Skip to content

Study · Not a test of the peptide alone · 2011

4 results

Cost-effectiveness of liraglutide versus rosiglitazone, both in combination with glimepiride in treatment of type 2 diabetes in the US.

Lee WC, Conner C, Hammer M

Current medical research and opinion25 Feb 2011Cited by 13 (Europe PMC)

PMID21348806 (opens in a new tab)DOI10.1185/03007995.2011.559444 (opens in a new tab)PepBankPUB-21348806
Publisher pagePubMedAsk about this study
Jump to 4 results

Summary

The text of this summary is not shown here, because the article license does not allow reuse. Read it at the source (opens in a new tab)

Text rights: Publisher copyright. Results still quote short attributed sentences.

Results from this study4

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

Studies that did not test the peptide alone4

In this study, Liraglutide 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 Liraglutide.

  1. 01Computer modelNot a test of Liraglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    In a 35-year model of US patients with type 2 diabetes, liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg plus glimepiride increased mean life expectancy by 0.968 and 1.041 years versus rosiglitazone plus glimepiride.

    In plain wordsA computer model of type 2 diabetes projected longer life with liraglutide plus glimepiride than with rosiglitazone plus glimepiride.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    IncreaseProjected life expectancy
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    CORE Diabetes Model
    Comparator
    Rosiglitazone 4 mg + glimepiride
    Analysis
    Primary
    Outcome group
    Quality of life · Metabolic and weight

    Source sentences

    Summary
    When compared to rosiglitazone, liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg increased mean LE by 0.968 and 1.041 years
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    The CORE Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to project and compare 35-year clinical and economic outcomes associated with liraglutide 1.2 mg + glimepiride and liraglutide 1.8 mg + glimepiride versus rosiglitazone 4 mg + glimepiride.

    In this study, Liraglutide 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 Liraglutide.

  2. 02Computer modelNot a test of Liraglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    In a 35-year model of US patients with type 2 diabetes, liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg plus glimepiride increased QALYs by 0.764 and 0.837 versus rosiglitazone plus glimepiride.

    In plain wordsA computer model of type 2 diabetes projected more healthy life years with liraglutide plus glimepiride than with rosiglitazone plus glimepiride.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    IncreaseProjected quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    CORE Diabetes Model
    Comparator
    Rosiglitazone 4 mg + glimepiride
    Analysis
    Primary
    Outcome group
    Quality of life · Metabolic and weight

    Source sentences

    Summary
    When compared to rosiglitazone, liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg increased mean LE by 0.968 and 1.041 years, and QALYs by 0.764 and 0.837
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    The CORE Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to project and compare 35-year clinical and economic outcomes associated with liraglutide 1.2 mg + glimepiride and liraglutide 1.8 mg + glimepiride versus rosiglitazone 4 mg + glimepiride.

    In this study, Liraglutide 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 Liraglutide.

  3. 03Computer modelNot a test of Liraglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    In a 35-year model of US patients with type 2 diabetes, total lifetime costs increased by $26,094 for liraglutide 1.2 mg and by $47,041 for 1.8 mg versus rosiglitazone.

    In plain wordsA computer model of type 2 diabetes projected higher lifetime costs with liraglutide plus glimepiride than with rosiglitazone plus glimepiride.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    IncreaseProjected total lifetime costs
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    CORE Diabetes Model
    Comparator
    Rosiglitazone 4 mg + glimepiride
    Analysis
    Primary
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Metabolic and weight

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Total lifetime costs increased by $26,094 for liraglutide 1.2 mg versus rosiglitazone, and by $47,041 for liraglutide 1.8 mg versus rosiglitazone.
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    The CORE Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to project and compare 35-year clinical and economic outcomes associated with liraglutide 1.2 mg + glimepiride and liraglutide 1.8 mg + glimepiride versus rosiglitazone 4 mg + glimepiride.

    In this study, Liraglutide 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 Liraglutide.

  4. 04Computer modelNot a test of Liraglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    In a 35-year model of US patients with type 2 diabetes, ICERs were $34,147 for liraglutide 1.2 mg and $56,190 for 1.8 mg versus rosiglitazone.

    In plain wordsA computer model projected extra costs of $34,147 (1.2 mg) and $56,190 (1.8 mg) of liraglutide versus rosiglitazone.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicableIncremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs)
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    CORE Diabetes Model
    Comparator
    Rosiglitazone 4 mg + glimepiride
    Analysis
    Primary
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Metabolic and weight

    Source sentences

    Summary
    ICERs for liraglutide 1.2 mg versus rosiglitazone and 1.8 mg versus rosiglitazone were $34,147 and $56,190, respectively.
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    The CORE Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to project and compare 35-year clinical and economic outcomes associated with liraglutide 1.2 mg + glimepiride and liraglutide 1.8 mg + glimepiride versus rosiglitazone 4 mg + glimepiride.

    In this study, Liraglutide 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 Liraglutide.

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

    12 Oct 2026, 12:10 UTC

    Study results updated

  2. Version 1

    9 Oct 2026, 03:05 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.