***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: OBJECTIVE Study the effects of exenatide ( EXE ) plus rosiglitazone ( ROSI ) on β-cell function and insulin sensitivity using hyperglycemic and euglycemic insulin clamp techniques in participants with type 2 diabetes on metformin . RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In this 20-week , r and omized , open-label , multicenter study , participants ( mean age , 56 ± 10 years ; weight , 93 ± 16 kg ; A1C , 7.8 ± 0.7 % ) continued their metformin regimen and received either EXE 10 μg b.i.d . ( n = 45 ) , ROSI 4 mg b.i.d . ( n = 45 ) , or EXE 10 μg b.i.d . + ROSI 4 mg b.i.d . ( n = 47 ) . Seventy-three participants underwent clamp procedures to quantitate insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity . RESULTS A1C declined in all groups ( P < 0.05 ) , but decreased most with EXE+ROSI ( EXE+ROSI , −1.3 ± 0.1 % ; ROSI , −1.0 ± 0.1 % , EXE , −0.9 ± 0.1 % ; EXE+ROSI vs. EXE or ROSI , P < 0.05 ) . ROSI result ed in weight gain , while EXE and EXE+ROSI  result ed in weight loss ( EXE , −2.8 ± 0.5 kg ; EXE+ROSI , −1.2 ± 0.5 kg ; ROSI , + 1.5 ± 0.5 kg ; P < 0.05 between and within all groups ) . At week 20 , 1st and 2nd phase insulin secretion was significantly higher in EXE and EXE+ROSI versus ROSI ( both P < 0.05 ) . Insulin sensitivity ( M value ) was significantly higher in EXE+ROSI versus EXE ( P = 0.014 ) . CONCLUSIONS Therapy with EXE+ROSI offset the weight gain observed with ROSI and elicited an additive effect on glycemic control with significant improvements in β-cell function and insulin sensitivity OBJECTIVE Glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 is a gut hormone that exerts incretin effects and suppresses food intake in humans , but its therapeutic use is limited due to its short half-life . This was a r and omized , double-blind , parallel-group , placebo-controlled trial investigating the effect of the long-acting GLP-1 derivative liraglutide ( NN2211 ) on glycemic control , body weight , body composition , and 24-h energy expenditure in obese subjects with type 2 diabetes . RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Thirty-three patients ( mean + /- SD ) aged 60.0 + /- 9.5 years , with HbA(1c ) 7.5 + /- 1.2 % and BMI 36.6 + /- 4.1 kg/m(2 ) , were r and omized to treatment with a single daily subcutaneous dose of 0.6 mg liraglutide ( n = 21 ) or placebo ( n = 12 ) for 8 weeks . In addition to weight and glycemic parameters , body composition was assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry ( DEXA ) scanning and 24-h energy expenditure in a respiratory chamber . RESULTS After 8 weeks , liraglutide reduced fasting serum glucose ( liraglutide , -1.90 mmol/l , and placebo , 0.27 mmol/l ; P = 0.002 ) and HbA(1c ) ( liraglutide , -0.33 % , and placebo , 0.47 % ; P = 0.028 ) compared with placebo . No change in body weight was detected ( liraglutide , -0.7 kg , and placebo , -0.9 kg ; P = 0.756 ) . There was a nonsignificant trend toward a decrease in total fat mass ( liraglutide , -0.98 % , and placebo , -0.12 % ; P = 0.088 ) and toward an increase in lean body mass ( liraglutide , 1.02 % , and placebo , 0.23 % ; P = 0.118 ) in the liraglutide group compared with the placebo group . Twenty-four-hour energy expenditure was unaffected by the treatment ( liraglutide , -12.6 kJ/h , and placebo , -13.7 kJ/h ; P = 0.799 ) . CONCLUSIONS Eight weeks of 0.6-mg liraglutide treatment significantly improved glycemic control without increasing weight in subjects with type 2 diabetes compared with those on placebo . No influence on 24-h energy expenditure was detected Aim The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily human glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue liraglutide with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin , each added to metformin , over 52 weeks in individuals with type 2 diabetes . Methods In an open-label , parallel-group trial , metformin-treated participants were r and omised to liraglutide 1.2 mg/day ( n= 225 ) , liraglutide 1.8 mg/day ( n= 221 ) or sitagliptin 100 mg/day ( n= 219 ) for 26 weeks ( main phase ) . Participants continued the same treatment in a 26-week extension . Results Liraglutide ( 1.2 or 1.8 mg ) was superior to sitagliptin for reducing HbA1c from baseline ( 8.4–8.5 % ) to 52 weeks : −1.29 % and −1.51 % vs. −0.88 % respectively . Estimated mean treatment differences between liraglutide and sitagliptin were as follows : −0.40 % ( 95 % confidence interval −0.59 to −0.22 ) for 1.2 mg and −0.63 % ( −0.81 to −0.44 ) for 1.8 mg ( both p < 0.0001 ) . Weight loss was greater with liraglutide 1.2 mg ( −2.78 kg ) and 1.8 mg ( −3.68 kg ) than sitagliptin ( −1.16 kg ) ( both p < 0.0001 ) . Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Question naire scores increased significantly more with liraglutide 1.8 mg than with sitagliptin ( p = 0.03 ) . Proportions of participants reporting adverse events were generally comparable ; minor hypoglycaemia was 8.1 % , 8.3 % and 6.4 % for liraglutide 1.2 mg , 1.8 mg and sitagliptin respectively . Gastrointestinal side effects , mainly nausea , initially occurred more frequently with liraglutide , but declined after several weeks . Conclusion Liraglutide provides greater sustained glycaemic control and body weight reduction over 52 weeks . Treatment satisfaction was significantly greater with 1.8 mg liraglutide , similar to 26-week results . The safety profiles of liraglutide and sitagliptin are consistent with previous reports OBJECTIVE This multicenter , open-label , parallel-arm study compared the efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly ( EQW ) with titrated insulin detemir in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin ( with or without sulfonylureas ) . RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Patients were r and omized to EQW ( 2 mg ) or detemir ( once or twice daily , titrated to achieve fasting plasma glucose ≤5.5 mmol/L ) for 26 weeks . The primary outcome was proportion of patients achieving A1C ≤7.0 % and weight loss ≥1.0 kg at end point , analyzed by means of logistic regression . Secondary outcomes included measures of glycemic control , cardiovascular risk factors , and safety and tolerability . RESULTS Of 216 patients ( intent-to-treat population ) , 111 received EQW and 105 received detemir . Overall , 44.1 % ( 95 % CI , 34.7–53.9 ) of EQW-treated patients compared with 11.4 % ( 6.0–19.1 ) of detemir-treated patients achieved the primary outcome ( P < 0.0001 ) . Treatment with EQW result ed in significantly greater reductions  than detemir  in A1C ( least-square mean ± SE , −1.30 ± 0.08 % vs. −0.88 ± 0.08 % ; P < 0.0001 ) and weight ( −2.7 ± 0.3 kg vs. + 0.8 ± 0.4 kg ; P < 0.0001 ) . Gastrointestinal-related and injection site – related adverse events occurred more frequently with EQW than with detemir . There was no major hypoglycemia in either group . Five ( 6 % ) patients in the EQW group and six ( 7 % ) patients in the detemir group experienced minor hypoglycemia ; only one event occurred without concomitant sulfonylureas ( detemir group ) . CONCLUSIONS Treatment with EQW result ed in a significantly greater proportion of patients achieving target A1C and weight loss than treatment with detemir , with a low risk of hypoglycemia . These results suggest that EQW is a viable alternative to insulin detemir treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control using oral antidiabetes drugs Mixed treatment comparison ( MTC ) meta- analysis is a generalization of st and ard pairwise meta- analysis for A vs B trials , to data structures that include , for example , A vs B , B vs C , and A vs C trials . There are two roles for MTC : one is to strengthen inference concerning the relative efficacy of two treatments , by including both ' direct ' and ' indirect ' comparisons . The other is to facilitate simultaneous inference regarding all treatments , in order for example to select the best treatment . In this paper , we present a range of Bayesian hierarchical models using the Markov chain Monte Carlo software WinBUGS . These are multivariate r and om effects models that allow for variation in true treatment effects across trials . We consider models where the between-trials variance is homogeneous across treatment comparisons as well as heterogeneous variance models . We also compare models with fixed ( unconstrained ) baseline study effects with models with r and om baselines drawn from a common distribution . These models are applied to an illustrative data set and posterior parameter distributions are compared . We discuss model critique and model selection , illustrating the role of Bayesian deviance analysis , and node-based model criticism . The assumptions underlying the MTC models and their parameterization are also discussed OBJECTIVE We recently reported that after 26 weeks , exenatide once weekly ( EQW ) result ed in superior A1C reduction , reduced hypoglycemia , and progressive weight loss compared with daily insulin glargine ( IG ) in patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking metformin alone or with sulfonylurea .  This 84-week extension study assessed the long-term safety and efficacy of EQW versus IG . RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This multicenter , open-label , r and omized , two-arm , parallel trial assessed change in A1C , proportions of patients achieving A1C < 7.0 and  ≤6.5 % , body weight , incidence of hypoglycemia , and overall safety . RESULTS Of 415 patients who completed 26 weeks , 390 ( 194 EQW and 196 IG patients ) entered the extension study . At 84 weeks , A1C decreased from baseline ( 8.3 % ) by −1.2 % for EQW vs. −1.0 % for IG ( P = 0.029 ) . The proportions of patients who achieved end point A1C targets < 7.0 and ≤6.5 % were 44.6 % for EQW patients vs. 36.8 % for IG patients ( P = 0.084 ) and 31.3 % for EQW patients vs. 20.2 % for IG patients ( P = 0.009 ) , respectively . Patients taking EQW lost 2.1 kg of body weight , whereas those taking IG gained 2.4 kg ( P < 0.001 ) . Among patients taking metformin plus sulfonylurea , the incidence of minor hypoglycemia was 24 % for EQW patients vs. 54 % for IG patients ( P < 0.001 ) ; among patients taking metformin alone , it was 8 % for EQW patients vs. 32 % for IG patients ( P < 0.001 ) . Among adverse events occurring in ≥5 % of patients , diarrhea and nausea occurred more frequently ( P < 0.05 ) in the EQW group than in the IG group ( 12 vs. 6 % and 15 vs. 1 % , respectively ) . CONCLUSIONS After 84 weeks , patients treated with EQW continued to experience better glycemic control with sustained overall weight loss and a lower risk of hypoglycemia than patients treated with IG OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of a lifestyle modification program plus exenatide versus lifestyle modification program plus placebo on weight loss in overweight or obese 
    Output:
    
Some GLP-1RAs , especially liraglutide—1.8 mg once daily and liraglutide—1.2 mg once daily , were associated with a significant reduction in waist circumference