• adherence;
  • dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors;
  • glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists;
  • incretin-based therapy;
  • patient-centred approach;
  • type 2 diabetes


  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. What is known and Objective
  4. Comment
  5. What is new and Conclusion
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. Disclosures
  8. References

What is known and Objective

The 2012 position statement from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) recommends a haemoglobin A1c level of <7% for most patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Initial therapy consists of lifestyle changes plus metformin, with an emphasis on a patient-centred approach to management. Addition of incretin-based therapy is recommended as an add-on after metformin failure, and later on in combination with basal insulin. Basal insulin is recommended from the onset in patients with A1c ≥10%. The possibility of incorporating incretin-based therapy in the patient-centred approach will be investigated both in the literature and clinical experience.


Incretin-based therapy targets multiple dysfunctional organ systems in T2D and provides sustained glycaemic control, with extraglycaemic benefits and low risk of hypoglycaemia. To initiate an incretin-based therapy that best fits an individual patient's needs, the patient's A1c level, preference and comorbid conditions should be considered along with any drug safety and adherence-related issues.

What is new and Conclusion

There is good evidence to support the patient-centred approach to T2D management. This approach allows patient treatment goals and personal preferences to be matched with the clinical profile(s) of one or more agents to formulate a treatment plan that can best achieve the goals. Incretin-based therapies are an important class of agents to consider after metformin monotherapy failure and later in combination with basal insulin. By matching patient needs with the clinical profiles of the various treatment options, pharmacists can actively engage in the practice of patient-centred care and management.

What is known and Objective

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. What is known and Objective
  4. Comment
  5. What is new and Conclusion
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. Disclosures
  8. References

The 2012 American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (ADA/EASD) position statement for anti-hyperglycaemic treatment for most patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) consists of initial therapy of lifestyle changes plus metformin to achieve a haemoglobin A1c of <7%. Combinations of oral diabetes drugs, non-injectable agents and/or basal insulin may follow as dual therapy.[1, 2] Basal insulin therapy should be considered from the onset in patients with severe hyperglycaemia or A1c ≥10%.[1, 2] Selecting a dual combination therapy that best fits an individual patient is challenging and should be based on knowledge of clinical profile, adverse effects, benefits and limitations of the drug, treatment goals and individual patient characteristics and preferences.[1] Incretin-based therapy is an approach that can play an important role in meeting patients' needs and treatment goals.[1, 2]

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) are 2 gut incretin hormones secreted by the intestinal L-cells and K-cells, respectively, and are rapidly released into the circulation after meals.[3-5] It has been shown that oral glucose administration is associated with greater plasma insulin levels compared with intravenous administration of the same amount of glucose, a phenomenon known as the incretin effect.[6, 7] The incretin effect is responsible for 50–70% of the total insulin secreted after oral glucose administration.[3] Incretin hormones have short half-life (2 min for GLP-1 and 7 min for GIP) and they are degraded rapidly by dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4).[8, 9] In patients with T2D, the insulinotropic action of the incretin system is diminished because the insulinotropic action of GIP is almost lost while that of GLP-1 remains intact.[4] Therefore, incretin-based therapies focus on producing pharmacology levels of GLP-1 activity through either activation of GLP-1 receptors by GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), which are administered by subcutaneous injection or prolonging the effect of GLP-1 by inhibition of DPP-4 by DPP-4 inhibitors, which are administered orally. GLP-1RAs include liraglutide (1·2 or 1·8 mg once-daily), exenatide twice-daily (exenatide, 5 or 10 mcg twice-daily) and exenatide extended-release (exenatide-ER, 2 mg once-weekly). The DPP-4 inhibitors include sitagliptin (100 mg once-daily), saxagliptin (5 mg once-daily) and linagliptin (5 mg once-daily). Vildagliptin, not approved in the United States, is not discussed. Further details on the differences between GLP-1RAs and DPP-4 inhibitors can be found in my previous publications.[10, 11] Treatment results in head-to-head studies with GLP-1RAs and DPP-4 inhibitors, particularly in combination with basal insulin therapy, in patients with T2D are discussed to determine how to best apply these results in clinical practice to fulfill a patient-centred approach to management.


  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. What is known and Objective
  4. Comment
  5. What is new and Conclusion
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. Disclosures
  8. References

The incretin effect, incretin hormones and the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of incretin-based agents have been previously described.[10, 11] GLP-1RAs and DPP-4 inhibitors have different clinical profiles and, consequently, different patient-related outcomes.[10-12] Administration of GLP-1RAs results in pharmacological concentrations of these agents, stimulating GLP-1 receptor activity. Administration of DPP-4 inhibitors results in increased physiological levels of native GLP-1 and GIP by preventing the inactivation of these hormones by DPP-4 enzymes.[10-12] GLP-1RAs are associated with more potent glycaemic and extraglycaemic effects than DPP-4 inhibitors.[13-16]

Good glycaemic control is also associated with reduced risk of microvascular complications, such as retinopathy, neuropathy and nephropathy,[17, 18] and may contribute to cardiovascular risk and total mortality.[19] Good glycaemic control, which is achievable with proper patient education, can lead to a high quality of life.

