Network meta-analysis

Body weight change in kilograms (diabetes)

Type 2 diabetes (adults); background therapy: one or more non insulin glucose lowering drugs

weeks 64 to 130 (target week 104)Hypothetical (as if everyone stayed on treatment)Each dose separatelyMean difference

Randomized trials

Treatments

1,257

Participants

Trial arms

In plain language

Across 2 trials with 1,257 participants, 0 of 3 treatments had a clearly better result than insulin glargine on body weight change in kilograms (diabetes), and for 3 the evidence could not tell them apart from insulin glargine. The most favorable estimate was for exenatide extended release 2 mg subcutaneous once weekly: mean difference -4.44 kg (95% credible interval -8.79 to 0.70).

Exenatide extended release 2 mg subcutaneous once weekly: not convincingly different from insulin glargine (certainty pending).
Dulaglutide 1.5 mg subcutaneous once weekly: not convincingly different from insulin glargine (certainty pending).
Dulaglutide 0.75 mg subcutaneous once weekly: not convincingly different from insulin glargine (certainty pending).

Lower 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 Insulin glargine

Mean difference in kg. Lower values favor the treatment.

Versus Insulin glargine. 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 Insulin glargine
Treatment	Bayesian MD (95% CrI)	95% prediction interval	Frequentist MD (95% CI)	Verdict	Confidence
Exenatide extended release 2 mg subcutaneous once weekly EXENER_SC_2MG_QW	-4.44 (-8.79 to 0.70)	-10.80 to 2.92	-4.50 (-5.05 to -3.95)	Unclear	pending
Dulaglutide 1.5 mg subcutaneous once weekly DULA_SC_1p5MG_QW	-3.20 (-7.59 to 1.69)	-9.69 to 4.30	-3.24 (-3.96 to -2.52)	Unclear	pending
Dulaglutide 0.75 mg subcutaneous once weekly DULA_SC_0p75MG_QW	-2.77 (-7.05 to 2.36)	-9.10 to 4.68	-2.82 (-3.54 to -2.10)	Unclear	pending

Confidence in the results

How much each comparison can be trusted, rated with CINeMA in six domains and summarized with GRADE.

Ratings follow the protocol's numeric rules from risk of bias and indirectness judgments made by language model reviewers (amendment A028); no human has verified them yet. Reporting bias (ROB-MEN): some concerns.

Confidence in each comparison with Insulin glargine
Comparison	Within study bias	Reporting bias	Indirectness	Imprecision	Heterogeneity	Incoherence	Confidence
Dulaglutide 0.75 mg subcutaneous once weekly versus Insulin glargine	pending	some	pending	major	none	some	pending
Dulaglutide 1.5 mg subcutaneous once weekly versus Insulin glargine	pending	some	pending	some	some	some	pending
Exenatide extended release 2 mg subcutaneous once weekly versus Insulin glargine	pending	some	pending	some	some	some	pending

Every other comparison (3)

Confidence in the other comparisons
Comparison	Within study bias	Reporting bias	Indirectness	Imprecision	Heterogeneity	Incoherence	Confidence
Dulaglutide 0.75 mg subcutaneous once weekly versus Dulaglutide 1.5 mg subcutaneous once weekly	pending	some	pending	major	none	some	pending
Dulaglutide 0.75 mg subcutaneous once weekly versus Exenatide extended release 2 mg subcutaneous once weekly	pending	some	pending	major	none	some	pending
Dulaglutide 1.5 mg subcutaneous once weekly versus Exenatide extended release 2 mg subcutaneous once weekly	pending	some	pending	major	none	some	pending

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.

