Structured population data were available for 5 of 5 supporting studies. 3 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 5 studies described adult participants.

1 relevant study has unresolved authoritative design evidence and does not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, placebo, usual_care.

3 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Basal Insulin (Glargine)

Placebo

Core clinician-reference fields are available or not applicable.

Participants received GLP-1 (Liraglutide) in combination with metformin and sulfonylurea.

GLP-1 (Liraglutide)

We considered three treatment arms: GLP-1 (Liraglutide), basal insulin (glargine), and placebo. After training, virtual trials were conducted by sampling 232 virtual patients per arm (according to the LEAD-5 inclusion criteria) and predicting post-treatment outcomes.

Participants received basal insulin (glargine) in combination with metformin and sulfonylurea.

We considered three treatment arms: GLP-1 (Liraglutide), basal insulin (glargine), and placebo.

Participants received placebo in combination with metformin and sulfonylurea.

Authoritative quality diagnostic: invalid or missing unit.

Authoritative quality diagnostic: invalid or missing value.

AI Emulation Shows GLP-1 Improves HbA1c in Type 2 Diabetes

Standard SWMS care

Participants received SWMS care plus a targeted prescribing pathway for liraglutide 3.0 mg.

Liraglutide 3.0 mg

Participants were randomly allocated (2:1, stratified by centre and BMI) to SWMS care plus a targeted prescribing pathway for once daily subcutaneous liraglutide 3 mg (intervention) with stopping rules at 16 (≥5% weight loss, WL), 32 (≥10% WL) and 52 weeks (≥15% WL) or to SWMS care alone (control) through an online randomization service.

Participants received standard SWMS care alone.

Liraglutide 3 mg pathway improves weight loss.

Reference Liraglutide

T2DM patients with obesity receiving Liraglutide Biosimilar.

Liraglutide Biosimilar

Group A – Intervention arm: Liraglutide Biosimilar in T2DM patients with obesity

T2DM patients with obesity receiving Reference Liraglutide.

Group B – Control arm: Reference Liraglutide in T2DM patients with obesity

Liraglutide biosimilar shows significant weight reduction in T2DM patients

Source evidence could not be resolved sufficiently for this field.

Not extracted from the authoritative source.

Clinician-reference record is usable with limitations in: design, risk_of_bias.

Participants received liraglutide as a once-daily subcutaneous injection.

Liraglutide

Participants were randomized 2:1 to receive a once-daily subcutaneous injection of liraglutide (up to 1.8 mg/day) or placebo.

Participants received a placebo injection.

Authoritative quality diagnostic: source evidence unresolved.

Liraglutide improves glycaemic control in adults with T2D

Participants received liraglutide for 26 weeks.

Treatment with liraglutide, compared to placebo, decreased body weight, but did not modify plasma GDF15 levels in all patients, or when data were split by ethnicity.

Participants received placebo for 26 weeks.

Compared to placebo, liraglutide treatment for 26 weeks does not modify plasma GDF15 levels in Dutch Europid or South Asian patients with T2DM.

Liraglutide shows no effect on plasma GDF15 levels

Structured population data were available for 2 of 3 supporting studies. 1 study described participants with type 2 diabetes. 2 studies described adult participants.

2 relevant studies have unresolved authoritative design evidence and do not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.

2 supporting studies do not have a displayable topic-matched quantitative effect.

1 supporting study lacks usable structured population information.

2 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Structured population data were available for 11 of 11 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 9 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. 11 studies described adult participants.

9 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 3 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 3 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: baseline_within_group, usual_care.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 3 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 2 studies described adult participants.

1 supporting study has high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

2 of 3 studies with duration data have follow-up of 12 weeks or less.

1 study contains conflicting p-value and significance fields; those significance claims are suppressed.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, usual_care.

Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. 2 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 2 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 3 studies described adult participants.

1 supporting study does not have a displayable topic-matched quantitative effect.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: baseline_within_group, unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 1 study described participants with type 2 diabetes. 2 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group.

Structured population data were available for 5 of 5 supporting studies. 4 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, placebo.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

Structured population data were available for 9 of 9 supporting studies. 3 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 7 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: baseline_within_group, other, unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

4 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. 4 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 3 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group, placebo.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 1 study described participants with type 2 diabetes. 3 studies described adult participants.

Upstream consistency scoring indicates mixed findings across the evidence.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: placebo, usual_care.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, unknown_unresolved.

Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. 3 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 9 of 9 supporting studies. 9 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 9 studies described adult participants.

Liraglutide

Evidence signal

Evidence snapshot

Clinical conclusion

Observed effects

Evidence composition

Consistency

Population and applicability

Limitations

Supporting evidence