Treatment effects among head-to-head studies

Table 1[13, 14, 16, 20-31] lists treatment effects of GLP-1RAs and DPP-4 inhibitors in head-to-head studies of patients with T2D. Compared with exenatide, liraglutide significantly improves A1c and patient satisfaction.[20, 32] Greater A1c reduction and weight loss were achieved with liraglutide compared with exenatide-ER; however, gastrointestinal symptoms were less with exenatide-ER.[21] Exenatide-ER demonstrated superior A1c reduction and less nausea but more injection site reactions than exenatide.[22-24, 33] Both agents led to similar reductions in weight and blood pressure.[23, 24] Liraglutide provided a greater and more sustained reduction of A1c and weight (up to 52 weeks), with minimal risk of hypoglycaemia and greater treatment satisfaction than sitagliptin.[26, 27, 34] Exenatide greatly reduces postprandial glucose (PPG) and glucagon secretion and increases insulin secretion compared with sitagliptin.[13, 14] Exenatide-ER provides better and more sustained glucose control and weight loss, with minimal hypoglycaemia and better treatment satisfaction than sitagliptin.[16, 30, 31] Saxagliptin + metformin was non-inferior to sitagliptin + metformin in improving glycaemic control in patients with T2D.[25] There are no head-to-head studies with linagliptin.

Table 1. Glycaemic and extraglycaemic effects of treatment with GLP-1RAs and DPP-4 inhibitors in head-to-head studies in patients with T2D
Drug/StudyDesign & Duration (weeks)Background Medication∆A1c (%)∆FPG (mmol/L)∆2-h PPG (mmol/L)∆BW (kg)∆β-cell Function∆ SBP (mm Hg)
  1. GLP-1RAs, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists; DPP-4 inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors; T2D, type 2 diabetes; A1c, haemoglobin A1c; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; PPG, postprandial glucose; BW, body weight; SBP, systolic blood pressure; R, randomized; CC, comparator controlled; DB, double-blind; MET, metformin; SU, sulfonylurea; NR, not reported; HOMA-B, homoeostasis model assessment β-cell function; FIns, fasting insulin; FCP, fasting C-peptide; FPIns/Ins, fasting proinsulin-to-insulin ratio; FG, fasting glucagon; NC, no change; TZD, thiazolidinedione; HOMA-IR, homoeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance.

  2. a

    < 0·0001 compared with active comparator.

  3. b

    Estimated treatment difference with active comparator reported.

  4. c

    < 0·005 compared with active comparator.

  5. d

    < 0·05 compared with active comparator.

  6. e

    < 0·001 compared with active comparator.

  7. f

    < 0·001 compared with baseline.

  8. g

    < 0·05 compared with baseline.

  9. h

    One group switched from sitagliptin to exenatide and one group received exenatide plus SITG.

  10. i

    < 0·01 compared with baseline.

  11. j

    < 0·05 between treatment groups.

  12. k

    Data from an exploratory post hoc analysis are available.[29]

Liraglutide vs. exenatide[20]R-CC (26)MET, SU or both−1·12a vs. −0·79−1·61a vs. −0·60NR vs. −1·33a,b−3·24 vs. –2·87

HOMA-B (%)a: +32·12 vs. +2·74

FIns (pm/L)c: 12·43 vs. −1·38

FCP (nm/L): 0·05 vs. −0·02

FPIns/Ins ratio: 0·0 vs. −0·02

FG (ng/L):−19·44 vs. −12·33

−2·51 vs. −2·00
Liraglutide vs. exenatide-ER[21]R-CC (26)MET, SU and/or TZD−1·48 vs. −1·28NRNR−3·58 vs. −2·68NR−3·5 vs. −2·5
Exenatide vs. exenatide-ER[22]R-CC (24)None, 1 or combination: MET, SU, TZD−0·9 vs. −1·6a−0·67 vs. −1·94cNR−1·4 vs. −2·3dNR−1·2 vs. −2·9
Exenatide vs. exenatide-ER[23, 24]R-CC (30)None, 1 or 2: MET, SU, TZD−1·5 vs. −1·9c−1·4 vs. −2·3a−6·9d vs. −5·3−3·6 vs. −3·7Increased ratio of insulin to glucosed−3·4d vs. −4·7d
Sitagliptin vs. saxgliptin[25]R-DBCC (18)MET−0·60 vs. −0·52−0·90 vs. −0·60NR−0·40 vs. −0·40

HOMA-2B (%): +13·1 vs. +11·0

FIns (μm/L): −3·0 vs. −0·5

FPIns (pm/L): −3·4 vs. −2·4

FCP (nm/L): 0·01 vs. −0·05

Liraglutide (1·8 mg) vs. sitagliptin[26]R-CC (26)MET−1·5a vs. −0·9−2·14a vs. 0·83NR−3·38a vs. −0·96

HOMA-B (%): +28·7a vs. +4·18

HOMA-IR (pm): −1·50 vs. −0·94

FIns (pm/L): 1·29 vs. −6·77

FCP (nm/L): 0·09c vs.−0·04

FPIns/Ins: −0·10c vs. −0·03

−0·72 vs. −0·94
Liraglutide (1·8 mg) vs. sitagliptin[27]R-CC (52)MET−1·51a,b vs. −0·88−2·04a,b vs. 0·59NR−3·68a,b vs. −1·16

HOMA-B (%): +25·76e vs. +3·98

HOMA-IR (pm): −1·36 vs. −0·41

FIns (pm/L): 1·63 vs. −2·27

FCP (nm/L): 0·09 vs. 0·01

FPIns/Ins:−0·09e vs. −0·01

−2·55 vs. −1·03
Exenatide vs. sitagliptin[28]R-CC (4)MET + Ins Glargine−1·8d,f vs. −1·5f−0·67g vs. −0·67g−6·78d vs. 6·44d−0·9d,g vs. 0·1NRNR
Exenatide vs. sitagliptin[29]R-CC (20)hMET−0·38 vs. −0·68g0·06 vs. −0·55i,j−1·55f,j vs. −2·10f,j−2·58f vs. 2·20fNRNRk
Exenatide vs. sitagliptin[13]R-DBCC (2)METNR−0·83 vs. −1·05−6·22a vs. −2·05−0·8 vs. −0·3

