Network meta-analysis

HbA1c below 7 percent

Type 2 diabetes (adults); background therapy: no glucose lowering drug (lifestyle only)

weeks 36 to 64 (target week 52)Not stated by the trialsDoses of a drug pooledOdds ratio

Randomized trials

Treatments

1,443

Participants

796

Events

In plain language

Across 4 trials with 1,443 participants, 1 of 5 treatments had a clearly better result than placebo on HbA1c below 7 percent, and for 4 the evidence could not tell them apart from placebo. The most favorable estimate was for Semaglutide tablet: odds ratio 9.07 (95% credible interval 1.55 to 34.45).

Higher values favor the treatment. "Clearly" means the 95% credible interval excludes no difference. These are averages across trials; they do not say how any one person will respond. Not medical advice.

Network of trials

Each circle is a treatment; each line joins treatments that were randomized against each other in at least one trial.

Node area shows participants; line width shows trials comparing two treatments directly. Blue: GLP-1 receptor agonist containing treatments; grey: comparators. Hover over or tab to a node or line for details.

Effects compared with Placebo

Odds ratio. Higher values favor the treatment.

Versus Placebo, log scale. Blue: Bayesian random effects posterior median with 95% credible interval (thick) and 95% prediction interval (dashed). Amber diamond: frequentist estimate with 95% confidence interval. Hover over or tab to a row for its values.

Effects of each treatment versus Placebo
Treatment	Bayesian OR (95% CrI)	95% prediction interval	Frequentist OR (95% CI)	Verdict
Semaglutide tablet SEMA_PO	9.07 (1.55 to 34.45)	0.96 to 53.34	14.02 (4.79 to 41.01)	Better
Dulaglutide injection DULA_SC	5.93 (0.63 to 29.26)	0.40 to 41.19	11.17 (3.21 to 38.89)	Unclear
Liraglutide injection LIRA_SC	4.57 (0.89 to 16.65)	0.48 to 25.52	8.04 (2.49 to 25.96)	Unclear
Albiglutide injection ALBI_SC	4.14 (0.43 to 21.02)	0.26 to 29.71	7.71 (2.18 to 27.32)	Unclear
Efpe sc EFPE_SC	3.93 (0.90 to 13.50)	0.51 to 26.08	4.18 (2.51 to 6.96)	Unclear

Ranking

How likely each treatment is to be among the best. Rankings ignore the size of differences and their certainty, so read them with the effects above.

League table

Every treatment against every other: odds ratio of the row treatment versus the column treatment, posterior median and 95% credible interval. Green: row clearly better; red: row clearly worse.

Every treatment in a row compared with every treatment in a column
Row versus column	PLACEBO	SEMA_PO	DULA_SC	LIRA_SC	ALBI_SC	EFPE_SC
PLACEBO	PLACEBO	0.11 0.03 to 0.64	0.17 0.03 to 1.58	0.22 0.06 to 1.12	0.24 0.05 to 2.34	0.25 0.07 to 1.11
SEMA_PO	9.07 1.55 to 34.45	SEMA_PO	1.50 0.26 to 12.75	1.94 0.51 to 8.39	2.15 0.33 to 17.50	2.30 0.29 to 15.39
DULA_SC	5.93 0.63 to 29.26	0.66 0.08 to 3.89	DULA_SC	1.30 0.29 to 4.39	1.43 0.19 to 9.10	1.53 0.12 to 10.63
LIRA_SC	4.57 0.89 to 16.65	0.52 0.12 to 1.97	0.77 0.23 to 3.48	LIRA_SC	1.10 0.30 to 4.73	1.17 0.16 to 6.93
ALBI_SC	4.14 0.43 to 21.02	0.46 0.06 to 3.01	0.70 0.11 to 5.26	0.91 0.21 to 3.34	ALBI_SC	1.07 0.08 to 8.36
EFPE_SC	3.93 0.90 to 13.50	0.43 0.06 to 3.49	0.65 0.09 to 8.29	0.85 0.14 to 6.35	0.93 0.12 to 11.98	EFPE_SC

Heterogeneity, fit and convergence

Bayesian random effects (primary)

Heterogeneity (tau): 0.423 (95% CrI 0.097 to 1.593), log scale
Residual deviance: 9.1 for 9 data points
DIC: 17.9 (pD 8.7)
Largest R-hat: 1.002
Smallest ESS: bulk 3,106, tail 3,268
Divergent transitions: 0
Convergence: All criteria met
Priors: PR02 N(0, 5^2); PR05 N(0, 2.5^2); PR09 log normal(-1.77, 1.52^2) on tau^2 (Biological markers (dichotomised), pharm vs placebo control)

Frequentist check (netmeta)

Method: inverse variance, REML, OR
Tau: 0.000
Q (total): 0.00 on 0 df
Q (between designs): 0.00

Inconsistency

Do trials comparing two treatments directly agree with the indirect evidence through other treatments?

