommended medications: semaglutide, dulaglutide, and liraglutide.Keywords: glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, health technology assessment, type 2 diabetes mellitus, drug evaluation

Background In the EXSCEL (Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering), exenatide once‐weekly resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and a nominal 14% reduction in all‐cause mortality in 14 752 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with and without cardiovascular disease. Whether patients at increased risk for events experienced a comparatively greater treatment benefit with exenatide is unknown. Methods and Results In the EXSCEL population, we created risk scores for MACEs and all‐cause mortality using step‐wise selection of baseline characteristics. A risk score was calculated for each patient, and a time‐to‐event model for each end point was developed including the risk score, treatment assignment, and risk‐treatment interaction. Interaction P values evaluating for a differential treatment effect by baseline risk were reported. Over a median follow‐up of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2, 4.4), 1091 (7.4%) patients died and 1744 (11.8%) experienced a MACE. Independent predictors of MACEs and all‐cause mortality included age, sex, comorbidities (eg, previous cardiovascular event), body mass index, blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. The all‐cause mortality and MACE risk models had modest discrimination with optimism‐corrected c‐indices of 0.73 and 0.71, respectively. No interaction was observed between treatment effect and risk profile for either end point (both interactions, P>0.1). Conclusions Baseline characteristics (eg, age, previous cardiovascular events) and routine laboratory values (eg, hemoglobin A1c, estimated glomerular filtration rate) provided modest prognostic value for mortality and MACEs in a broad population of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Exenatide's effects on mortality and MACEs were consistent across the spectrum of baseline risk. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01144338.