Insulinogenic index: 0·82d vs. 0·55

Ins secretion rate (0–30 min): 0·04c vs. 0·03c

Exenatide vs. sitagliptin[14]R-DBCC (4)MET or TZDNR−1·6f vs. −1·6f−6·0d,f vs. −2·5f−1·37d vs. −0·89HOMA-B (%): +32·9c,f vs. +20·8f−2·5 vs. −2·0
Exenatide-ER vs. sitagliptin[30]R-CC (26)MET−1·5a vs. 0·9−1·8c vs. 0·9NR−2·3c vs. −0·8NRValues not reported
Exenatide-ER vs. sitagliptin[16]R-CC (26)None−1·53e vs. −1·15e−2·3e vs. −1·1Values not reported−2·0e vs. −.8e

HOMA-B (%): +1·8e vs. +1·3

HOMA-IS (%): +1·0 vs. +1·0

−1·3 vs. −1·8
Exenatide-ER vs. sitagliptin[31]R-CC (26)MET−1·55d vs.−0·92d−1·8d vs. −0·9NR−2·3d vs. −0·8dNRNR

Cardiovascular effects among head-to-head studies

T2D increases the risk of cardiovascular disease[35]; therefore, comprehensive cardiovascular risk reduction is a major focus in the treatment.[1] Differences exist between GLP-1RAs and DPP-4 inhibitors with respect to their effects on blood and lipid profile. Head-to-head clinical trials comparing GLP-1RAs with insulin[36, 37] (Table 1) and treatment effects in combination with insulin (Table 2) demonstrated a small reduction in systolic blood pressure with GLP-1RAs that appears to be independent of weight loss. No significant change in diastolic blood pressure was observed.[20, 26, 30] Available data from trials with DPP-4 inhibitors suggest minimal effects on systolic and diastolic blood pressure.[26, 30, 38] Lipid profile, particularly triglyceride levels, was greatly improved with GLP-1RAs compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or insulin.[20, 26, 36] A meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcomes from 4 clinical trials[17, 39-41] suggested that every 1% reduction in A1c might be associated with a 15% relative risk reduction in non-fatal myocardial infarction.[42] The currently available data suggest that the risk of cardiovascular disease is not increased and might be reduced with GLP-1RAs and DPP-4 inhibitors.[12] Studies on the cardiovascular effects of DPP-4 inhibitors are underway and showing promising results.[43-49]

Table 2. Glycaemic and extraglycaemic effects of insulin plus GLP-1RAs or DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with T2D
Drug/StudyDesign & Duration (weeks)Background Medication∆A1c (%)∆ FPG (mmol/L)∆2-h PPG (mmol/L)∆Insulin Dose (Units/day)Hypoglycaemic episodes∆BW (kg)∆SBP (mm Hg)
  1. GLP-1RAs, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists; DPP-4 inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors; T2D, type 2 diabetes; A1c, haemoglobin A1c; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; PPG, postprandial glucose; BW, body weight; SBP, systolic blood pressure; Ins Det, insulin detemir; R, randomized; CC, comparator controlled; NR, not reported; MET, metformin; SU, sulfonylurea; PC, placebo controlled; Ins Glarg, insulin glargine; TZD, thiazolidinedione; OAD, oral anti-diabetes drugs; NC, no change.

  2. a

    < 0·0001 compared with active comparator.

  3. b

    < 0·001 compared with placebo.

  4. c

    < 0·05 compared with placebo.

  5. d

    < 0·001 compared with baseline.

  6. e

    = 0·011 compared with baseline.

  7. f

    < 0·01 compared with active comparator.

  8. g

    < 0·05 compared with active comparator.

  9. h

    < 0·0001 compared with placebo.

Liraglutide + Ins Det + MET vs. liraglutide + MET[50]R-CC (26)MET−0·51a vs. +0·02−2·1a vs. −0·4Values not reportedNRMinor events: 0·286 vs. 0·029 (event/person/year)−0·16 vs. −0·95c−3·13 vs. −1·65
Exenatide + Ins Glarg[51]R-PC (30)Ins Glarg + MET or TZD or Both−1·74b−1·6−2·0b+13·0Minor events: 1·4 vs. 1·2 (event/person/year)−1·8b−2·7c
Exenatide + Multiple Ins[52]Website questionnaire (12)OAD−0·51dNRNRNR9·2% of patientse−4·1dNR
Sitagliptin + Multiple Ins[53]R-CC (24)Insulin, SU, MET, TZD−0·6fNot significant−74·5 (mg/dL)2·5

Minor events: 7 events/person/yearf

Severe events: 0·88 events/person/yearf

Sitagliptin + Multiple Ins[54]R-PC (24)Insulin + MET−0·6b−0·8−2·0NC16% incidence rate 0·1NR
Saxagliptin + Ins or Ins + MET[55]R-PC (24)Insulin, MET−0·73h−10·08 (mg/dL)−27·2 (mg/dL)b−1·718·4% of patients (5·3% confirmed events)−0·39NR
Linagliptin + Ins + glucose-lowering drugs[56]R-PC (52)Insulin, SU, glitazone, alpha-glucosidase inhibitor + glinide−0·72h−0·30NR−6·2