No comparison here has both direct and indirect evidence, so inconsistency cannot be checked by node splitting; the between designs Q above is the global check.

Small study effects

A comparison adjusted funnel plot: each point is one trial comparison, centered on its own network estimate. Asymmetry can signal that small trials with unfavorable results are missing.

Fewer than ten trial comparisons, too few to judge funnel plot asymmetry.

Baseline characteristics of the trials

The baseline value of each effect modifier or prognostic factor that applies here, per trial: mean or percent over arms, weighted by the number randomized. A note under a value names a stand in (a median for a mean, 100 minus the male share, Asian subgroup rows, an all Asian site list); "not reported" means no source of the trial prints it.

Baseline effect modifiers and prognostic factors per trial
Trial	Baseline HbA1c (percent) effect modifier, prognostic factor; 4 of 4	Background glucose lowering therapy (stratum S0 to S4) effect modifier, prognostic factor; 4 of 4	Diabetes duration (years) effect modifier, prognostic factor; 4 of 4
NCT01558271 S000837	8.14	S0	6.59
NCT01733758 S001075	8.11	S0	6.65
PIONEER 9 S001943	8.2	S0	7.6
AMPLITUDE-M S002081	8.07	S0	5.1

Comparability of the trials

Checked across designs (the set of treatments each trial compares) for eligibility, outcome definition and assessment, and the baseline factors above. Flags point to possible intransitivity; notes describe variation that is not tied to design.

NoteOutcome assessment, time point: selected time points span 52 to 56 weeks
NoteOutcome assessment, analysis set: mixed: completers 1, full_analysis 2, randomized 1
NoteOutcome assessment, definition: mixed: HbA1c below 7.0 percent 1, not stated 3
NoteOutcome assessment, proportion method: mixed: not stated 3, not_stated 1
NoteData handling, input conversions: arms_combined 3, count_from_percent 2

Comparability items per trial
Trial	time weeks	analysis set	definition	instrument	adjudicated	proportion method	intercurrent events (discontinuation)	intercurrent events (rescue)	blinding	funding	start year	Eligibility
NCT01558271	52	full_analysis	HbA1c below 7.0 percent	not stated	not stated	not stated	not stated	not stated	double_blind	industry	2012	Japanese; age 20 or more; BMI 18.5 to 35; HbA1c 7.0 to 10.0 percent; OAM naive or OAM stopped
NCT01733758	52	completers	not stated	not stated	not stated	not stated	not stated	not stated	double_blind	industry	2013	Japanese adults; diet and exercise with or without one oral drug; HbA1c 7 to 10 percent after washout
PIONEER 9	52	full_analysis	not stated	not stated	not stated	not stated	not stated	not stated	double_blind	industry	2017	Japanese adults 20 y or older; HbA1c 6.5 to 9.5 on one oral drug washed out, or 7.0 to 10.0 on diet and exercise
AMPLITUDE-M	56	randomized	not stated	not stated	not stated	not_stated	not stated	not stated	double_blind	industry	2017	type 2 diabetes on diet and exercise, HbA1c 7 to 10 percent, no glucose lowering drug in prior 3 months

Trial data

What each trial contributes. Arm rows give the arm value with its standard error, or events over participants; contrast rows give the odds ratio on the analysis scale (log) against the trial's first row. Flags mark converted, combined or approximated inputs.

Trial data entering this analysis
Trial	Arm	Treatment	Week	Data	Events / N	Flags	Source
NCT01558271	A1	DULA_SC	52	arm, responders	190 / 280		R0011754:Results
NCT01558271	A2	LIRA_SC	52	arm, responders	82 / 136		R0011754:Results
NCT01733758	A2+A3	ALBI_SC	52	arm, responders	167 / 283	arms_combined	registry:outcomes
NCT01733758	A4	LIRA_SC	52	arm, responders	57 / 95		registry:outcomes
PIONEER 9	A1+A2+A3	SEMA_PO	52	arm, responders	81 / 146	arms_combined	registry:outcomes
PIONEER 9	A4	LIRA_SC	52	arm, responders	20 / 48		registry:outcomes
PIONEER 9	A5	PLACEBO	52	arm, responders	4 / 49		registry:outcomes
AMPLITUDE-M	A1+A2+A3	EFPE_SC	56	arm, responders	171 / 304	count_from_percent;arms_combined	R0007136:Figure 2
AMPLITUDE-M	A4	PLACEBO	56	arm, responders	24 / 102	count_from_percent	R0007136:Figure 2

Rerun this analysis yourself

Remove treatments or trials and refit the frequentist and Bayesian models in your browser, with the same methods as the published analysis.

Open in the NMA lab