Skip to content

Study · Not a test of the peptide alone · 2018

1 result

Usefulness of Empagliflozin Versus Liraglutide for Prevention of Cardiovascular Mortality.

Arbel R, Hammerman A, Azuri J

The American journal of cardiology22 Jun 2018Cited by 4 (Europe PMC)

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 study1

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

Studies that did not test the peptide alone1

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.

  1. 01Computer modelNot a test of Liraglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    In a cost-minimization analysis in type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease, the cost to prevent one cardiovascular death was higher with liraglutide than with empagliflozin.

    In plain wordsIn a cost analysis for type 2 diabetes with heart disease, preventing one heart death cost more with liraglutide than with empagliflozin.

    Outcome
    Not applicableDrug cost needed to prevent one cardiovascular death
    Study

    humann: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Empagliflozin
    Outcome group
    Cardiovascular events · Cardiovascular

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Therefore, the cost of Empagliflozin or Liraglutide needed to prevent 1 CV death would be $569,526 (95% confidence interval $415,713 to $921,798) and $2,575,312 (95% confidence interval $1,607,526 to $7,807,986), respectively.
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    We performed a cost-minimization analysis of Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide for preventing CV death.

    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 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.