Skip to content

Study · Observational study · n = 626 · 2011

7 results

Clinical and economic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin glargine disposable pen versus exenatide BID.

Baser O, Wei W, Baser E, Xie L

Journal of medical economics5 Sept 2011Cited by 23 (Europe PMC)

PMID21892858 (opens in a new tab)DOI10.3111/13696998.2011.605818 (opens in a new tab)PepBankPUB-21892858
Publisher pagePubMedAsk about this study
Jump to 7 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 study7

7 results from studies that gave the peptide. 7 results from people.

  1. 01HumanObservational studyEfficacy outcome

    In matched patients with type 2 diabetes, exenatide was linked to lower treatment persistence than insulin glargine pen.

    In plain wordsIn patients with diabetes, exenatide was linked to less treatment persistence than insulin glargine pen.

    Peptide
    Exenatide (exendin-4)
    Outcome
    DecreaseTreatment persistence rate
    Study

    n = 626

    Comparator
    Insulin glargine disposable pen
    Analysis
    Primary
    Outcome group
    Treatment adherence and retention · Metabolic and weight
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated · 1 yearAs given in this study (human).

    Measurements

    Persistence rate
    15%
    exenatide
    Persistence rate
    48%
    glargine pen

    Source sentences

    Summary
    At follow-up, patients in the GLA-P group were significantly more persistent in treatment than EXE patients (48% vs 15% in persistence rate and 252 vs 144 days in persistence days; both p<0.001).
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    This retrospective study used data from a large US-managed care claims database and included adult T2DM patients initiating treatment with GLA-P or EXE in 2007 or 2008.
    Summary · context
    Propensity score matching was used to control observed baseline differences between treatment groups. Primary study end-points included treatment persistence, A1C, healthcare utilization, and healthcare costs during the 1-year follow-up period.
  2. 02HumanObservational studyEfficacy outcome

    In matched patients with type 2 diabetes, exenatide was linked to fewer persistence days than insulin glargine pen.

    In plain wordsIn patients with diabetes, exenatide was linked to fewer treatment persistence days than insulin glargine pen.

    Peptide
    Exenatide (exendin-4)
    Outcome
    DecreaseTreatment persistence days
    Study

    n = 626

    Comparator
    Insulin glargine disposable pen
    Analysis
    Primary
    Outcome group
    Treatment adherence and retention · Metabolic and weight
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated · 1 yearAs given in this study (human).

    Measurements

    Persistence days
    144 days
    exenatide
    Persistence days
    252 days
    glargine pen

    Source sentences

    Summary
    At follow-up, patients in the GLA-P group were significantly more persistent in treatment than EXE patients (48% vs 15% in persistence rate and 252 vs 144 days in persistence days; both p<0.001).
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    This retrospective study used data from a large US-managed care claims database and included adult T2DM patients initiating treatment with GLA-P or EXE in 2007 or 2008.
    Summary · context
    Propensity score matching was used to control observed baseline differences between treatment groups. Primary study end-points included treatment persistence, A1C, healthcare utilization, and healthcare costs during the 1-year follow-up period.
  3. 03HumanObservational studyEfficacy outcome

    In matched patients with type 2 diabetes, exenatide was linked to higher follow-up A1C than insulin glargine pen.

    In plain wordsIn patients with diabetes, exenatide was linked to higher follow-up A1C than insulin glargine pen.

    Peptide
    Exenatide (exendin-4)
    Outcome
    IncreaseFollow-up A1C
    Study

    n = 626

    Comparator
    Insulin glargine disposable pen
    Analysis
    Primary
    Outcome group
    Glycemic control · Metabolic and weight
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated · 1 yearAs given in this study (human).

    Measurements

    A1C
    8.32%
    exenatide
    A1C
    8.02%
    glargine pen

    Source sentences

    Summary
    GLA-P patients also had significantly lower A1C at follow-up (8.02% vs 8.32%; p=0.042) and greater A1C reduction from baseline (-1.23% vs -0.92%; p=0.038).
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    This retrospective study used data from a large US-managed care claims database and included adult T2DM patients initiating treatment with GLA-P or EXE in 2007 or 2008.
    Summary · context
    Propensity score matching was used to control observed baseline differences between treatment groups. Primary study end-points included treatment persistence, A1C, healthcare utilization, and healthcare costs during the 1-year follow-up period.
  4. 04HumanObservational studyEfficacy outcome

    In matched patients with type 2 diabetes, exenatide was linked to a smaller A1C reduction than insulin glargine pen.

