Skip to content

Study · Observational study · 2014

4 results

Improved real-world glycaemic outcomes with liraglutide versus other incretin-based therapies in type 2 diabetes.

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

Diabetes, obesity & metabolism25 Mar 2014Cited by 32 (Europe PMC)

PMID24581276 (opens in a new tab)DOI10.1111/dom.12285 (opens in a new tab)PepBankPUB-24581276
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

4 results from studies that gave the peptide. 4 results from people.

  1. 01HumanObservational studyEfficacy outcome

    In adults with type 2 diabetes in a US claims database, predicted A1C fell more with liraglutide than with sitagliptin.

    In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes, A1C fell more with liraglutide than with sitagliptin.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    DecreasePredicted A1C change versus sitagliptin
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Sitagliptin
    Outcome group
    Glycemic control · Metabolic and weight
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated · 6 monthsAs given in this study (human).

    Measurements

    Predicted A1C change
    −1.08%
    liraglutide
    Predicted A1C change
    −0.68%
    sitagliptin

    Source sentences

    Summary
    The predicted change in A1C from baseline was greater for LIRA patients compared with both SITA (-1.08 vs. -0.68%; treatment difference 0.40%, p < 0.0001) and EXEN (-1.08 vs. -0.75%; treatment difference 0.32%, p < 0.001).
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    Using the IMS Health (Alexandria, VA, USA) integrated claims database, A1C outcomes in patients aged ≥ 18 years with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who initiated either LIRA, EXEN or SITA (including SITA/metformin) were retrospectively compared.
  2. 02HumanObservational studyEfficacy outcome

    In adults with type 2 diabetes in a US claims database, predicted A1C fell more with liraglutide than with exenatide.

    In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes, A1C fell more with liraglutide than with exenatide.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    DecreasePredicted A1C change versus exenatide
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Exenatide
    Outcome group
    Glycemic control · Metabolic and weight
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated · 6 monthsAs given in this study (human).

    Measurements

    Predicted A1C change
    −1.08%
    liraglutide
    Predicted A1C change
    −0.75%
    exenatide

    Source sentences

    Summary
    The predicted change in A1C from baseline was greater for LIRA patients compared with both SITA (-1.08 vs. -0.68%; treatment difference 0.40%, p < 0.0001) and EXEN (-1.08 vs. -0.75%; treatment difference 0.32%, p < 0.001).
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    Using the IMS Health (Alexandria, VA, USA) integrated claims database, A1C outcomes in patients aged ≥ 18 years with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who initiated either LIRA, EXEN or SITA (including SITA/metformin) were retrospectively compared.
  3. 03HumanObservational studyEfficacy outcome

    In adults with type 2 diabetes in a US claims database, a higher predicted percentage reached the A1C goal with liraglutide than with sitagliptin.

    In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes, more people reached the A1C goal with liraglutide than with sitagliptin.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    IncreasePredicted A1C goal achievement (below 7%) versus sitagliptin
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Sitagliptin
    Outcome group
    Glycemic control · Metabolic and weight
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated · 6 monthsAs given in this study (human).

    Measurements

    Predicted A1C goal achievement
    64.4%
    liraglutide
    Predicted A1C goal achievement
    49.4%
    sitagliptin

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Predicted A1C goal achievement, derived from the multivariate logistic regression model, was higher with LIRA compared with both SITA [64.4% (95% confidence interval, CI: 63.5-65.3) vs. 49.4% (95% CI: 48.5-50.4); p < 0.0001] and EXEN [64.4% (95% CI: 63.5-65.3) vs. 53.6% (95% CI: 52.6-54.6); p < 0.0001].
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    Using the IMS Health (Alexandria, VA, USA) integrated claims database, A1C outcomes in patients aged ≥ 18 years with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who initiated either LIRA, EXEN or SITA (including SITA/metformin) were retrospectively compared.
  4. 04HumanObservational studyEfficacy outcome

    In adults with type 2 diabetes in a US claims database, a higher predicted percentage reached the A1C goal with liraglutide than with exenatide.

    In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes, more people reached the A1C goal with liraglutide than with exenatide.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    IncreasePredicted A1C goal achievement (below 7%) versus exenatide
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Exenatide
    Outcome group
    Glycemic control · Metabolic and weight
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated · 6 monthsAs given in this study (human).

    Measurements

    Predicted A1C goal achievement
    64.4%
    liraglutide
    Predicted A1C goal achievement
    53.6%
    exenatide

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Predicted A1C goal achievement, derived from the multivariate logistic regression model, was higher with LIRA compared with both SITA [64.4% (95% confidence interval, CI: 63.5-65.3) vs. 49.4% (95% CI: 48.5-50.4); p < 0.0001] and EXEN [64.4% (95% CI: 63.5-65.3) vs. 53.6% (95% CI: 52.6-54.6); p < 0.0001].
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    Using the IMS Health (Alexandria, VA, USA) integrated claims database, A1C outcomes in patients aged ≥ 18 years with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who initiated either LIRA, EXEN or SITA (including SITA/metformin) were retrospectively compared.

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.