Cited by 153Diabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and ResearchMedication Adherence and Compliance

Understanding the Gap Between Efficacy in Randomized Controlled Trials and Effectiveness in Real-World Use of GLP-1 RA and DPP-4 Therapies in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

Carls, Ginger S., Tuttle, Edward, Tan, Ruo-Ding, Huynh, Johnny, Yee, John, Edelman, Steven V., Polonsky, William H.·2017·Diabetes Care

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to estimate and explain the gap between clinical efficacy and real-world (RW) effectiveness of type 2 diabetes medications. Research design and methods This mixed-methods quasi-experimental study used retrospective claims (Optum/Humedica) to compare the change in HbA 1c of RW patients with type 2 diabetes 12 months after starting a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) or dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor with published findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating these drugs. Selected RW patients were similar to RCT patients, and regression analysis was used in the RW data to adjust for differences between poorly adherent and adherent patients to explain why RCT and RW findings may differ. Results RW patients initiating a GLP-1 RA ( n = 221) or a DPP-4 ( n = 652) experienced smaller reductions in HbA 1c (GLP-1 RA: -0.52% [-6 mmol/mol], DPP-4: -0.51% [-6 mmol/mol])than reported in RCTs (-1.30% [-14 mmol/mol] from seven GLP-1 RA RCTs, n = 2,600; -0.68% [-8 mmol/mol] from four DPP-4 RCTs, n = 1,889). Baseline HbA 1c , additional medications, and adherence were significant explanatory factors in the RW HbA 1c change. Modeled estimates of RCT efficacy (-1.04% GLP-1 RA [-12 mmol/mol], -0.69% DPP-4 [-8 mmol/mol]) were within the RCTs' reported range (GLP-1 RA: -0.84% to -1.60% [-9 to -18 mmol/mol], DPP-4: -0.47% to -0.90% [-5 to -10 mmol/mol]). Poor medication adherence accounted for approximately three-…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/dc16-2725

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 49 · Cited by 153

Authors
Carls, G. S., Tuttle, E., Tan, R.-D., Huynh, J., Yee, J., Edelman, S. V., & Polonsky, W. H.
Affiliations
  • Analysis Group (United States) (US)
  • Analysis Group, Menlo Park, CA
  • Intarcia Therapeutics (United States) (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2017-08-11
Volume
40
Issue
11
Pages
1469-1478
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2743088090
Cited by
153
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
15.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Intarcia Therapeutics
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, real-world effectiveness, HbA1c reduction, medication adherence, GLP-1 receptor agonists, DPP-4 inhibitors, glycemic control, baseline HbA1c, comorbidities, claims data
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4, Glucagon-Like Peptide 1, Incretins, Medication Adherence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review