Skip to content

Study · Observational study · 2017

6 results

The Use of Decomposition Methods in Real-World Treatment Benefits Evaluation for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Initiating Different Injectable Therapies: Findings from the INITIATOR Study.

Brekke L, Buysman E, Grabner M, Ke X, Xie L, Baser O, Wei W

Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research11 Jul 2017Cited by 8 (Europe PMC)

PMID29241884 (opens in a new tab)DOI10.1016/j.jval.2017.05.019 (opens in a new tab)PepBankPUB-29241884
Source linkPubMedAsk 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

6 results from studies that gave the peptide. 6 results from people.

  1. 01HumanObservational studyEfficacy outcome

    In patients with type 2 diabetes starting injectables, HbA1c fell by 0.74% with liraglutide, a smaller reduction than the 1.39% with insulin glargine.

    In plain wordsIn real-world patients with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c fell less with liraglutide than with insulin glargine.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    Decrease1-year HbA1c reduction
    Study

    n: not reported in source

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

    Measurements

    HbA1c reduction
    −0.74%
    liraglutide

    Source sentences

    Summary
    The greater HbA1c reduction seen with GLA compared with LIRA (-1.39% vs. -0.74%)
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    Decomposition analyses were performed on data from the Initiation of New Injectable Treatment Introduced after Antidiabetic Therapy with Oral-only Regimens (INITIATOR) study, a real-world study of patients with type 2 diabetes started on insulin glargine (GLA) or liraglutide (LIRA).
  2. 02HumanObservational studyOther

    In patients with type 2 diabetes, the larger HbA1c reduction with insulin glargine than with liraglutide was mainly due to baseline characteristics.

    In plain wordsIn real-world patients, the larger HbA1c fall with insulin glargine than with liraglutide was mainly linked to differences in the patients at baseline.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicableSource of HbA1c reduction difference (decomposition)
    Study

    n: not reported in source

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

    Source sentences

    Summary
    was primarily due to differences in baseline characteristics (HbA1c and endocrinologist as prescribing physician; P < 0.050).
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    Decomposition analyses were performed on data from the Initiation of New Injectable Treatment Introduced after Antidiabetic Therapy with Oral-only Regimens (INITIATOR) study, a real-world study of patients with type 2 diabetes started on insulin glargine (GLA) or liraglutide (LIRA).
  3. 03HumanObservational studyEfficacy outcome

    In patients with type 2 diabetes, those with baseline polypharmacy (6-10 classes) or hypoglycaemia had greater HbA1c reductions with liraglutide than with insulin glargine.

    In plain wordsIn real-world patients with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c fell more with liraglutide than with insulin glargine in those taking many drugs or with hypoglycaemia.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    DecreaseHbA1c reduction in subgroups
    Study

    n: not reported in source

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

    Source sentences

    Summary
    whereas patients with baseline polypharmacy (6-10 classes) or hypogylcemia achieved greater reductions with LIRA.
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    Decomposition analyses were performed on data from the Initiation of New Injectable Treatment Introduced after Antidiabetic Therapy with Oral-only Regimens (INITIATOR) study, a real-world study of patients with type 2 diabetes started on insulin glargine (GLA) or liraglutide (LIRA).
  4. 04HumanObservational studyOther

    In patients with type 2 diabetes starting injectables, 1-year persistence was 49% with liraglutide, lower than the 65% with insulin glargine.

    In plain wordsIn real-world patients with type 2 diabetes, fewer stayed on liraglutide for a year (49%) than on insulin glargine (65%).

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicable1-year treatment persistence
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Insulin glargine
    Outcome group
    Treatment adherence and retention · Whole body
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated · 1 yearAs given in this study (human).

    Measurements

    treatment persistence
    49%
    liraglutide

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Decomposition analyses also showed that the higher persistence seen with GLA (65% vs. 49%) was mainly caused by differences in treatment effects (P < 0.001).
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    Decomposition analyses were performed on data from the Initiation of New Injectable Treatment Introduced after Antidiabetic Therapy with Oral-only Regimens (INITIATOR) study, a real-world study of patients with type 2 diabetes started on insulin glargine (GLA) or liraglutide (LIRA).
  5. 05HumanObservational studyOther

    In patients with type 2 diabetes, decomposition analysis attributed the higher persistence with insulin glargine than with liraglutide mainly to differences in treatment effects.

    In plain wordsIn real-world patients, insulin glargine users stayed on treatment longer than liraglutide users, a gap linked mainly to differences between the treatments.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicableSource of persistence difference (decomposition)
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Insulin glargine
    Outcome group
    Treatment adherence and retention · Whole body
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated · 1 yearAs given in this study (human).

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Decomposition analyses also showed that the higher persistence seen with GLA (65% vs. 49%) was mainly caused by differences in treatment effects (P < 0.001).
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    Decomposition analyses were performed on data from the Initiation of New Injectable Treatment Introduced after Antidiabetic Therapy with Oral-only Regimens (INITIATOR) study, a real-world study of patients with type 2 diabetes started on insulin glargine (GLA) or liraglutide (LIRA).
  6. 06HumanObservational studyOther

    In patients with type 2 diabetes, patients aged 18 to 39 years and those with HbA1c of 7.0% to less than 8.0% had higher persistence with liraglutide than with insulin glargine.

    In plain wordsIn real-world patients with type 2 diabetes, younger patients and those with moderately raised HbA1c stayed on liraglutide longer than on insulin glargine.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    IncreasePersistence in subgroups
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Insulin glargine
    Outcome group
    Treatment adherence and retention · Whole body
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated · 1 yearAs given in this study (human).

    Source sentences

    Summary
    patients 18 to 39 years and those with HbA1c of 7.0% to less than 8.0% had higher persistence with LIRA.
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    Decomposition analyses were performed on data from the Initiation of New Injectable Treatment Introduced after Antidiabetic Therapy with Oral-only Regimens (INITIATOR) study, a real-world study of patients with type 2 diabetes started on insulin glargine (GLA) or liraglutide (LIRA).

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.