Pharmacology & Pharmacy, 2013, 4, 679-683
Published Online December 2013 (
Open Access PP
Evolution of Biochemical Effects of Byetta® in Type 2
Diabetics with Cardiovascular Risk
Alfonso López Ruiz1, María Ángeles Ibáñez Gil2, Pedro Pujante Alarcón3, Alicia Hernández Torres4,
Ana Belen Hernández Cascales3, María Dolores Hellín Gil3
1Pharmaceutical Care Research at the University of Granada, Granada, Spain; 2Health Center Mariano Yago, Yecla, Murcia, Spain;
3Endocrinology and Nutrition Service of the Hospital University Virgen de la Arrixaca, Murcia, Spain; 4Infectious Internal Medicine
of the Hospital University Virgen de la Arrixaca, Murcia, Spain.
Received September 8th, 2013; revised October 18th, 2013; accepted October 28th, 2013
Copyright © 2013 Alfonso López Ruiz et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution Li-
cense, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The objective of this study was to examine longitudinally the effects of exenatide on different physical and biochemical
markers, evaluated in adult type 2 diabetic patients with cardiovascular risk. Data were recorded from 10 patients who
attended the outpatient primary care health center Mariano Iago Yecla, Murcia province, Spain in the period of Decem-
ber 2009 to October 2011 and who were treated with Byetta®. Differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05) in
HbA1c from the third month of treatment, and trends of decrease in body weight from the third week of treatment. There
was a significant and better glycemic control. Overall effect was interpreted as a sensitizer drug of the parameters
evaluated. Randomized studies are recommended with a minimum follow-up of 2 years, to see if the results are main-
tained over time.
Keywords: Diabetes Mellitus Type 2; Exenatide; Cardiovascular Risk
1. Introduction
Exenatide (Byetta®, Eli Lilly) is an incretin mimetic, and
a synthetic peptide (amide acid peptide of 39 amino acids)
which is currently approved in several countries world-
wide (marketed since 2006 in the European Union) for
use as combination therapy with sulfonylureas and/or
metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who
have not been achieved adequate glycemic control with
oral antidiabetic earlier [1,2]. Its therapeutic action is
related primarily to reduce both postprandial glucose and
fasting, before the consideration of the following four
aspects [3-6]:
1) Increased insulin secretion by β cells independently
of glucose (reduced insulin release with decreasing blood
2) Inhibition of glucagon secretion and hepatic glu-
coneogenesis as well.
3) Slowing of gastric emptying and, consequently, the
transition to the movement of glucose intake.
4) Increased satiety.
Exenatide is indicated as an alternative to insulin
therapy or other measures of second line therapy in pa-
tients with obese type 2 diabetes mellitus in combination
with sulfonylurea, metformin or pioglitazone when these
options have not achieved adequate glycemic results in a
maximum dose [1,7-9].
Exenatide is available as a pre-filled pen of 5 and 10
mg subcutaneous injection administration. We recom-
mend starting the treatment administered 5 mg/2 times/
day for 1 month, to increase tolerance. The application is
recommended within 60 minutes prior to breakfast and
dinner, or two main meals, separated by a minimum of 6
hours, never after a meal. If necessary, to improve gly-
cemic control, the dose may be increased to 10 mg/2
times/day, following the above recommendations of ad-
ministration [1,2].
The Andalusian Centre of Drug Information (CADIMA)
[2] and Campoamor [3], considered high treatment ex-
enatide daily and annual cost (considering the two doses)
compared with other treatment options and oral insulin
(excluding with liraglutide has a higher cost and annual
daily exenatide). In 2009, he referred a daily cost of 4.47
€, maximum value followed by vildagliptin (2.25 €), in-
Evolution of Biochemical Effects of Byetta® in Type 2 Diabetics with Cardiovascular Risk
sulin detemir ornate feathers (2.09 €), insulin glargine
cartridges (2.05 €), insulin glargine ornate feathers (2.05
€), pioglitazone (2.03 €) and sitagliptin (2.00 €).
For approved indications, currently controversial in-
formation on the effectiveness of exenatide and bio-
chemical markers is associated with physical, being in
constant research, the main reason for this study. Despite
this, there is some consensus that the administration is
associated with a significant reduction in glycosylated
hemoglobin levels (HbA1c) and body weight [1,2].
