Skip to content

Study · Not a test of the peptide alone · 2020

4 results

Assessing patient PREFERence between the dulaglutide pen and the semaglutide pen: A crossover study (PREFER).

Matza LS, Boye KS, Stewart KD, Coyne KS, Wullenweber PK, Cutts KN, Jordan JB, Wang Q, Yu M, Currie BM, Malley KG, Ishak KJ, Hietpas RT, García-Pérez LE

Diabetes, obesity & metabolism19 Dec 2019Cited by 37 (Europe PMC)

PMID31646727 (opens in a new tab)PMCIDPMC7064885 (opens in a new tab)DOI10.1111/dom.13902 (opens in a new tab)PepBankPUB-31646727
Read at sourcePubMedAsk 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: CC BY-NC. Results still quote short attributed sentences.

Results from this study4

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

Studies that did not test the peptide alone4

In this study, Semaglutide 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 Semaglutide.

  1. 01HumanNot a test of Semaglutide aloneRandomized controlled trialOther

    In injection-naive adults with type 2 diabetes, more participants preferred the dulaglutide device than the semaglutide device in mock injections.

    In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes who tried mock injections, more people preferred the dulaglutide pen than the semaglutide pen.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicablePreferred injection device
    Study

    n = 310

    Comparator
    Dulaglutide injection device
    Outcome group
    Device usability · Whole body

    Measurements

    Preferred dulaglutide device
    84.2%
    participants
    Preferred semaglutide device
    12.3%
    participants

    Source sentences

    Summary
    More participants preferred the dulaglutide device than the semaglutide device (84.2% vs. 12.3%; P < 0.0001).
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    The PREFER study was an open-label, multicentre, randomized, crossover study assessing patient preference for dulaglutide and semaglutide injection devices among injection-naïve patients receiving oral medication for type 2 diabetes.
    Summary · context
    There were 310 evaluable participants (48.4% female; mean age, 60.0 years; 78 participants in the TTT subgroup).

    In this study, Semaglutide 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 Semaglutide.

  2. 02HumanNot a test of Semaglutide aloneRandomized controlled trialOther

    More participants perceived the dulaglutide device to have greater ease of use than the semaglutide device.

    In plain wordsMore people found the dulaglutide pen easier to use than the semaglutide pen.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicablePerceived ease of use of the injection device
    Study

    n = 310

    Comparator
    Dulaglutide injection device
    Outcome group
    Device usability · Whole body

    Measurements

    Greater ease of use, dulaglutide device
    86.8%
    participants
    Greater ease of use, semaglutide device
    6.8%
    participants

    Source sentences

    Summary
    More participants perceived the dulaglutide device to have greater ease of use (86.8% vs. 6.8%; P < 0.0001).
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    The PREFER study was an open-label, multicentre, randomized, crossover study assessing patient preference for dulaglutide and semaglutide injection devices among injection-naïve patients receiving oral medication for type 2 diabetes.
    Summary · context
    There were 310 evaluable participants (48.4% female; mean age, 60.0 years; 78 participants in the TTT subgroup).

    In this study, Semaglutide 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 Semaglutide.

  3. 03HumanNot a test of Semaglutide aloneRandomized controlled trialOther

    After preparing and using the devices, more participants were willing to use the dulaglutide device than the semaglutide device.

    In plain wordsAfter trying both pens, more people said they were willing to use the dulaglutide pen than the semaglutide pen.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicableWillingness to use the injection device
    Study

    n = 310

    Comparator
    Dulaglutide injection device
    Outcome group
    Device usability · Whole body

    Measurements

    Willing to use dulaglutide device
    93.5%
    participants
    Willing to use semaglutide device
    45.8%
    participants

    Source sentences

    Summary
    After preparing and using the devices, more participants were willing to use the dulaglutide device (93.5%) than the semaglutide device (45.8%).
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    The PREFER study was an open-label, multicentre, randomized, crossover study assessing patient preference for dulaglutide and semaglutide injection devices among injection-naïve patients receiving oral medication for type 2 diabetes.
    Summary · context
    There were 310 evaluable participants (48.4% female; mean age, 60.0 years; 78 participants in the TTT subgroup).

    In this study, Semaglutide 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 Semaglutide.

  4. 04HumanNot a test of Semaglutide aloneRandomized controlled trialOther

    Training participants to use the dulaglutide device required less time than the semaglutide device.

    In plain wordsLearning to use the dulaglutide pen took less time than learning the semaglutide pen.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicableTime to train on the injection device
    Study

    n = 78

    Comparator
    Dulaglutide injection device
    Outcome group
    Device usability · Whole body

    Measurements

    Time-to-train, dulaglutide device
    3.38 minutes
    TTT subgroup
    Time-to-train, semaglutide device
    8.14 minutes
    TTT subgroup

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Training participants to use the dulaglutide device required less time than the semaglutide device (3.38 vs. 8.14 minutes; P < 0.0001).
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    The PREFER study was an open-label, multicentre, randomized, crossover study assessing patient preference for dulaglutide and semaglutide injection devices among injection-naïve patients receiving oral medication for type 2 diabetes.
    Summary · context
    There were 310 evaluable participants (48.4% female; mean age, 60.0 years; 78 participants in the TTT subgroup).

    In this study, Semaglutide 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 Semaglutide.

AI wrote and checked these results. AI can make mistakes, so check important results against the source.

Registered trials1

Trials this study reports on, or that list this study as a reference. Registry data from ClinicalTrials.gov.

1 trial · 1 completed · 1 with posted results · source ClinicalTrials.gov (opens in a new tab)

CompletedPhase 4Results postedNCT03724981

A Study Comparing the Dulaglutide Pen and the Semaglutide Pen

Eli Lilly and Companyn = 31218 Oct 2018 to 12 Apr 2019

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2

Trial pageClinicalTrials.govUpdated 24 Apr 2020

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

    21 Oct 2026, 18:59 UTC

    Study data updated · source update from Europe PMC

  2. Version 2

    11 Oct 2026, 00:50 UTC

    Study results updated

  3. Version 1

    9 Oct 2026, 03:06 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.