An indirect treatment comparison of the efficacy of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) and insulin glargine/lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on basal insulin.

Evans M, Billings LK, Håkan-Bloch J, Slothuus U, Abrahamsen TJ, Andersen A, Jansen JP

Journal of medical economics3 Dec 2017Cited by 19 (Europe PMC)

PMID29164973DOI10.1080/13696998.2017.1409228PepBankPUB-29164973

Publisher page 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: Publisher copyright. Results still quote short attributed sentences.

Results from this study5

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

Studies that did not test the peptide alone5

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.

01HumanNot a test of Liraglutide aloneOther designEfficacy outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on basal insulin, an indirect comparison estimated that IDegLira reduced HbA1c by 0.44 %-points more than iGlarLixi.
In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin, the combination product IDegLira was estimated to lower HbA1c more than iGlarLixi.
Peptide
Liraglutide
Outcome
DecreaseHbA1c difference, IDegLira versus iGlarLixi
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
iGlarLixi
Outcome group
Glycemic control · Metabolic and weight
Measurements
HbA1c difference
0.44 %-point
IDegLira vs iGlarLixi
Source sentences
Summary
IDegLira was estimated to provide a 0.44 [95% CI = 0.17-0.71] %-point reduction in HbA_1c compared with iGlarLixi.
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Data from phase 3 trials providing evidence for estimating the relative efficacy and safety of IDegLira vs iGlarLixi in patients uncontrolled on basal insulin-only regimens were used in this analysis.
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.
Report a problemFND-2916497301
02HumanNot a test of Liraglutide aloneOther designEfficacy outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on basal insulin, an indirect comparison estimated that body weight was reduced by 1.42 kg with IDegLira compared with iGlarLixi.
In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin, the combination product IDegLira was estimated to lower weight more than iGlarLixi.
Peptide
Liraglutide
Outcome
DecreaseBody weight difference, IDegLira versus iGlarLixi
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
iGlarLixi
Outcome group
Body weight · Metabolic and weight
Measurements
Body weight difference
1.42 kg
IDegLira vs iGlarLixi
Source sentences
Summary
Body weight was reduced by 1.42 [95% CI = 0.35-2.50] kg with IDegLira compared with iGlarLixi.
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Data from phase 3 trials providing evidence for estimating the relative efficacy and safety of IDegLira vs iGlarLixi in patients uncontrolled on basal insulin-only regimens were used in this analysis.
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.
Report a problemFND-2916497302
03HumanNot a test of Liraglutide aloneOther designEfficacy outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on basal insulin, insulin dose was comparable between IDegLira and iGlarLixi.
In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin, IDegLira and iGlarLixi needed similar insulin doses.
Peptide
Liraglutide
Outcome
No significant changeInsulin dose, IDegLira versus iGlarLixi
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
iGlarLixi
Outcome group
Glycemic control · Metabolic and weight
Source sentences
Summary
Insulin dose was comparable between the two interventions.
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Data from phase 3 trials providing evidence for estimating the relative efficacy and safety of IDegLira vs iGlarLixi in patients uncontrolled on basal insulin-only regimens were used in this analysis.
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.
Report a problemFND-2916497303
04HumanNot a test of Liraglutide aloneOther designSafety outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on basal insulin, the rate of severe or confirmed hypoglycemia with IDegLira was about half that of iGlarLixi (rate ratio 0.51).
In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin, IDegLira was estimated to cause about half as much serious low blood sugar as iGlarLixi.
Peptide
Liraglutide
Outcome
DecreaseSevere or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycemia (SMPG at or below 3.1 mmol/L)
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
iGlarLixi
Outcome group
Adverse events · Metabolic and weight
Measurements
Rate ratio
0.51 ratio
IDegLira vs iGlarLixi
Source sentences
Summary
The rate of severe or blood glucose-confirmed (self-measured plasma glucose [SMPG] ≤ 3.1 mmol/L) hypoglycemia with IDegLira was approximately half that of iGlarLixi (rate ratio = 0.51 [95% CI = 0.29-0.90]).
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Data from phase 3 trials providing evidence for estimating the relative efficacy and safety of IDegLira vs iGlarLixi in patients uncontrolled on basal insulin-only regimens were used in this analysis.
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.
Report a problemFND-2916497304
05HumanNot a test of Liraglutide aloneOther designSafety outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on basal insulin, the rate of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia was comparable between IDegLira and iGlarLixi (rate ratio 1.07).
In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin, IDegLira and iGlarLixi had similar rates of symptomatic low blood sugar.
Peptide
Liraglutide
Outcome
No significant changeDocumented symptomatic hypoglycemia (SMPG at or below 3.9 mmol/L)
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
iGlarLixi
Outcome group
Adverse events · Metabolic and weight
Measurements
Rate ratio
1.07 ratio
IDegLira vs iGlarLixi
Source sentences
Summary
However, using the American Diabetes Association definition of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (SMPG ≤3.9 mmol/L) the rate was comparable between the two treatments (rate ratio = 1.07 [95% CI = 0.90-1.28]).
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Data from phase 3 trials providing evidence for estimating the relative efficacy and safety of IDegLira vs iGlarLixi in patients uncontrolled on basal insulin-only regimens were used in this analysis.
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.
Report a problemFND-2916497305

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
27 Oct 2026, 16:36 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.