It is also very limited availability of scientific informa-
tion about its use in obese patients and in combination
with other oral agents such as glitazones, as well as on
mortality and morbidity and association with cardiovas-
cular risk factors and liver.
It presents a comparative effectiveness not less than
insulin. Its use is associated with a high level of with-
drawals from treatment due to adverse effects: 8% com-
pared with 3% of placebo and 1% insulin [2]. Among the
major adverse effects can be mentioned [1,2,10-14]:
Nausea (45% - 51%).
Vomiting (12% - 14%).
Diarrhea (9% - 17%).
Hypoglycemic episodes (28% - 36%) in combination
with sulfonylureas.
Acute pancreatitis (89 cases in the European Union in
the period 2006-2007).
These effects depend on the continuity of treatment
and combination therapy implemented. The truth is that
against the perceived benefits of reducing HbA1c and
body weight, low risk of hypoglycemia (except in com-
bination with a sulfonylurea), low blood pressure and a
potential protective effect of β cells, has the following
disadvantages: the administration of injections, frequent
gastrointestinal side effects, high costs, little experience
in treatment, antibody formation and possible interac-
tions with other drugs given delayed gastric emptying.
Regarding the cardiovascular risk associated with diabe-
tes mellitus, there is a current controversy, the effects of
exenatide, finding favorable effects [15-21] or on heart
rate and blood pressure [15,22,23].
The aim of this study is to contribute to the evolution-
ary analysis of the effects of exenatide on physical and
biochemical markers evaluated in the specific case of
adult type 2 diabetic patients with cardiovascular risk.
2. Materials and Methods
Study Design
An experimental study was conducted, longitudinal panel,
and quantitative. The scientific data were obtained from
medical records of 10 patients with type 2 diabetes mel-
litus and cardiovascular risk who attended the outpatient
primary care health center Mariano Yago in the town of
Yecla, Murcia, Spain for the period December 2009 to
October 2011.
Physical data were collected: weight, height, shape and
body mass index (BMI) and biochemical glycosylated
hemoglobin (HbA1c).
We considered three evolutionary breakpoints: 3, 6
and 12 months. Not all participants were evaluated in the
cuts, but that they were established considering a unit of
group analysis.
Combined treatment with Byetta® was diverse, en-
compassing various alternatives and combinations, de-
pending on the needs of each patient and medical profes-
sional criteria. It included, among others: Januvia 145®,
Prevencor 40®, 20® Coropres, Enalapril 20®, Uniket Re-
tard®, add 100®, Glucophage 850® and Actos®.
In all cases reported, as appropriate: time of ingestion.
In the case of Byetta®, all patients started the first month
with Byetta® 5 mg and two months later switched to 10
mg, always 2 times/day, maintaining this dose in subse-
quent months.
The glycosylatedhemoglogina biochemical parameter
was evaluated according to the criteria for optimal con-
trol of the Spanish Society of Diabetes (SED), where:
HbA1c 7%.
The study was conducted based on various measures
of physical and biochemical parameters of 10 adult sub-
jects with type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular
risk. The sample was prepared in a non-probabilistic,
intentional and accidental, according to glycosylated
hemoglobin detected in the patient’s analytic and BMI.
Inclusion criteria for the preparation of the sample
were: be patient with diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus,
adult at the time of diagnosis and treatment.
We excluded cases that did not record a BMI greater
than or equal to 30 and type 1 diabetes was based on the
discretion of the physician who treated the patient in due
Considering the number of subjects, we applied the
contrast of the Shapiro-Wilk normality, to inquire about
the possibility of parametric analysis tools. All physical
and biochemical parameters of analysis, were associated
with probabilities >0.05, so that was adopted following a
normal statistical distribution.
We analyzed the existence of statistically significant
differences in both the temporal evolution of parameters
(initial-final, or initial-3-6 to 12 months, as applicable)
and months of treatment, by a factor univariate ANOVA
(time of measurement).
