Efficacy and Safety of Liraglutide 3.0 mg in Patients with Overweight and Obese with or without Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Liraglutide in a 3.0 mg subcutaneous dose daily is approved for weight reduction. Objectives: Objectives are to evaluate the efficacy and safety of liraglutide 3.0 mg in patients with overweight and obesity irrespective of diabetic status. Methods: We conducted an electronic database search in PubMed, Embase, and https://ClinicalTrial.gov to identify all randomized control trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of liraglutide 3.0 mg dose compared to placebo in overweight (≥27 kg/m2) and obese (≥30 kg/m2) patients above 18 years of age. Results: We compared the pooled estimate of the study results between liraglutide 3.0 mg groups and placebo groups both in diabetic and nondiabetic patients. The efficacy outcomes that were found to be significant among respective studies involving nondiabetic patients vs. diabetic patients were mean change in body weight from baseline: 12 studies [MD = -5.04 kg (95% CI = -5.60, -4.49), P < 0.001, I 2 = 92.95%] vs. 2 studies [MD = -4.14 kg (95% CI = -4.95, -3.32), P < 0.001, I 2 = 0%], reduction in waist circumference from baseline: 8 studies [MD = -3.64 cm (95% CI = -4.43, -2.85), P < 0.001, I 2 = 96.5%] vs. 2 studies [MD = -3.11 cm (95% CI = -3.88, -2.34), P < 0.001, I 2 = 0%], BMI reduction from baseline: 5 studies [MD = -1.95 kg/m2 (95% CI = -2.22, -1.68) vs. 1 study [MD = -1.86 kg/m2 (95% CI = -2.14, -1.57), P < 0.001, I 2 = 0%, P < 0.001, I 2 = 95.6%], proportion of patients losing more than 5% of weight loss from baseline: 8 studies [RR = 2.21, (95% CI = 1.89, 2.58), P=0.03, I 2 = 59.02%] vs. 2 studies [RR = 2.34, (95% CI = 1.93, 2.85), P=0.39, I 2 = 0.00%], and 10% weight loss from baseline: 7 studies [RR = 3.36, (95% CI = 1.92, 5.91), P=0.00, I 2 = 87.03%] vs. 2 studies [RR = 3.64, (95% CI = 2.46, 5.40), P=0.81, I 2 = 0.00%]. Safety outcome assessment with use of liraglutide 3.0 mg compared with placebo in respective nondiabetic vs. diabetic patients revealed significant proportion of patients experiencing the adverse events: 9 studies [RR = 1.11, (95% CI = 1.04, 1.18), P=0.00I 2 = 79.15%] vs. 2 studies [RR = 1.06, (95% CI = 1.01, 1.11), P=0.42, I 2 = 0.03%] but similar risk of serious adverse events: 9 studies [RR = 1.03, (95% CI = 0.70, 1.51), P=0.26, I 2 = 18.54%] vs. 2 studies [RR = 1.11, (95% CI = 0.67, 1.84), P=0.25, I 2 = 23.77%] and TDAEs: 4 studies [RR = 0.89, (95% CI = 0.35, 2.28), P=0.03, I 2 = 61.89%] vs. 1 study [RR = 2.53, (95% CI = 1.00, 6.37)]. However, the pooled estimates irrespective of the glycaemic status were mean change in body weight from baseline: 14 RCT [MD = -4.91 kg (95% CI = -5.43, -4.39), P < 0.001, I 2 = 92.35%], reduction in waist circumference from baseline: 10 studies [MD = -3.55 cm, (95% CI = -4.21, -2.89), P < 0.001, I 2 = 94.99%], BMI reduction from baseline: 6 studies [MD = -1.86 kg/m2, (95% CI = -2.14, -1.57), P < 0.001, I 2 = 96.14%], and proportion of patients losing more than 5% and 10% of weight from baseline: [RR = 2.23, (95% CI = 1.98, 2.52), P < 0.001, I 2 = 48.87%] and [RR = 3.28, (95% CI = 2.23, 4.83), P < 0.001, I 2 = 78.98%], respectively. Also, the proportion of patients experiencing the adverse event was more with liraglutide 3.0 mg compared with placebo 11 study [RR = 1.09, (95% CI = 1.04, 1.15), P < 0.01, I 2 = 76.60%] and similar risk for both serious adverse events: 11 studies [RR = 1.09, (95% CI = 1.04, 1.15), P < 0.01, I 2 = 76.60%] and TDAEs: 5 studies [RR = 1.14, (95% CI = 0.50, 2.60), P < 0.01, I 2 = 64.93%] with liraglutide compared with placebo. Conclusions: Liraglutide in 3.0 mg subcutaneous dose demonstrated significant weight reduction with a reasonable safety profile for patients with overweight or obesity regardless of diabetic status compared to placebo.

