Skip to content

Study · Not a test of the peptide alone · 2017

6 results

The cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide versus liraglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Spain in patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m2.

Dilla T, Alexiou D, Chatzitheofilou I, Ayyub R, Lowin J, Norrbacka K

Journal of medical economics13 Jan 2017Cited by 15 (Europe PMC)

PMID28008768 (opens in a new tab)DOI10.1080/13696998.2016.1275651 (opens in a new tab)PepBankPUB-28008768
Publisher pagePubMedAsk about this study
Jump to 6 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 study6

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

Studies that did not test the peptide alone6

In this study, the peptide 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 the peptide.

  1. 01Computer modelNot a test of Dulaglutide (Trulicity) aloneIn silicoOther

    In a Spanish T2DM model, dulaglutide had lower lifetime costs than liraglutide (€108,489 versus €109,653).

    In plain wordsIn a Spanish diabetes computer model, dulaglutide cost less over a lifetime than liraglutide.

    Peptide
    Dulaglutide (Trulicity)
    Outcome
    DecreaseLifetime cost
    Study

    n: not applicable

    IMS CORE Diabetes Model for Spanish T2DM patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m²
    Comparator
    Liraglutide 1.8 mg
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Under base case assumptions, dulaglutide 1.5 mg was less costly and more effective vs liraglutide 1.8 mg (total lifetime costs €108,489 vs €109,653; total QALYS 10.281 vs 10.259).
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    The IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to estimate costs and outcomes from the perspective of Spanish National Health System, capturing relevant direct medical costs over a lifetime time horizon.

    In this study, Dulaglutide (Trulicity) 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 Dulaglutide (Trulicity).

  2. 02Computer modelNot a test of Liraglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    In a Spanish T2DM model, liraglutide had higher lifetime costs than dulaglutide (€109,653 versus €108,489).

    In plain wordsIn a Spanish diabetes computer model, liraglutide cost more over a lifetime than dulaglutide.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    IncreaseLifetime cost
    Study

    n: not applicable

    IMS CORE Diabetes Model for Spanish T2DM patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m²
    Comparator
    Dulaglutide 1.5 mg
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Under base case assumptions, dulaglutide 1.5 mg was less costly and more effective vs liraglutide 1.8 mg (total lifetime costs €108,489 vs €109,653; total QALYS 10.281 vs 10.259).
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    The IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to estimate costs and outcomes from the perspective of Spanish National Health System, capturing relevant direct medical costs over a lifetime time horizon.

    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 Dulaglutide (Trulicity) aloneIn silicoOther

    In a Spanish T2DM model, dulaglutide yielded more QALYs than liraglutide (10.281 versus 10.259).

    In plain wordsIn a computer model, dulaglutide produced more quality-adjusted life-years than liraglutide.

    Peptide
    Dulaglutide (Trulicity)
    Outcome
    IncreaseQuality-adjusted life-years
    Study

    n: not applicable

    IMS CORE Diabetes Model for Spanish T2DM patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m²
    Comparator
    Liraglutide 1.8 mg
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Under base case assumptions, dulaglutide 1.5 mg was less costly and more effective vs liraglutide 1.8 mg (total lifetime costs €108,489 vs €109,653; total QALYS 10.281 vs 10.259).
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    The IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to estimate costs and outcomes from the perspective of Spanish National Health System, capturing relevant direct medical costs over a lifetime time horizon.

    In this study, Dulaglutide (Trulicity) 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 Dulaglutide (Trulicity).

  4. 04Computer modelNot a test of Liraglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    In a Spanish T2DM model, liraglutide yielded fewer QALYs than dulaglutide (10.259 versus 10.281).

    In plain wordsIn a computer model, liraglutide produced fewer quality-adjusted life-years than dulaglutide.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    DecreaseQuality-adjusted life-years
    Study

    n: not applicable

    IMS CORE Diabetes Model for Spanish T2DM patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m²
    Comparator
    Dulaglutide 1.5 mg
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Under base case assumptions, dulaglutide 1.5 mg was less costly and more effective vs liraglutide 1.8 mg (total lifetime costs €108,489 vs €109,653; total QALYS 10.281 vs 10.259).
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    The IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to estimate costs and outcomes from the perspective of Spanish National Health System, capturing relevant direct medical costs over a lifetime time horizon.

    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.

  5. 05Computer modelNot a test of Dulaglutide (Trulicity) aloneIn silicoOther

    In the Spanish T2DM model, sensitivity analyses supported dulaglutide dominance over liraglutide.

    In plain wordsIn the computer model, sensitivity analyses supported lower costs and greater benefit with dulaglutide than liraglutide.

    Peptide
    Dulaglutide (Trulicity)
    Outcome
    Not applicableSensitivity of economic dominance
    Study

    n: not applicable

    IMS CORE Diabetes Model for Spanish T2DM patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m²
    Comparator
    Liraglutide
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    OWSA demonstrated that dulaglutide 1.5 mg remained dominant given plausible variations in key input parameters. Results of the PSA were consistent with base case results.
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    The IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to estimate costs and outcomes from the perspective of Spanish National Health System, capturing relevant direct medical costs over a lifetime time horizon.

    In this study, Dulaglutide (Trulicity) 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 Dulaglutide (Trulicity).

  6. 06Computer modelNot a test of Liraglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    In the Spanish T2DM model, sensitivity analyses continued to favor dulaglutide over liraglutide.

    In plain wordsIn the computer model, sensitivity analyses continued to favor dulaglutide over liraglutide.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicableSensitivity of economic dominance
    Study

    n: not applicable

    IMS CORE Diabetes Model for Spanish T2DM patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m²
    Comparator
    Dulaglutide
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    OWSA demonstrated that dulaglutide 1.5 mg remained dominant given plausible variations in key input parameters. Results of the PSA were consistent with base case results.
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    The IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to estimate costs and outcomes from the perspective of Spanish National Health System, capturing relevant direct medical costs over a lifetime time horizon.

    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 3Current

    22 Oct 2026, 02:26 UTC

    Study results updated

  2. Version 2

    21 Oct 2026, 18:59 UTC

    Study data updated · source update from Europe PMC

  3. Version 1

    9 Oct 2026, 03:05 UTC

    First added · source update from Europe PMC

Subjects

Terms as the source lists them.

Publication types

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