In cases of biochemical parameters in which such sig-
nificant differences were found, deepened trying dis-
criminate analysis results according to certain factors,
those presented in the overall profile of the participants
(except the initial height and weight, used for calculation
of initial BMI, and contour). In this case, we applied a
Open Access PP
Evolution of Biochemical Effects of Byetta® in Type 2 Diabetics with Cardiovascular Risk 681
univariate ANOVA on several factors. For categories of
factors were considered as follows:
Age: <57, 57, according to 50th percentile.
Sex: female, male.
Initial BMI, pre-obesity (25.00 to 29.99 kg/m2), obe-
sity class I (30 to 34.99 kg/m2), obesity class II (35.00
to 39.99 kg/m2) and Class III obesity (40.00 kg/m2)
according to the criteria of the World Health Organi-
zation (WHO) and the calculation of a minimum of
28.00 kg/m2 and a maximum of 60.00 kg/m2.
Duration of treatment: 3, 6 and 12 months.
Also, in such cases, we analyzed the existence of sta-
tistically significant differences by parameter, time and
between groups using a univariate ANOVA of a factor.
In the univariate ANOVA was applied on several fac-
tors test or Duncan multiple range means separation test
as a method of comparing them, in cases in which the
categories of factors were more than two.
All analysis was performed with SPSS software ver-
sion 15.0 for Windows, considering a significance level
of p < 0.05.
3. Results
The general profile of the patients presented in Table 1.
In the same average age is observed associated with older
subjects, mainly male, obese, and average height.
Table 2 shows the average baseline biochemical IN-
DICATORS evaluated in the study.
In the group treated with Byetta® for 3 months, statis-
tically significant differences (p < 0.05) in HbA1c pa-
rameter (F1.10 = 7.531, p = 0.021). In this case, we found
a significant decrease in the indicator towards the end of
treatment: 9.55%, SD = 1.086 in the initial instance, and
7.77%, SD = 1.164 in the final instance.
Table 1. General profile of patients.
Age Average 59.70 years, standard deviation
(SD) of 9.073 years
Sex Female: 6 (60.0%)
Male: 4 (40.0%)
Weight (initial) Average of 119.94 kg, SD = 13.86 kg.
Height 1.72 m, SD = 0.054 m.
Circumference 125.60 cm, SD = 13.867 cm.
BMI (initial) 40.60 kg/m2, SD = 6.542 kg/m2.
Table 2. Mean baseline glycated hemoglobin by treatment
Group 3
Group 6
Group 12
HbA1c (%) 9.55,
SD = 0.629*
SD = 0.932*
SD = 1.556*
*Statistically significant difference (p < 0.05).
Inicial Final
Media de HbA
Inicial Final
Media de HbA
3 meses
Inicial Final
Media de HbA
3 meses
6 meses
Figure 1. Graphs the means by treatment group and the
corresponding cutoff.
Open Access PP
Evolution of Biochemical Effects of Byetta® in Type 2 Diabetics with Cardiovascular Risk
In the group treated with Byetta® for 6 months, statis-
tically significant differences (p < 0.05) in HbA1c pa-
rameter (F1.12 = 12.277, p = 0.004), finding a significant
decrease towards the end of treatment: 8.71%, SD =
0.932 in the initial instance, and 7.21, SD = 0.644 in the
final instance.
Related to that, the statistically significant differences
(p < 0.05) was found to consider jointly the initial request,
3 and 6 months (F2.17 = 5.839, p = 0.012). In this case,
Duncan’s test identified two homogeneous subgroups:
early times and 3 months in one (mean 8.71% and 8.28%,
respectively) and the other 6 months (mean 7.21%), thus
indicating that a significant reduction occurs by 6 months
of treatment.
Finally, regarding the group treated with Byetta® for
12 months, were found statistically significant differ-
ences (p < 0.05), corresponding to average values of
6.70%, SD = 1.556 in the initial instance, 7.90%, DT =
1.272 at 3 months, 7.30%, SD = 0.849 at 6 months and
6.70%, SD = 0.707 at 12 months.
At the end of treatment, we found similar effects of
Byetta®, effects correlated with the decrease in HbA1c. It
is observed that HbA1c is smaller (maximum reduction)
in the group treated for 12 months (Figure 1).