An evaluation of drug lag for new drugs approved by the Indian regulator relative to the United States, European Union, and Japanese regulatory agencies: A 15-year analysis (2004-2018).

BACKGROUND: The approval process of every drug regulatory agency differs, and hence, the time required for the approval of a new drug varies. This results in a drug lag and India is no exception to this phenomenon. A drug lag precludes Indian patients from accessing new medicines at the same time as they are approved elsewhere. Against this backdrop, we assessed the absolute and relative drug lags of the Indian regulator relative to three regulators in mature markets, namely United States (US), European Union (EU), and Japan. METHODS: International nonproprietary names were used to identify new drugs. Their dates of approval (2004-2018) from the online database of four regulatory agencies were identified. Both absolute and relative drug lags were calculated for India as compared to US, EU, and Japan as well for all the agencies relative to the Indian regulator. RESULTS: We identified a total of 453, 473, 424, and 472 new drugs approved over the study period in India, US, EU, and Japan, respectively. The absolute drug lag of Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) was 19 and 18 relative to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Japan Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), respectively. The relative drug lag for the CDSCO vis-a-vis the US FDA, European Medicines Agency, and PMDA was 43.2 (2.1-1287.8), 25.6 (0.03-1310.5), and 30.3 (1.2-1242) months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study shows a significant drug lag between India and other three developed nations (US, EU, and Japan). However, in some therapeutic areas, Indian regulator has proactively approved new drugs much before other agencies. The New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rule of 2019 has brought hope for reduction in drug lag in the near future.

Audiovisual recording of the consenting process in clinical research: Experiences from a tertiary referral center.

The quality of the written informed consent process is one of the most important aspects of clinical research, as it is the single tool that serves as a metric of autonomy. Several challenges have been identified with the informed consent process in developing countries the most important of which is the ability to assimilate and understand the information presented in the consent form. In India, a unique aspect of the informed consent process is the need for audio-video [AV] recording of the process for vulnerable populations and new chemical entities. The present narrative summates authors' experiences as investigators with A-V recording of the informed consent process as also providing a brief narrative review of relevant literature. It also offers potential solutions for challenges faced during this process.

An audit of the approval letters issued by Drugs Controller General of India to Ethics Committees in India.

AIM: The present study is an audit of the communiqués issued by the Drugs Controller General of India [DCGI] to Ethics Committees [ECs] for content and directives after the mandatory notification of registration of Ethics Committees issued on 8th February 2013. METHODS: All letters were downloaded from the website of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization [CDSCO] and evaluated for the date of issue, number of directives, domains covered by the directives [general instructions, administrative requirements and quorum requirements], median time to approval for registration and time elapsed between date of application and issue of the approval letter. RESULTS: There were a total of 1036 EC letters listed on the website, from which 854 [82.4%] could be downloaded. A working denominator of 841 was arrived at after discarding repeat letters and those that had an incorrect address. The state of Maharashtra had the highest number of ECs registered (209/841, 24.9%) followed by Gujarat [97/841, 11.5%) and Karnataka [96/841, 11.4%]. The number of directives within each letter ranged from 8-22. The overall time to approval was 77.5 [24-919] days and the time to approval between Institutional and Independent Ethics Committees was significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The office of the DCGI had a very wide time range for approving registration of Ethics Committees that ranged from less than a month to more than two years. The quality and nature of the directives improved with time. As the country moves towards accreditation, letters issued by the DCGI should have uniformity. The large number of ECs in a single state and lack of even a single one in several others is something that needs to be addressed by policy makers.