Symptomatic: 33·5% of patients

Asymptomatic: 55·9% of patients

Overall:63·2% of patients


Treatment effects in combination with basal insulin

Dual and triple recommendations from the ADA/EASD include incretin-based therapy and/or insulin to safely reach glycaemic targets.[2] Table 2 lists results from studies that combined incretin-based therapy and basal insulin.[50-56] Addition of incretins to basal insulin can decrease insulin dose[57-61] or minimize a necessary increase,[53] while still reducing A1c without increasing the incidence of hypoglycaemia.[28, 50, 51, 57, 58, 62-66] Incretins + basal insulin are generally weight neutral (DPP-4 inhibitors)[53] or result in weight loss (GLP-RAs)[28, 51, 57, 58, 62, 63, 66]

Detemir + liraglutide is well tolerated and easy to titrate.[67] A novel treatment intensification sequence (metformin then liraglutide, followed by titration of detemir) results in good glycaemic control, sustained weight loss and minimal hypoglycaemia.[50] Glargine + exenatide improves glycaemic control without increased hypoglycaemia or weight gain and lowers PPG, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and fasting lipids.[28, 51, 62, 64] Adding exenatide to glargine or detemir reduces the rate of hypoglycaemia compared with basal insulin alone.[65]

Combining sitagliptin with a variety of insulin regimens results in reduction of A1c and is associated with less hypoglycaemia and weight gain.[53] Sitagliptin lowers A1c and PPG; however, sitagliptin + insulin ± metformin is associated with higher rates of hypoglycaemia compared with placebo + insulin ± metformin.[54] Similar results were reported when sitagliptin was added to agents associated with hypoglycaemia (e.g. sulfonylureas)[68]; results were similar to placebo when added to agents not associated with hypoglycaemia (e.g. metformin).[69] When added to basal insulin therapy (± metformin), saxagliptin reduces A1c and PPG levels compared with placebo.[55] Linagliptin + basal insulin + glucose-lowering agents in the presence of renal impairment reduce A1c without drug-related renal failure.[56]

Patient-centred management selection

There is good evidence to support the importance of the shared decision-making approach between patients and clinicians.[70] The first step is setting an individualized A1c target by using individualized glucose-lowering therapies.[1] Several factors are considered when choosing an A1c target, including stringent (6·0–6·5%) vs. relaxed glycaemic goals (7·5–8·0%) because not everyone benefits from aggressive glycaemic control,[1] desire for weight loss, risk of hypoglycaemia, tolerability, cost, adherence and safety.[71] In older patients and patients with comorbid conditions, therapy should focus on drug safety with protection against hypoglycaemia and drug–drug interactions.[1] GLP-1RAs and DPP-4 inhibitors in combination with basal insulin have been recommended to minimize the risk of hypoglycaemia.[1] GLP-1RAs or DPP-4 inhibitors should be considered in patients with T2D, particularly obese patients who fail to reach glycaemic targets on metformin.[72] Patients (and physicians) who are reluctant to transition to insulin due to concerns about weight gain and hypoglycaemia may be candidates for incretin therapy. In addition, evidence suggests that incretins may lead to β-cell preservation, a desired goal earlier in the disease.[20]

Generally, clinicians prefer GLP-1RAs over DPP-4 inhibitors because of their greater efficacy in glycaemic control.[73] In clinical practice, however, DPP-4 inhibitors tend to be used more than GLP-1RAs due to the convenience of oral administration. When deciding whether GLP-1RAs or DPP-4 inhibitors best fit individual patient needs, a number of patient characteristics must be considered.

First the patient's current A1c level, their A1c target and which blood glucose level to control (e.g. FPG, PPG, or both) should be considered.[74, 75] GLP-1RAs will likely help achieve a tighter A1c target (6·0–6·5%), whereas a conservative A1c target (7·5–8·0%) may be sufficiently addressed with DPP-4 inhibitors.[10] At A1c closer to 9%, FPG has a greater contribution to A1c.[74] A 3-agent combination regimen, including longer-acting incretin agents liraglutide and exenatide-ER, plus basal insulin may be needed. At an A1c closer to 7%, PPG has a greater contribution to A1c,[74, 75] and a short-acting agent (e.g. exenatide) may be a better choice. DPP-4 inhibitors might be more suitable for elderly patients as monotherapy when A1c ≤7·6% and as combination therapy when A1c <9%, if the patient is frail, and/or has long disease duration and short life expectancy.[10] If A1c >10%, basal insulin should be added to incretin-based therapy to offer better coverage of dysfunctional organs and FPG and PPG. This combination produces greater glycaemic control without the increase in hypoglycaemia or weight gain associated with increased insulin dose.[51]

Second is the patient's preferred route of administration, dosing frequency and side-effect tolerability. DPP-4 inhibitors are preferred for patients who are unwilling or unable to use an injection device or uninformed about the availability of devices.[10] Liraglutide once daily, exenatide-ER or DPP-4 inhibitors are better options for patients who prefer less frequent dosing compared with exenatide. Elderly patients might prefer DPP-4 inhibitors over GLP-1RAs because they are not associated with gastrointestinal symptoms. However, gastrointestinal symptoms are transient, dose dependent and less persistent with liraglutide and exenatide-ER compared with exenatide.[20, 22, 23] Sharing this information with patients is important when initiating therapy with GLP-1RAs to improve patient adherence.[12]

Third, if renal insufficiency exists, consider reducing the dose of sitagliptin and saxagliptin.[76-78] Caution is advised with liraglutide, but no dose adjustment is required.[79] Exenatide and exenatide-ER are not recommended if severe renal insufficiency or end-stage renal disease is present.[80, 81]

Adherence is an important component of patient-centred management, and data from clinical trials are based on a higher level of adherence than might be reasonably expected in a general patient population. Patients will not benefit from the demonstrated efficacy of diabetes agents if they do not take the prescribed medication or do not take it correctly. Efficacy shown in clinical trials represents the mean response, and non-responders often meet trial withdrawal criteria and are removed from evaluation. Weight gain and symptoms of hypoglycaemia have been shown to influence adherence.[82] Other causes of decreased adherence include: forgetfulness, changes in daily behaviour or medication schedules, and cost. However, unlike patients who participate in clinical studies, patients seen in clinical practice may skip/miss medical appointments and/or have long intervals between appointments, and they incur the medication cost. This likely results in loss of adherence to the treatment plan.

