Background: In the absence of head-to-head evidence, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) using individual-level participant data was conducted to provide evidence of the comparative cardiovascular (CV) protective effect of liraglutide vs semaglutide in subjects with type 2 diabetes.
Methods: CV outcomes trials (CVOTs) were identified for comparators of interest. LEADER was a randomised controlled trial studying the CV protective effect of liraglutide vs placebo. Similarly, two CVOTs comparing semaglutide with placebo were identified: SUSTAIN 6 and PIONEER 6. Time to first 3-point major adverse CV events (3P-MACE) (adjudicated) was the primary outcome in all trials and was chosen as the primary outcome for the ITC. Potential effect modifiers (baseline indicators of prior CV disease, albumin:creatinine ratio, estimated glomerular filtration rate) were identified in the literature and adjusted for in the ITC. A fixed-effects ITC using individual participant data was conducted in a Bayesian setting. Missing data for potential effect modifiers were imputed using multiple imputation (20 imputations). Comparisons were summarised as cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs). Population-average relative treatment effects between liraglutide and semaglutide were reported for each of the three populations corresponding to the three studies.
Results: The ITC showed that the relative risk of semaglutide vs liraglutide for the occurrence of 3P-MACE in the LEADER population favoured semaglutide: HR 0.73 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.56;0.94); results also favoured semaglutide in the SUSTAIN 6 (HR 0.76 [95% CrI: 0.59;0.97]) and PIONEER 6 (HR 0.78 [95% CrI: 0.60;1.00]) populations.
Conclusion: The results demonstrated a risk reduction of CV events (3P-MACE) for semaglutide vs liraglutide of 22-27% depending on the population studied. These results may have implications for clinical practice.
B.Chubb: Employee; Novo Nordisk A/S, Stock/Shareholder; Novo Nordisk A/S. M.Bøg: Employee; Lundbeck, Novo Nordisk.
