Independent · non-commercial · publishes on a quarterly cycle|Current cycle 2026 Q3
Compound Evidence InstituteEvidence synthesis · established 2023Graded assessments of compounds, trials, methods and supply
Document set current to 30 July 2026
Evidence synthesis · §4

Liraglutide in adjunctive therapy in type 1 diabetes: tolerability and discontinuation — summary of findings

Outcome-by-outcome summary with effect, certainty and the reason for each downgrade.

Document identifier
CEI-ES-105/4
Series
Evidence synthesis
Version
1.3
Published
07 Nov 2025
Last reviewed
07 May 2026
Next review
07 Nov 2027
Identifier
10.71829/cei.syn.105
Certainty
Moderate
Cycle
2025 Q4
Review type
Safety review
Search executed
25 Aug 2025

Templated review frame. This review question was generated by crossing an indication with a compound for which contributing trials exist. Its prose frame is templated and is shared with other questions of the same shape. Its included studies, its summary of findings and its certainty rating are computed from the underlying records and are not templated. The Institute publishes these questions because the alternative is to leave a question the document set can answer unanswered, and it labels them because the alternative is to present a templated frame as an authored one.

§4Summary of findings

§4.1Summary of findings

Table 7. Summary of findings for Liraglutide in adjunctive therapy in type 1 diabetes: tolerability and discontinuation.

OutcomeParticipants (studies)Effect as reportedCertaintyReason for downgrade
Change in HbA1cThe outcome the Institute designates as anchor for this indication.2,233 (2)Modest glycaemic improvement with increased hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia with ketosis; the Institute reports the composite as…Moderateimprecision
Discontinuation for adverse eventsReported as a summary-of-findings row rather than in a tolerability annex, following a public submission.2,029 (2)Reported per contributing trial; see the included-studies tableModeratepublication bias
Serious adverse eventsEvent counts are low; the estimate is imprecise by construction.1,931 (2)Reported per contributing trial; see the included-studies tableLowrisk of bias, indirectness
Any adverse eventAscertained by spontaneous report in the contributing trials.1,823 (2)Reported per contributing trial; see the included-studies tableLowinconsistency
Change in total daily insulin doseA secondary outcome for this indication. Its hierarchical position within each contributing trial is recorded on that trial's abstract where the Institute holds it.1,015 (1)Reported as a secondary outcome in a subset of contributing trialsLowinconsistency, indirectness
Time in range on continuous glucose monitoringA secondary outcome for this indication. Its hierarchical position within each contributing trial is recorded on that trial's abstract where the Institute holds it.1,235 (1)Reported as a secondary outcome in a subset of contributing trialsLowrisk of bias, indirectness
Certainty ratings describe confidence in the effect estimate for the stated outcome. They are not recommendations and do not transfer between outcomes.

§4.2Forest plot

Contributing estimatesPoint estimates with confidence intervals for each contributing study, plotted against the line of no effect.0.7511.5Ratio measure, log scale (1 = no effect)Contributing studyEstimate (95 % CI)ADJUNCT-ONE2016 · n=1,3981.37 (1.09 to 1.66)ADJUNCT-TWO2016 · n=8351.19 (0.84 to 1.54)Pooled estimate1.24 (1.09 to 1.40)
Study estimatePooled estimate
Figure 1. Illustrative. Contributing estimates plotted against the line of no effect. The point estimates and intervals are the Institute's standardised representation of the contributing evidence on a common ratio scale, generated deterministically from the record identifiers; they are not the published estimates, which appear in their own units in the included-studies table and on each trial abstract. The figure is published to convey the dispersion of the evidence base, not to supply a number.

§4.3Certainty assessment for the anchor outcome

Certainty assessment by domainDowngrading decision recorded for each certainty domain.Certainty domainNo concernSeriousVery seriousEffect on ratingRisk of biasno downgradeInconsistencyno downgradeIndirectnessno downgradeImprecisiondowngrade one levelPublication biasno downgradeTotal downgrading: 1 levelModerate certainty
Figure 2. Domain-by-domain certainty assessment for the anchor outcome of this review.

Table 8. Reasoning recorded against each certainty domain for the anchor outcome.

DomainRatingReasoning
Risk of biasNo concernNo serious concern identified in this domain.
InconsistencyNo concernNo serious concern identified in this domain.
IndirectnessNo concernNo serious concern identified in this domain.
ImprecisionSeriousA single small trial contributes the whole estimate.
Publication biasNo concernNo serious concern identified in this domain.
Overall: Moderate certainty. The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Further research is likely to have an important impact on confidence in the estimate.

References cited on this page

References are numbered in order of first citation in this document. Each superscript in the text links to its entry below.

  1. Pi-Sunyer X, Astrup A, Fujioka K, Greenway F, Halpern A, Krempf M, Lau DCW, le Roux CW, Violante Ortiz R, Jensen CB, Wilding JPH. A randomized, controlled trial of 3.0 mg of liraglutide in weight management. New England Journal of Medicine 2015;373(1):11–22. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1411892 · PMID 26132939
  2. Marso SP, Daniels GH, Brown-Frandsen K, Kristensen P, Mann JFE, Nauck MA, Nissen SE, Pocock S, Poulter NR, Ravn LS, Steinberg WM, Stockner M, Zinman B, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB. Liraglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine 2016;375(4):311–322. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1603827 · PMID 27295427

Identifiers are reproduced only where the Institute holds them. Where a digital object identifier or PubMed identifier is not shown, the Institute has recorded the journal and year and has not constructed an identifier.

Nothing published by the Institute is medical advice, a diagnosis, a prescription, a treatment recommendation or a purchasing recommendation. Compounds supplied for research use are not approved for human or veterinary use in any jurisdiction, and a favourable analytical assessment of a supplier is not a statement that any product is safe or effective. The Institute publishes certainty ratings and never recommendations. No telephone number, messaging handle or ordering channel appears anywhere on this site.