Clinical pharmacists must assess adherence; however, there is no ‘ideal’ way to identify non-adherence. Pharmacist can assess adherence by using various open-ended questions and/or patient self-reported surveys, for example, ‘How is the patient taking the medication?’, ‘When does the patient skip or forget their medication? Which days and why?’, ‘If a caregiver(s) is involved in the administration of medications, what is he/she willing and able to do?’ Also, there are possible issues of continuity of care if caregivers rotate. Every 6 months, the pharmacist should ask self-injecting patients to demonstrate their technique for using the injection device. Patients may develop unique habits related to injection technique that interfere with appropriate dosing. A team-based approach to assess medication adherence/compliance, drug interactions and all drug- and disease-related concerns is needed. The team should include a nurse, clinician (physician, nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and a pharmacist, among many other healthcare professionals. The nurse (triages the patient), the clinician (conducts medical/office visit) and the pharmacist (ensures appropriate medication therapy and assesses adherence) can be part of a 1-stop shopping experience. The team provides follow-up instructions and medication review/education.

If GLP-1RAs were selected as the optimal dual combination therapy for a patient, the identification of the best-matched specific GLP-1RA for an individual patient should be guided by the adherence-related issues seen in clinical practice. Many patients skip, forget or purposely do not take the second dose of exenatide to avoid the feeling of nausea during or after dinner.[83] Adherence may be improved with liraglutide once-daily and exenatide-ER due to less nausea and fewer injections. Approximately 47% of patients with T2D reported once-weekly dosing helped improve adherence,[84] while other patients prefer to establish the habit of once-daily dosing. If a dose is missed, the next dose should be taken at the next regularly scheduled time. However, patients should be made aware that liraglutide may be taken at any time of day.[79] Encourage patients to schedule a distraction-free time for exenatide-ER dosing to avoid interruptions that may delay injection immediately after mixing. Discuss with patients ways to make the dosing schedule a habit, suggesting linking exenatide-ER with a weekly activity such as attending religious services.

What is new and Conclusion

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. What is known and Objective
  4. Comment
  5. What is new and Conclusion
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. Disclosures
  8. References

For patients with T2D, the goal is to control/manage hyperglycaemia and other cardiovascular risk factors by using drugs that provide optimal benefit to the individual patient. A patient-centred approach necessitates the active involvement of the patient in the treatment decision-making process. Incretin therapies matched to patient needs are well positioned as dual- and triple-combination therapies and with basal insulin to optimize treatment outcomes. Differences in clinical profiles result in more potent glycaemic and extraglycaemic effects for GLP-1RAs than DPP-4 inhibitors. Differences in clinical profiles among incretin therapies and patient-specific issues related to treatment adherence are important to consider when matching an agent to a patient. Importantly, if what you are seeing clinically with the patient (e.g. A1c level) does not match the outcomes in clinical trials, consider that efficacy shown in clinical trials represents the mean response. In clinical practice, patients' adherence is often influenced by factors not encountered in clinical trials. Before concluding the pharmacotherapy agent ineffective, first consider assessing patient adherence to therapy. Adherence may be improved with the current drug therapy through patient education, or by selecting a drug that better matches the patient's needs. Including the patient in the drug selection process and providing ample, appropriate medication education, inclusive of when and how to take the medication correctly to maximize its effectiveness, can help set the patient up for successful drug therapy outcomes.


  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. What is known and Objective
  4. Comment
  5. What is new and Conclusion
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. Disclosures
  8. References

The author wishes to thank Heba Costandy of MedVal Scientific Information Services, LLC, for providing medical writing and editorial assistance. This manuscript was prepared according to the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals’ ‘Good Publication Practice for Communicating Company-Sponsored Medical Research: the GPP2 Guidelines’. Funding to support the preparation of this manuscript was provided by Novo Nordisk Inc.


  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. What is known and Objective
  4. Comment
  5. What is new and Conclusion
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. Disclosures
  8. References

Susan Cornell has received non-CME honoraria related to speakers bureaus from the Johnson & Johnson Diabetes Institute, Silicon Valley, and Abbott Diabetes Care. She also serves on advisory boards for Kestrel Diabetes Product Sourcebook, Kestrel Health Information, and Advanced Studies in Medicine: Endocrinology at The Johns Hopkins University.


