Real-world cost-effectiveness: lower cost of treating patients to glycemic goal with liraglutide versus exenatide.

DeKoven M, Lee WC, Bouchard J, Massoudi M, Langer J

Advances in therapy30 Jan 2014Cited by 18 (Europe PMC)

PMID24477354PMCIDPMC3930836DOI10.1007/s12325-014-0098-8PepBankPUB-24477354

Read at source PubMedAsk about this study

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: CC BY-NC. Results still quote short attributed sentences.

Results from this study3

3 results from studies that gave the peptide. 3 results from people.

01HumanObservational studyEfficacy outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes in a US claims database, a higher adjusted predicted percentage of patients on liraglutide reached A1C below 7% than on exenatide.
In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes, more people taking liraglutide reached an A1C below 7% than people taking exenatide.
Peptide
Liraglutide
Outcome
IncreasePatients reaching A1C below 7% goal
Study
n = 416
Comparator
Exenatide
Outcome group
Glycemic control · Metabolic and weight
Studied dose
Dose not stated · 6 monthsAs given in this study (human).
Measurements
Patients reaching A1C <7%
64.4%
liraglutide
Patients reaching A1C <7%
53.6%
exenatide
Source sentences
Summary
a higher adjusted predicted percentage of patients on LIRA reached A1C < 7% goal (64.4% [95% CI: 63.5, 65.3] vs. 53.6% [95% CI: 52.6, 54.6]; P < 0.05
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
This retrospective cohort study used integrated medical and pharmacy claims linked with glycated hemoglobin A1C (A1C) results from the IMS Patient-Centric Integrated Data Warehouse.
Report a problemFND-2447735401
02HumanObservational studyOther
In adults with type 2 diabetes in a US claims database, adjusted predicted diabetes-related pharmacy costs per patient over 6 months were higher with liraglutide than with exenatide.
In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes, drug costs over 6 months were higher with liraglutide than with exenatide.
Peptide
Liraglutide
Outcome
IncreaseDiabetes-related pharmacy cost per patient over 6 months
Study
n = 416
Comparator
Exenatide
Outcome group
Healthcare costs and utilization · Whole body
Studied dose
Dose not stated · 6 monthsAs given in this study (human).
Source sentences
Summary
The adjusted predicted diabetes-related pharmacy costs per patient over the 6-month post-index period were higher for LIRA compared to EXEN ($2,002 [95% confidence interval (CI): $1,981, $2,023] vs. $1,799 [95% CI: $1,778, $1,820]; P < 0.001).
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
This retrospective cohort study used integrated medical and pharmacy claims linked with glycated hemoglobin A1C (A1C) results from the IMS Patient-Centric Integrated Data Warehouse.
Report a problemFND-2447735402
03HumanObservational studyOther
In adults with type 2 diabetes in a US claims database, average diabetes-related pharmacy cost per successfully treated patient was lower with liraglutide than with exenatide.
In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes, the drug cost for each person who reached the A1C goal was lower with liraglutide than with exenatide.
Peptide
Liraglutide
Outcome
DecreasePharmacy cost per successfully treated patient (A1C below 7%)
Study
n = 416
Comparator
Exenatide
Outcome group
Healthcare costs and utilization · Whole body
Studied dose
Dose not stated · 6 monthsAs given in this study (human).
Source sentences
Summary
translating into lower average diabetes-related pharmacy costs per successfully treated patient for LIRA as compared to EXEN ($3,108 vs. $3,354; P < 0.0001
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
This retrospective cohort study used integrated medical and pharmacy claims linked with glycated hemoglobin A1C (A1C) results from the IMS Patient-Centric Integrated Data Warehouse.
Report a problemFND-2447735403

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.

Version 3Current
21 Oct 2026, 18:59 UTC
Study data updated · source update from Europe PMC
Version 2
12 Oct 2026, 12:10 UTC
Study results updated
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.