Rank probabilities

Probability of each rank for each treatment
Treatment	Rank 1	Rank 2	Rank 3	Rank 4	Mean rank
EXENER_SC_2MG_QW	69%	16%	12%	3%	1.5
DULA_SC_1p5MG_QW	18%	51%	26%	5%	2.2
DULA_SC_0p75MG_QW	12%	29%	52%	7%	2.5
INS_GLARGINE		4%	11%	85%	3.8

League table

Every treatment against every other: mean difference 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	INS_GLARGINE	EXENER_SC_2MG_QW	DULA_SC_1p5MG_QW	DULA_SC_0p75MG_QW
INS_GLARGINE	INS_GLARGINE	4.44 -0.70 to 8.79	3.20 -1.69 to 7.59	2.77 -2.36 to 7.05
EXENER_SC_2MG_QW	-4.44 -8.79 to 0.70	EXENER_SC_2MG_QW	-1.21 -7.78 to 5.63	-1.65 -8.28 to 5.17
DULA_SC_1p5MG_QW	-3.20 -7.59 to 1.69	1.21 -5.63 to 7.78	DULA_SC_1p5MG_QW	-0.46 -5.51 to 4.69
DULA_SC_0p75MG_QW	-2.77 -7.05 to 2.36	1.65 -5.17 to 8.28	0.46 -4.69 to 5.51	DULA_SC_0p75MG_QW

Heterogeneity, fit and convergence

Bayesian random effects (primary)

Heterogeneity (tau): 1.529 (95% CrI 0.071 to 5.180)
Residual deviance: 5.1 for 5 data points
DIC: 10.1 (pD 5.1)
Largest R-hat: 1.002
Smallest ESS: bulk 2,063, tail 2,410
Divergent transitions: 0
Convergence: All criteria met
Priors: PR01 N(0, 25^2); PR03 N(0, 12.5^2); PR07 half normal(0, 2.5^2) on tau

Frequentist check (netmeta)

Method: inverse variance, REML, MD
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.

Contribution of direct evidence

Percent contribution of each direct comparison (columns) to each network estimate (rows), from netcontrib.

Contribution of direct comparisons to network estimates
Network estimate	DULA_SC_0p75MG_QW:DULA_SC_1p5MG_QW:INS_GLARGINE	EXENER_SC_2MG_QW:INS_GLARGINE
DULA_SC_0p75MG_QW:INS_GLARGINE	100
DULA_SC_1p5MG_QW:INS_GLARGINE	100
EXENER_SC_2MG_QW:INS_GLARGINE		100

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 BMI or body weight (kg/m2) effect modifier, prognostic factor; 2 of 2	Sex (percent female) effect modifier, prognostic factor; 2 of 2	Background glucose lowering therapy (stratum S0 to S4) effect modifier, prognostic factor; 2 of 2	Asian ancestry or region (percent Asian) effect modifier, prognostic factor; 2 of 2	Kidney function (eGFR) (mL/min/1.73 m2) prognostic factor, effect modifier; 0 of 2	Treatment duration (weeks) effect modifier; 2 of 2	Lifestyle co-intervention intensity (none standard intensive) effect modifier, prognostic factor; 2 of 2
AWARD-2 S001130	31.55	48.52	S1	16.91	eGFR below 60: 1.1 percent	78	not_reported
NCT00641056 S001768	32	45.61	S1	6	eGFR below 60: 7.3 percent	84	not_reported

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.

FlagBaseline, Kidney function (eGFR): not reported by 2 of 2 trials
NoteOutcome assessment, time point: selected time points span 78 to 84 weeks

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
AWARD-2	78	modified_itt	not stated	not stated	not stated	not stated	not stated	hypothetical	open_label	industry	2010	type 2 diabetes on metformin and glimepiride
NCT00641056	84	modified_itt	not stated	not stated	not stated	not stated	not stated	hypothetical	open_label	industry	2008	age 18 or older; HbA1c 7.1 to 11.0 percent; BMI 25 to 45; metformin with or without sulfonylurea

Trial data

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

Trial data entering this analysis
Trial	Arm	Treatment	Week	Data	Value	SE	Events / N	Source
AWARD-2	A1	DULA_SC_1p5MG_QW	78	arm, change	-1.960	0.260	272	registry:outcomes
AWARD-2	A2	DULA_SC_0p75MG_QW	78	arm, change	-1.540	0.260	270	registry:outcomes
AWARD-2	A3	INS_GLARGINE	78	arm, change	1.280	0.260	259	registry:outcomes
NCT00641056	A1	EXENER_SC_2MG_QW	84	arm, change	-2.100	0.200	233	R0027747:Results
NCT00641056	A2	INS_GLARGINE	84	arm, change	2.400	0.200	223	R0027747:Results

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