Journal article
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.
- Publication status:
- Published
- Peer review status:
- Peer reviewed
Actions
Access Document
- Files:
-
-
(Preview, Version of record, pdf, 601.4KB, Terms of use)
-
- Publisher copy:
- 10.2147/clep.s121991
Authors
- Publisher:
- Dove Medical Press
- Journal:
- Clinical Epidemiology More from this journal
- Volume:
- 9
- Issue:
- 1
- Pages:
- 41—51
- Publication date:
- 2017-01-23
- Acceptance date:
- 2016-12-03
- DOI:
- EISSN:
-
1179-1349
- Pmid:
-
28176959
- Language:
-
English
- Keywords:
- Pubs id:
-
pubs:675255
- UUID:
-
uuid:bd2d5bda-4368-4602-8e2f-610e726c5515
- Local pid:
-
pubs:675255
- Source identifiers:
-
675255
- Deposit date:
-
2018-07-26
Terms of use
- Copyright holder:
- Ankarfeldt et al
- Copyright date:
- 2017
- Notes:
-
© 2017 Ankarfeldt et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.
php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work
you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For
permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record