  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. What is known and Objective
  4. Comment
  5. What is new and Conclusion
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. Disclosures
  8. References
  • 1
    Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centred approach: position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care, 2012;35:13641379.
  • 2
    American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes–2012. Diabetes Care, 2012;35:S11S63.
  • 3
    Baggio LL, Drucker DJ. Biology of incretins: GLP-1 and GIP. Gastroenterology, 2007;132:21312157.
  • 4
    Nauck MA. Unraveling the science of incretin biology. Am J Med, 2009;122:S3S10.
  • 5
    Laferrere B. Gut feelings about diabetes. Endocrinol Nutr, 2012;59:254260.
  • 6
    McIntyre N, Holdsworth CD, Turner DS. New interpretation of oral glucose tolerance. Lancet, 1964;284:2021.
  • 7
    Elrick H, Stimmler L, Hlad CJ, Arai Y. Plasma insulin responses to oral and intravenous glucose administration. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 1964;24:10761082.
  • 8
    Phillips LK, Prins JB. Update on incretin hormones. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 2012;1243:E55E74.
  • 9
    Deacon CF, Nauck MA, Toft-Nielsen M, Pridal L, Willms B, Holst JJ. Both subcutaneously and intravenously administered glucagon-like peptide 1 are rapidly degraded from the NH2-terminus in type II diabetic patients and in healthy subjects. Diabetes, 1995;44:11261131.
  • 10
    Cornell S. Differentiating among incretin therapies: a multiple-target approach to type 2 diabetes. J Clin Pharm Ther, 2012;37:510524.
  • 11
    Cornell S. Key considerations in pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a multiple target organ approach. J Clin Pharm Ther, 2012;37:254259.
  • 12
    Morales J. The pharmacologic basis for clinical differences among GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors. Postgrad Med, 2011;123:189201.
  • 13
    DeFronzo RA, Okerson T, Viswanathan P, Guan X, Holcombe JH, Macconell L. Effects of exenatide versus sitagliptin on postprandial glucose, insulin and glucagon secretion, gastric emptying, and caloric intake: a randomized, cross-over study. Curr Med Res Opin, 2008;24:29432952.
  • 14
    Berg JK, Shenouda SK, Heilmann CR, Gray AL, Holcombe JH. Effects of exenatide twice daily versus sitagliptin on 24-hour glucose, glucoregulatory, and hormonal measures: a randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2011;13:982989.
  • 15
    Neumiller JJ, Campbell RK. Liraglutide: a once-daily incretin mimetic for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Pharmacother, 2009;43:14331444.
  • 16
    Russell-Jones D, Cuddihy RM, Hanefeld M et al. Efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly versus metformin, pioglitazone, and sitagliptin used as monotherapy in drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (DURATION-4): a 26-week double-blind study. Diabetes Care, 2012;35:252258.
  • 17
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet, 1998;352:837853.
  • 18
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS): VIII. study design, progress and performance. Diabetologia, 1991;34:877890.
  • 19
    Eeg-Olofsson K, Eliasson B, Zethelius B, Svensson A-M, Gudbjornsdottir S, Cederholm J. HbA1c reduction and risk of cardiovascular diseases in type 2 diabetes: an observational study from the Swedish NDR. Diabetes, 2012;61:A108.
  • 20
    Buse JB, Rosenstock J, Sesti G et al. Liraglutide once a day versus exenatide twice a day for type 2 diabetes: a 26-week randomised, parallel-group, multinational, open-label trial (LEAD-6). Lancet, 2009;374:3947.
  • 21
    Buse JB, Nauck MA, Forst T et al. Efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly versus liraglutide in subjects with type 2 diabetes (DURATION-6): a randomised, open-label study. In: Program and abstracts of 47th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes; September 12–16. Portugal, Lisbon: 2011; Abstract 75.
  • 22
    Blevins T, Pullman J, Malloy J et al. DURATION-5: Exenatide once weekly resulted in greater improvements in glycemic control compared with exenatide twice daily in patients with type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2011;96:13011310.
  • 23
    Drucker DJ, Buse JB, Taylor K et al. Exenatide once weekly versus twice daily for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority study. Lancet, 2008;372:12401250.
  • 24
    Raskin P, Mohan A. Comparison of once-weekly with twice-daily exenatide in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (DURATION-1 trial). Expert Opin Pharmacother, 2011;11:22692271.
  • 25
    Scheen AJ, Charpentier G, Ostgren CJ, Hellqvist A, Gause-Nilsson I. Efficacy and safety of saxagliptin in combination with metformin compared with sitagliptin in combination with metformin in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Metab Res Rev, 2010;26:540549.
  • 26
    Pratley RE, Nauck M, Bailey T et al. Liraglutide versus sitagliptin for patients with type 2 diabetes who did not have adequate glycaemic control with metformin: a 26-week, randomised, parallel-group, open-label trial. Lancet, 2010;375:14471456.
  • 27
    Pratley R, Nauck M, Bailey T et al. One year of liraglutide treatment offers sustained and more effective glycaemic control and weight reduction compared with sitagliptin, both in combination with metformin, in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised, parallel-group, open-label trial. Int J Clin Pract, 2011;65:397407.
  • 28
    Arnolds S, Dellweg S, Clair J, Dain MP, Nauck MA, Rave K, Kapitza C. Further improvement in postprandial glucose control when adding exenatide (EXE) or sitagliptin (SITA) to combination therapy with insulin glargine (GLAR) and metformin (MET) - a proof-of-concept study. Diabetes Care, 2010;33:15091515.
  • 29
    Violante R, Oliveira JH, Yoon KH et al. A randomized non-inferiority study comparing the addition of exenatide twice daily to sitagliptin or switching from sitagliptin to exenatide twice daily in patients with Type 2 diabetes experiencing inadequate glycaemic control on metformin and sitagliptin. Diabet Med, 2012;29:e417e424.
