Skip to content

Study · Not a test of the peptide alone · 2008

2 results

Evaluation of the cost effectiveness of exenatide versus insulin glargine in patients with sub-optimally controlled type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom.

Woehl A, Evans M, Tetlow AP, McEwan P

Cardiovascular diabetology11 Aug 2008Cited by 29 (Europe PMC)

PMID18694484 (opens in a new tab)PMCIDPMC2546382 (opens in a new tab)DOI10.1186/1475-2840-7-24 (opens in a new tab)PepBankPUB-18694484
Download PDFPubMedAsk about this study
Jump to 2 results

Summary

ObjectiveExenatide belongs to a new therapeutic class in the treatment of diabetes (incretin mimetics), allowing glucose-dependent glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes. Randomised controlled trial data suggest that exenatide is as effective as insulin glargine at reducing HbA1c in combination therapy with metformin and sulphonylureas; with reduced weight but higher incidence of adverse gastrointestinal events. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost effectiveness of exenatide versus insulin glargine using RCT data and a previously published model of type 2 diabetes disease progression that is based on the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study; the perspective of the health-payer of the United Kingdom National Health Service.MethodsThe study used a discrete event simulation model designed to forecast the costs and health outcome of a cohort of 1,000 subjects aged over 40 years with sub-optimally-controlled type 2 diabetes, following initiation of either exenatide, or insulin glargine, in addition to oral hypoglycaemic agents. Sensitivity analysis for a higher treatment discontinuation rate in exenatide patients was applied to the cohort in three different scenarios; (1) either ignored or (2) exenatide-failures excluded or (3) exenatide-failures switched to insulin glargine. Analyses were undertaken to evaluate the price sensitivity of exenatide in terms of relative cost effectiveness. Baseline cohort profiles and effectiveness data were taken from a published randomised controlled trial.ResultsThe relative cost-effectiveness of exenatide and insulin glargine was tested under a variety of conditions, in which insulin glargine was dominant in all cases. Using the most conservative of assumptions, the cost-effectiveness ratio of exenatide vs. insulin glargine at the current UK NHS price was -29,149 pounds/QALY (insulin glargine dominant) and thus exenatide is not cost-effective when compared with insulin glargine, at the current UK NHS price.ConclusionThis study evaluated the relative cost effectiveness of insulin glargine versus exenatide in the management of type 2 diabetes using a published model. Given no significant difference in glycaemic control and applying the additional effectiveness of exenatide over insulin glargine, with respect to weight loss, and using the current UK NHS prices, insulin glargine was found to be dominant over exenatide in all modelled scenarios. With current clinical evidence, exenatide does not appear to represent a cost-effective treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes when compared to insulin glargine.
CC BYText from Europe PMC. Highlighted sentences are the source of results.

Results from this study2

No result from this study comes from a test of the peptide.

Studies that did not test the peptide alone2

In this study, Exenatide (exendin-4) was a lab tool or a carrier, part of a mix, or the subject of a lab method. These results are not evidence about taking Exenatide (exendin-4).

  1. 01Computer modelNot a test of Exenatide (exendin-4) aloneIn silicoOther

    In a simulation of type 2 diabetes treatment, insulin glargine dominated exenatide under all tested conditions.

    In plain wordsIn computer models, insulin glargine dominated exenatide across tested cost-effectiveness conditions.

    Peptide
    Exenatide (exendin-4)
    Outcome
    Not applicableCost effectiveness across model conditions
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Discrete event simulation of type 2 diabetes
    Comparator
    Insulin glargine
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    The relative cost-effectiveness of exenatide and insulin glargine was tested under a variety of conditions, in which insulin glargine was dominant in all cases.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    The study used a discrete event simulation model designed to forecast the costs and health outcome of a cohort of 1,000 subjects aged over 40 years with sub-optimally-controlled type 2 diabetes, following initiation of either exenatide, or insulin glargine, in addition to oral hypoglycaemic agents.
    Summary · context
    Baseline cohort profiles and effectiveness data were taken from a published randomised controlled trial.

    In this study, Exenatide (exendin-4) was a lab tool or a carrier, part of a mix, or the subject of a lab method. This result is not evidence about taking Exenatide (exendin-4).

  2. 02Computer modelNot a test of Exenatide (exendin-4) aloneIn silicoOther

    In the most conservative simulation scenario, exenatide was not cost-effective versus insulin glargine at the current UK NHS price.

    In plain wordsIn computer models, exenatide was not cost-effective compared with insulin glargine at the stated UK NHS price.

    Peptide
    Exenatide (exendin-4)
    Outcome
    Not applicableCost-effectiveness ratio at UK NHS price
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Discrete event simulation of type 2 diabetes
    Comparator
    Insulin glargine
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Whole body

    Measurements

    Cost-effectiveness ratio
    −29,149 pounds/QALY
    exenatide versus insulin glargine, conservative assumptions

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Using the most conservative of assumptions, the cost-effectiveness ratio of exenatide vs. insulin glargine at the current UK NHS price was -29,149 pounds/QALY (insulin glargine dominant) and thus exenatide is not cost-effective when compared with insulin glargine, at the current UK NHS price.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    The study used a discrete event simulation model designed to forecast the costs and health outcome of a cohort of 1,000 subjects aged over 40 years with sub-optimally-controlled type 2 diabetes, following initiation of either exenatide, or insulin glargine, in addition to oral hypoglycaemic agents.
    Summary · context
    Baseline cohort profiles and effectiveness data were taken from a published randomised controlled trial.

    In this study, Exenatide (exendin-4) was a lab tool or a carrier, part of a mix, or the subject of a lab method. This result is not evidence about taking Exenatide (exendin-4).

AI wrote and checked these results. AI can make mistakes, so check important results against the source.

Version history

PepBank keeps every version of the data on this study. Status changes from Retraction Watch, Europe PMC and Crossref are listed with their source.

  1. Version 2Current

    22 Oct 2026, 02:26 UTC

    Study results updated

  2. Version 1

    21 Oct 2026, 18:59 UTC

    First added · source update from Europe PMC

Subjects

Terms as the source lists them.

PepBank is a research reference. Talk to a doctor before you use any peptide.