4. Discussion
Significant effects of treatment with Byetta® in patients
with type 2 diabetes mellitus were recorded for the pa-
rameter of HbA1c from 3 to 6 months of administering
the drug. Even in the latter case, the differences which
were statistically significant (p < 0.05) were consistent
with intermediate levels. Significant effects occurred for
all patients indiscriminately about sex, age and initial
Despite this, and they were presented as baseline bio-
chemical parameters inadequate, according to the criteria
of optimal control of the SED [10,24], the final results of
HbA1c reached the limit of adequacy.
Exenatide was associated with a loss of weight com-
pared to baseline values in Table 2. Exenatide appears to
worsen the cardiovascular status of patients who specifi-
cally included in the study by having the risk of that dis-
Therefore, the recommendations of this study, in con-
clusion, result in the need for randomized studies to
evaluate the effects of Byetta®, interpreted as sensitizers,
on different physical and biochemical parameters in a
greater long-term, proposing to do, at a minimum of 2
[1] National Health Service (NHS), “Exenatide,” New Drug
Evaluation, Vol. 84, 2007.
[2] Andalusian Center for Drug Information (CADIMA), “Exe-
natide (INN),” New Therapeutics, 2009, Sheet 2.
[3] F. Campoamor, “Exenatide in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus,”
Drug Evaluation Committee, Balearic Islands, 2008.
[4] F. Verzegnassi and M. Chinelle, “Exenatide in Type 2
Diabetes,” Lancet, Vol. 376, No. 9746, 2010, pp. 1052-
[5] A. Peters, “Incretin-Based Therapies: Review of Current
Clinical Trial Data,” American Journal of Medicine, Vol.
123, No. 3, 2010, pp. S28-S37.
[6] E. Wajcberg and A. Tavari, “Exenatide: Clinical Aspects
of the First Incretin Mimetic for the Treatment, of Type 2
Diabetes Mellitus,” Expert Opin Pharmacother, Vol. 10,
No. 1, 2009, pp. 135-142.
[7] J. B. Segal, S. M. Dy, E. A. Millman, R. Herbert, E. B.
Bass and A. Wu, “Diffusion Into Use of Exenatide for
Glucose Control in Diabetes Mellitus: A Retrospective
Cohort Study of a New Therapy,” Therapies in Clinical,
Vol. 29, No. 8, 2007, pp. 1784-1794.
[8] J. Philippe, “Role and Indication of GLP-1 Analogues in
the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes,” Revue Médicale
Suisse, Vol. 5, No. 206, 2009, pp. 1260-1262, 1264-1265.
[9] H. Reuter and E. Erdmann, “Exenatide—An Incretin-
Mimetic Agent for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes
Mellitus,” Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift, Vol. 132,
No. 11, 2007, pp. 571-574.
[10] D. M. Nathan, J. B. Buse, M. B. Davidson, R. J. Heine, R.
R. Holman, R. Sherwin, et al., “Management of Hyper-
glycaemia in Type 2 Diabetes: A Consensus Algorithm
for the Initiation and Adjustment of Therapy: A Con-
sensus Statement from the American Diabetes Asso-
ciation and the European Association for the Study of
Diabetes,” Diabetes Care, Vol. 29, No. 8, 2006, pp. 1963-
[11] G. Schernthaner, A. H. Barnett, D. J. Betteridge, R.
Carmena, A. Ceriello, B. Charbonnel, et al., “Is the
ADA/EASD Algorithm for the Management of Type 2
Diabetes (January 2009) Based on Evidence or Opinion?
A Critical Analysis,” Diabetologia, Vol. 53, No. 7, 2010,
pp. 1258-1269.
[12] German Diabetes Association, S. Matthaei, R. Bierwirth,
A. Fritsche, B. Gallwitz, H. U. Häring, et al., “Medical
Treatment of Type Antihyperglycaemic 2 Diabetes Mel-
litus: Update of the Evidence-Based Guideline of the
German Diabetes Association,” Experimental and Clini-
cal Endocrinology & Diabetes, Vol. 117, 2009, pp. 522-
[13] C. M. Apovian, R. M. Bergenstal, R. M. Cuddihy, Y. Qu,
S. Lenox, M. S. Lewis, et al., “Effects of Exenatide
Combined with Lifestyle Modification in Patients with
Type 2 Diabetes,” American Journal of Medicine, Vol.