  • 30
    Bergenstal RM, Wysham C, Macconell L et al. Efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly versus sitagliptin or pioglitazone as an adjunct to metformin for treatment of type 2 diabetes (DURATION-2): a randomised trial. Lancet, 2010;376:431439.
  • 31
    Best JH, Rubin RR, Peyrot M, Li Y, Yan P, Malloy J, Garrison LP. Weight-related quality of life, health utility, psychological well-being, and satisfaction with exenatide once weekly compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone after 26 weeks of treatment. Diabetes Care, 2011;34:314319.
  • 32
    Schmidt WE, Christiansen JS, Hammer M, Zychma MJ, Buse JB. Patient-reported outcomes are superior in patients with Type 2 diabetes treated with liraglutide as compared with exenatide, when added to metformin, sulphonylurea or both: results from a randomized, open-label study. Diabet Med, 2011;28:715723.
  • 33
    Ridge T, Moretto T, Macconell L, Pencek R, Han J, Schulteis C, Porter L. Comparison of safety and tolerability with continuous (exenatide once weekly) or intermittent (exenatide twice daily) GLP-1 receptor agonism in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2012;. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1326.2012.01639.x.
  • 34
    Davies M, Pratley R, Hammer M, Thomsen AB, Cuddihy R. Liraglutide improves treatment satisfaction in people with Type 2 diabetes compared with sitagliptin, each as an add on to metformin. Diabet Med, 2011;28:333337.
  • 35
    Best JH, Hoogwerf BJ, Herman WH, Pelletier EM, Smith DB, Wenen M, Hussein MA. Risk of cardiovascular disease events in patients with type 2 diabetes prescribed the GLP-1 receptor agonist exenatide twice daily or other glucose-lowering therapies: a retrospective analysis of the LifeLink database. Diabetes Care, 2010;34:9095.
  • 36
    Nauck MA, Duran S, Kim D et al. A comparison of twice-daily exenatide and biphasic insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes who were suboptimally controlled with sulfonylurea and metformin: a non-inferiority study. Diabetologia, 2007;50:259267.
  • 37
    Russell-Jones D, Vaag A, Schmitz O et al. Liraglutide vs insulin glargine and placebo in combination with metformin and sulfonylurea therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomised controlled trial (LEAD-5 met+SU). Diabetologia, 2009;52:20462055.
  • 38
    Taskinen MR, Rosenstock J, Tamminen I, Kubiak R, Patel S, Dugi KA, Woerle HJ. Safety and efficacy of linagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2011;13:6574.
  • 39
    ACCORD Study Group. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2008;358:25452559.
  • 40
    ADVANCE Collaborative Group. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2008;358:25602572.
  • 41
    Duckworth W, Abraira C, Moritz T et al. Glucose control and vascular complications in veterans with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2009;360:129139.
  • 42
    Turnbull FM, Abraira C, Anderson RJ et al. Intensive glucose control and macrovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia, 2009;52:22882298.
  • 43
    Mistry GC, Maes AL, Lasseter KC, Davies MJ, Gottesdiener KM, Wagner JA, Herman GA. Effect of sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, on blood pressure in nondiabetic patients with mild to moderate hypertension. J Clin Pharmacol, 2008;48:592598.
  • 44
    Shah Z, Pineda C, Kampfrath T et al. Acute DPP-4 inhibition modulates vascular tone through GLP-1 independent pathways. Vasc Pharmacol, 2011;55:29.
  • 45
    Marney A, Kunchakarra S, Byrne L, Brown NJ. Interactive hemodynamic effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibition and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition in humans. Hypertension, 2010;56:728733.
  • 46
    Boschmann M, Engeli S, Dobberstein K et al. Dipeptidyl-peptidase-IV inhibition augments postprandial lipid mobilization and oxidation in type 2 diabetic patients. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2009;94:846852.
  • 47
    Matikainen N, Mänttäri S, Schweizer A et al. Vildagliptin therapy reduces postprandial intestinal triglyceride-rich lipoprotein particles in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia, 2006;49:20492057.
  • 48
    Horton ES, Silberman C, Davis KL, Berria R. Weight loss, glycemic control, and changes in cardiovascular biomarkers in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving incretin therapies or insulin in a large cohort database. Diabetes Care, 2010;33:17591765.
  • 49
    Ussher JR, Drucker DJ. Cardiovascular biology of the incretin system. Endocr Rev, 2012;33:187215.
  • 50
    DeVries JH, Bain SC, Rodbard HW et al. Sequential intensification of metformin treatment in type 2 diabetes with liraglutide followed by randomized addition of basal insulin prompted by A1C targets. Diabetes Care, 2012;35:14461454.
  • 51
    Buse JB, Bergenstal RM, Glass LC et al. Use of twice-daily exenatide in basal insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med, 2011;154:103112.
  • 52
    Thong KY, Jose B, Blann AD et al. Response at 3 months to insulin dose decisions made at exenatide initiation in the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) nationwide exenatide audit. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2011;93:e87e91.
  • 53
    Hong ES, Khang AR, Yoon JW et al. Comparison between sitagliptin as add-on therapy to insulin and Insulin dose-increase therapy in uncontrolled Korean type 2 diabetes: CSI study. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2012;14:795802.
  • 54
    Vilsboll T, Rosenstock J, Yki-Jarvinen H et al. Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin when added to insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2010;12:167177.
  • 55
    Barnett AH, Charbonnel B, Donovan M, Fleming D, Chen R. Effect of saxagliptin as add-on therapy in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes on insulin alone or insulin combined with metformin. Curr Med Res Opin, 2012;28:513523.