    In plain wordsIn patients with diabetes, exenatide was linked to a smaller A1C reduction than insulin glargine pen.

    Peptide
    Exenatide (exendin-4)
    Outcome
    DecreaseA1C reduction
    Study

    n = 626

    Comparator
    Insulin glargine disposable pen
    Analysis
    Primary
    Outcome group
    Glycemic control · Metabolic and weight
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated · 1 yearAs given in this study (human).

    Measurements

    A1C change
    −0.92%
    exenatide
    A1C change
    −1.23%
    glargine pen

    Source sentences

    Summary
    GLA-P patients also had significantly lower A1C at follow-up (8.02% vs 8.32%; p=0.042) and greater A1C reduction from baseline (-1.23% vs -0.92%; p=0.038).
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    This retrospective study used data from a large US-managed care claims database and included adult T2DM patients initiating treatment with GLA-P or EXE in 2007 or 2008.
    Summary · context
    Propensity score matching was used to control observed baseline differences between treatment groups. Primary study end-points included treatment persistence, A1C, healthcare utilization, and healthcare costs during the 1-year follow-up period.
  5. 05HumanObservational studyEfficacy outcome

    In matched patients with type 2 diabetes, diabetes-related healthcare utilization did not differ significantly between exenatide and insulin glargine pen.

    In plain wordsIn patients with diabetes, diabetes-related healthcare use did not differ significantly between exenatide and insulin glargine pen.

    Peptide
    Exenatide (exendin-4)
    Outcome
    No significant changeDiabetes-related healthcare utilization
    Study

    n = 626

    Comparator
    Insulin glargine disposable pen
    Analysis
    Primary
    Outcome group
    Healthcare costs and utilization · Metabolic and weight
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated · 1 yearAs given in this study (human).

    Source sentences

    Summary
    There were no significant differences in claims-based hypoglycemia rates and overall diabetes-related healthcare utilization and cost.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    This retrospective study used data from a large US-managed care claims database and included adult T2DM patients initiating treatment with GLA-P or EXE in 2007 or 2008.
    Summary · context
    Propensity score matching was used to control observed baseline differences between treatment groups. Primary study end-points included treatment persistence, A1C, healthcare utilization, and healthcare costs during the 1-year follow-up period.
  6. 06HumanObservational studyEfficacy outcome

    In matched patients with type 2 diabetes, diabetes-related healthcare cost did not differ significantly between exenatide and insulin glargine pen.

    In plain wordsIn patients with diabetes, diabetes-related healthcare costs did not differ significantly between exenatide and insulin glargine pen.

    Peptide
    Exenatide (exendin-4)
    Outcome
    No significant changeDiabetes-related healthcare cost
    Study

    n = 626

    Comparator
    Insulin glargine disposable pen
    Analysis
    Primary
    Outcome group
    Healthcare costs and utilization · Metabolic and weight
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated · 1 yearAs given in this study (human).

    Source sentences

    Summary
    There were no significant differences in claims-based hypoglycemia rates and overall diabetes-related healthcare utilization and cost.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    This retrospective study used data from a large US-managed care claims database and included adult T2DM patients initiating treatment with GLA-P or EXE in 2007 or 2008.
    Summary · context
    Propensity score matching was used to control observed baseline differences between treatment groups. Primary study end-points included treatment persistence, A1C, healthcare utilization, and healthcare costs during the 1-year follow-up period.
  7. 07HumanObservational studySafety outcome

    In matched patients with type 2 diabetes, claims-based hypoglycemia rates did not differ significantly between exenatide and insulin glargine pen.

    In plain wordsIn patients with diabetes, recorded low blood sugar rates did not differ significantly between exenatide and insulin glargine pen.

    Peptide
    Exenatide (exendin-4)
    Outcome
    No significant changeHypoglycemia rate
    Study

    n = 626

    Comparator
    Insulin glargine disposable pen
    Outcome group
    Adverse events · Metabolic and weight
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated · 1 yearAs given in this study (human).

    Source sentences

    Summary
    There were no significant differences in claims-based hypoglycemia rates and overall diabetes-related healthcare utilization and cost.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    This retrospective study used data from a large US-managed care claims database and included adult T2DM patients initiating treatment with GLA-P or EXE in 2007 or 2008.
    Summary · context
    Propensity score matching was used to control observed baseline differences between treatment groups. Primary study end-points included treatment persistence, A1C, healthcare utilization, and healthcare costs during the 1-year follow-up period.

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.