Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

A systematic literature review on the efficacy-effectiveness gap: comparison of randomized controlled trials and observational studies of glucose-lowering drugs

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewpeer review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{a750a57f2db5423c99e7e747e6d50244,
title = "A systematic literature review on the efficacy-effectiveness gap: comparison of randomized controlled trials and observational studies of glucose-lowering drugs",
abstract = "AIM: To identify a potential efficacy-effectiveness gap and possible explanations (drivers of effectiveness) for differences between results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating glucose-lowering drugs.METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in English language articles published between 1 January, 2000 and 31 January, 2015 describing either RCTs or observational studies comparing glucagon-like peptide-1 analogs (GLP-1) with insulin or comparing dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) with sulfonylurea, all with change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as outcome. Medline, Embase, Current Content, and Biosis were searched. Information on effect estimates, baseline characteristics of the study population, publication year, study duration, and number of patients, and for observational studies, characteristics related to confounding adjustment and selection- and information bias were extracted.RESULTS: From 312 hits, 11 RCTs and 7 observational studies comparing GLP-1 with insulin, and from 474 hits, 16 RCTs and 4 observational studies comparing DPP-4i with sulfonylurea were finally included. No differences were observed in baseline characteristics of the study populations (age, sex, body mass index, time since diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus, and HbA1c) or effect sizes across study designs. Mean effect sizes ranged from -0.43 to 0.91 and from -0.80 to 1.13 in RCTs and observational studies, respectively, comparing GLP-1 with insulin, and from -0.13 to 2.70 and -0.20 to 0.30 in RCTs and observational studies, respectively, comparing DPP-4i and sulfonylurea. Generally, the identified observational studies held potential flaws with regard to confounding adjustment and selection- and information bias.CONCLUSIONS: Neither potential drivers of effectiveness nor an efficacy-effectiveness gap were identified. However, the limited number of studies and potential problems with confounding adjustment, selection- and information bias in the observational studies, may have hidden a true efficacy-effectiveness gap.",
keywords = "Journal Article, Review",
author = "Ankarfeldt, {Mikkel Z} and Erpur Adalsteinsson and Groenwold, {Rolf Hh} and Ali, {M Sanni} and Klungel, {Olaf H}",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.2147/CLEP.S121991",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "41--51",
journal = "Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "1179-1349",
publisher = "Dove Medical Press Ltd",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - A systematic literature review on the efficacy-effectiveness gap: comparison of randomized controlled trials and observational studies of glucose-lowering drugs

AU - Ankarfeldt, Mikkel Z

AU - Adalsteinsson, Erpur

AU - Groenwold, Rolf Hh

AU - Ali, M Sanni

AU - Klungel, Olaf H

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - AIM: To identify a potential efficacy-effectiveness gap and possible explanations (drivers of effectiveness) for differences between results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating glucose-lowering drugs.METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in English language articles published between 1 January, 2000 and 31 January, 2015 describing either RCTs or observational studies comparing glucagon-like peptide-1 analogs (GLP-1) with insulin or comparing dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) with sulfonylurea, all with change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as outcome. Medline, Embase, Current Content, and Biosis were searched. Information on effect estimates, baseline characteristics of the study population, publication year, study duration, and number of patients, and for observational studies, characteristics related to confounding adjustment and selection- and information bias were extracted.RESULTS: From 312 hits, 11 RCTs and 7 observational studies comparing GLP-1 with insulin, and from 474 hits, 16 RCTs and 4 observational studies comparing DPP-4i with sulfonylurea were finally included. No differences were observed in baseline characteristics of the study populations (age, sex, body mass index, time since diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus, and HbA1c) or effect sizes across study designs. Mean effect sizes ranged from -0.43 to 0.91 and from -0.80 to 1.13 in RCTs and observational studies, respectively, comparing GLP-1 with insulin, and from -0.13 to 2.70 and -0.20 to 0.30 in RCTs and observational studies, respectively, comparing DPP-4i and sulfonylurea. Generally, the identified observational studies held potential flaws with regard to confounding adjustment and selection- and information bias.CONCLUSIONS: Neither potential drivers of effectiveness nor an efficacy-effectiveness gap were identified. However, the limited number of studies and potential problems with confounding adjustment, selection- and information bias in the observational studies, may have hidden a true efficacy-effectiveness gap.

AB - AIM: To identify a potential efficacy-effectiveness gap and possible explanations (drivers of effectiveness) for differences between results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating glucose-lowering drugs.METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in English language articles published between 1 January, 2000 and 31 January, 2015 describing either RCTs or observational studies comparing glucagon-like peptide-1 analogs (GLP-1) with insulin or comparing dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) with sulfonylurea, all with change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as outcome. Medline, Embase, Current Content, and Biosis were searched. Information on effect estimates, baseline characteristics of the study population, publication year, study duration, and number of patients, and for observational studies, characteristics related to confounding adjustment and selection- and information bias were extracted.RESULTS: From 312 hits, 11 RCTs and 7 observational studies comparing GLP-1 with insulin, and from 474 hits, 16 RCTs and 4 observational studies comparing DPP-4i with sulfonylurea were finally included. No differences were observed in baseline characteristics of the study populations (age, sex, body mass index, time since diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus, and HbA1c) or effect sizes across study designs. Mean effect sizes ranged from -0.43 to 0.91 and from -0.80 to 1.13 in RCTs and observational studies, respectively, comparing GLP-1 with insulin, and from -0.13 to 2.70 and -0.20 to 0.30 in RCTs and observational studies, respectively, comparing DPP-4i and sulfonylurea. Generally, the identified observational studies held potential flaws with regard to confounding adjustment and selection- and information bias.CONCLUSIONS: Neither potential drivers of effectiveness nor an efficacy-effectiveness gap were identified. However, the limited number of studies and potential problems with confounding adjustment, selection- and information bias in the observational studies, may have hidden a true efficacy-effectiveness gap.

KW - Journal Article

KW - Review

U2 - 10.2147/CLEP.S121991

DO - 10.2147/CLEP.S121991

M3 - Review

C2 - 28176959

VL - 9

SP - 41

EP - 51

JO - Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 1179-1349

ER -

ID: 52388110