  • 56
    McGill JB, Sloan L, Newman J, Patel S, Sauce C, von Eynatten M, Woerle HJ. (2012) Long-term efficacy and safety of linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and severe renal impairment: a 1-year, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Diabetes Care, [Epub ahead of print].
  • 57
    Lind M, Jendle J, Torffvit O, Lager I. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analogue combined with insulin reduces HbA1c and weight with low risk of hypoglycemia and high treatment satisfaction. Prim Care Diabetes, 2012;6:4146.
  • 58
    Lane W, Weinrib S, Rappaport J. The effect of liraglutide added to U-500 insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes and high insulin requirements. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2011;13:592595.
  • 59
    Viswanathan P, Chaudhuri A, Bhatia R, Al-Atrash F, Mohanty P, Dandona P. Exenatide therapy in obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin. Endocr Pract, 2007;13:444450.
  • 60
    Yoon NM, Cavaghan MK, Brunelle RL, Roach P. Exenatide added to insulin therapy: a retrospective review of clinical practice over two years in an academic endocrinology outpatient setting. Clin Ther, 2009;31:15111523.
  • 61
    Thong KY, Jose B, Sukumar N et al. Safety, efficacy and tolerability of exenatide in combination with insulin in the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) nationwide exenatide audit. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2011;13:703710.
  • 62
    Rosenstock J, Shenouda SK, Bergenstal RM et al. Baseline factors associated with glycemic control and weight loss when exenatide twice daily is added to optimized insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2012;35:955958.
  • 63
    Levin PA, Mersey JH, Zhou S, Bromberger LA. Clinical outcomes using long-term combination therapy with insulin glargine and exenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes. Endocr Pract, 2012;18:1725.
  • 64
    Levin P, Wei W, Wang L, Pan C, Douglas D, Baser O. Combination therapy with insulin glargine and exenatide: real-world outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin, 2012;28:439446.
  • 65
    Pawaskar MD, Blickensderfer AL, Hoogwerf BJ, Quimbo R, Wade R. Hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes using concomitant exenatide BID and long-acting insulin therapy. J Med Econ, 2011;14:705708.
  • 66
    Sheffield CA, Kane MP, Busch RS, Bakst G, Abelseth JM, Hamilton RA. Safety and efficacy of exenatide in combination with insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Endocr Pract, 2008;14:285292.
  • 67
    Morrow L, Hompesch M, Guthrie H, Chang D, Chatterjee DJ. Co-administration of liraglutide with insulin detemir demonstrates additive pharmacodynamic effects with no pharmacokinetic interaction. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2011;13:7580.
  • 68
    Hermansen K, Kipnes M, Luo E, Fanurik D, Khatami H, Stein P. Efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, sitagliptin, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on glimepiride alone or on glimepiride and metformin. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2007;9:733745.
  • 69
    Karasik A, Aschner P, Katzeff H, Davies MJ, Stein PP. Sitagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes: a review of recent clinical trials. Curr Med Res Opin, 2008;24:489496.
  • 70
    Shah ND, Mullan RJ, Breslin M, Yawn BP, Ting HH, Montori VM. Translating comparative effectiveness into practice: the case of diabetes medications. Med Care, 2010;48:S153S158.
  • 71
    Ismail-Beigi F, Moghissi E, Tiktin M, Hirsch IB, Inzucchi SE, Genuth S. Individualizing glycemic targets in type 2 diabetes mellitus: implications of recent clinical trials. Ann Intern Med, 2011;154:554559.
  • 72
    Meneghini LF, Orozco-Beltran D, Khunti K et al. Weight beneficial treatments for type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2011;96:33373353.
  • 73
    Rodbard HW, Jellinger PS, Davidson JA et al. Statement by an American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology consensus panel on type 2 diabetes mellitus: an algorithm for glycemic control. Endocr Pract, 2009;15:540559.
  • 74
    Schernthaner G, Guerci B, Gallwitz B, Rose L, Nicolay C, Kraus P, Kazda C. Impact of postprandial and fasting glucose concentrations on HbA(1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Metab, 2010;36:389394.
  • 75
    Woerle HJ, Neumann C, Zschau S et al. Impact of fasting and postprandial glycemia on overall glycemic control in type 2 diabetes Importance of postprandial glycemia to achieve target HbA1c levels. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2007;77:280285.
  • 76
    Januvia. Januvia® (sitagliptin) tablets [prescribing information]. Whitehouse, NJ: Merck & Co., 2010.
  • 77
    Boulton DW, Li L, Frevert EU et al. Influence of renal or hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics of saxagliptin. Clin Pharmacokinet, 2011;50:253265.
  • 78
    Chacra AR. Saxagliptin for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes, 2010;3:325335.
  • 79
    Victoza. Victoza® (liraglutide [rDNA origin] injection), solution for subcutaneous use [prescribing information]. Princeton, NJ: Novo Nordisk Inc., 2011.
  • 80
    Byetta. Byetta® (exenatide) injection [prescribing information]. San Diego, CA: Amylin Pharmaceuticals, 2011.
  • 81
    Bydureon. Bydureon (exenatide extended-release for injectable suspension) [prescribing information]. San Diego, CA: Amylin Pharmaceuticals, 2012.
  • 82
    Campbell RK. Recommendations for improving adherence to type 2 diabetes mellitus therapy–focus on optimizing insulin-based therapy. Am J Manag Care, 2012;18:S55S61.
  • 83
    Triplitt C, Chiquette E. Exenatide: from the Gila monster to the pharmacy. J Am Pharm Assoc, 2006;46:4452.
  • 84
    Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Hessler D, Bruhn D, Best JH. Patient perspectives on once-weekly medications for diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2011;13:144149.