123, No. 5, 2010, pp. 468.e9-468.e17.
[14] G. I. Robles and D. Singh-Franco, “A Review of Exenatide
as Adjunctive Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes,”
Open Access PP
Evolution of Biochemical Effects of Byetta® in Type 2 Diabetics with Cardiovascular Risk
Open Access PP
Journal of Drug Design, Development and Therapy, Vol.
3, 2009, pp. 219-240.
[15] A. Gill, B. J. Hoogwerf, J. Burger, S. Bruce, L. Mac-
conell, P. Yan, et al., “Effect of Exenatide on Heart Rate
and Blood Pressure in Subjects with Type 2 Diabetes
Mellitus: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Rando-
mized Pilot Study,” Cardiovascular Diabetology, Vol. 9,
2010, p. 6.
[16] T. J. Moretto, D. R. Milton, T. D. Ridge, L. A. Macconell,
T. Okerson, A. M. Wolke, et al., “Efficacy and Tolerability
of Exenatidemonotherapy over 24 Weeks in Antidiabetic
Drug-Naive Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized,
Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group Study,”
Clinical Therapeutics, Vol. 30, No. 8, 2008, pp. 1448-
[17] D. C. Klonoff, J. B. Buse, L. L. Nielsen, X. Guan, C. L.
Bowlus, J. H. Holcombe, et al., “Exenatide Effects on
Diabetes, Obesity, Cardiovascular and Hepatic Biomarkers
Risk Factors in Patients Treated with Type 2 Diabetes at
Least for 3 Years,” Current Medical Research and Opinion,
Vol. 24, No. 1, 2008, pp. 275-286.
[18] D. J. Drucker, J. B. Buse, K. Taylor, D. M. Kendall, M.
Trautmann, D. Zhuang, DURATION-1 Study Group, et
al., “Exenatide Twice Daily versus Weekly Eleven for the
Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized, Open-
Label, Non-Inferiority Study,” Lancet, Vol. 372, 2008, pp.
[19] T. Okerson, P. Yan, A. Stonehouse, R. Brodows and D.
Bhole, “Improved Systolic Blood Pressure Exenatide
Compared to Insulin or Placebo in Patients with Type 2
Diabetes,” Diabetologia, Vol. 51, 2008, p. S350.
[20] R. Bergenstal, T. Kim, P. Yan, T. Darsow, B. Walsh, T.
Okerson, et al., “Eleven Weekly Exenatide Improved
Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in Subjects with Type 2
Diabetes during One Year of Treatment,” Diabetes, Vol.
58, 2009, p. A43.
[21] R. Bhushan, K. E. Elkind-Hirsch, M. Bhushan, W. J.
Butler, K. Duncan and O. Marrioneaux, “Improved Gly-
cemic Control and Cardiometabolic Reduction of Risk
Factors in Subjects with Type 2 Diabetes and Metabolic
Syndrome Treated with Exenatide in a Clinical Practice
Setting,” Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, Vol. 11,
No. 6, 2009, pp. 353-359.
[22] P. A. Kothare, H. Linnebjerg, Y. Isaka, K. Uenaka, A.
Yamamura, K. P. Yeo, et al., “Pharmacokinetics, Pharma-
codynamics, Tolerability, and Safety of Exenatide in
Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus,” Jour-
nal of Clinical Pharmacology, Vol. 48, No. 12, 2008, pp.
[23] H. Linnebjerg, P. Kothare, S. Park, K. Mace and M.
Mitchell, “The Effect of Exenatide on Lisinopril Pharma-
codynamics and Pharmacokinetics in Patients with Hyper-
tension,” International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
and Therapeutics, Vol. 47, No. 11, 2009, pp. 651-658.
[24] E. M. Torre, J. L. Tejedor, S. A. Menendez, J. M. Nunez-
Cortes, A. A. Garcia, M. P. Sunday, et al., “Recom-
mendations for the Pharmacological Treatment of Hyper-
glycemia in Type 2 Diabetes,” Avances en Diabetología,
Vol. 26, No. 6, 2010, pp. 331-338.