ArticlePatient preference and adherence2013
Exenatide extended-release; clinical trials, patient preference, and economic considerations.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improvement in treatment satisfaction after switching from liraglutide to dulaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized controlled trial.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2019Trial
- Enhancing human islet transplantation by localized release of trophic factors from PLG scaffolds.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2014Article
- Once-weekly albiglutide in the management of type 2 diabetes: patient considerations.Patient preference and adherence · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Type 2 diabetes remains an escalating problem worldwide, despite a range of treatments being available. The revelation that insulin secretion is under the control of a gut hormone, glucagon-like peptide 1, has led to a new paradigm in the management of type 2 diabetes, ie, use of medicines that directly stimulate or prolong the actions of endogenous glucagon-like peptide 1 at its receptors. Exenatide is an agonist at the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor, and was initially developed as a subcutaneous medication twice daily (ExBID). Clinical trials with ExBID established a role for exenatide in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Subsequently, exenatide once weekly (ExQW) was shown to have advantages over ExBID, and there is now more emphasis on the development of ExQW. ExQW alone reduces glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) and body weight, and is well tolerated. ExQW has been compared with sitagliptin, pioglitazone, and metformin, and been shown to have a greater ability to reduce HbA(1c) than these other medicines. The only preparation of insulin with which ExQW has been compared is insulin glargine, and ExQW had some favorable properties in this comparison, notably causing weight loss compared with the weight gain on insulin glargine. ExQW has been compared with another glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, liraglutide, and was noninferior to liraglutide in reducing HbA(1c). The small amount of evidence available shows that subjects with type 2 diabetes prefer ExQW to ExBID, and that adherence is high in the clinical trial setting. Health care and economic modeling suggests that ExQW will reduce diabetic complications and be cost-effective, compared with other medications, in long-term use. Little is known about whether subjects with type 2 diabetes prefer ExQW to other medicines, and whether adherence is good with ExQW in practice. These important topics require further study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.