Efficacy of IDegLira Versus IDegAsp Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Crossover Study by isCGM.

Kawaguchi Y, Miyamoto S, Hajika Y, Ashida N, Hirota T, Masumoto K, Sawa J, Hamazaki K, Kumeda Y

Advances in therapy11 Apr 2022Cited by 12 (Europe PMC)

PMID35403949PMCIDPMC9122848DOI10.1007/s12325-022-02138-wPepBankPUB-35403949

Read at source 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: CC BY-NC. 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 aloneRandomized controlled trialEfficacy outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes in a crossover study, the fixed-dose combination IDegLira (insulin degludec/liraglutide) gave a higher time in range than IDegAsp.
In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes, the combination insulin and liraglutide product IDegLira gave more time in the glucose target range than IDegAsp.
Peptide
Liraglutide
Outcome
IncreaseTime in range
Study
n = 24
Comparator
IDegAsp
Outcome group
Glycemic control · Metabolic and weight
Source sentences
Summary
The time in range was significantly higher in IDegLira than in IDegAsp.
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Twenty-four patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomly allocated to receive either IDegLira or IDegAsp followed by IDegAsp or IDegLira, respectively.
Summary · context
A crossover study was conducted with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring.
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-3540394901
02HumanNot a test of Liraglutide aloneRandomized controlled trialEfficacy outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes in a crossover study, IDegLira (insulin degludec/liraglutide) gave lower postprandial glucose at 90 and 120 min after breakfast than IDegAsp.
In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes, the combination product IDegLira gave lower blood sugar after breakfast than IDegAsp.
Peptide
Liraglutide
Outcome
DecreasePostprandial glucose after breakfast
Study
n = 24
Comparator
IDegAsp
Outcome group
Glycemic control · Metabolic and weight
Source sentences
Summary
Postprandial glucose levels 90 and 120 min after breakfast and 60, 90, and 120 min after lunch were significantly lower for IDegLira than for IDegAsp.
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Twenty-four patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomly allocated to receive either IDegLira or IDegAsp followed by IDegAsp or IDegLira, respectively.
Summary · context
A crossover study was conducted with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring.
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-3540394902
03HumanNot a test of Liraglutide aloneRandomized controlled trialEfficacy outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes in a crossover study, IDegLira (insulin degludec/liraglutide) gave lower postprandial glucose at 60, 90 and 120 min after lunch than IDegAsp.
In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes, the combination product IDegLira gave lower blood sugar after lunch than IDegAsp.
Peptide
Liraglutide
Outcome
DecreasePostprandial glucose after lunch
Study
n = 24
Comparator
IDegAsp
Outcome group
Glycemic control · Metabolic and weight
Source sentences
Summary
Postprandial glucose levels 90 and 120 min after breakfast and 60, 90, and 120 min after lunch were significantly lower for IDegLira than for IDegAsp.
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Twenty-four patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomly allocated to receive either IDegLira or IDegAsp followed by IDegAsp or IDegLira, respectively.
Summary · context
A crossover study was conducted with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring.
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-3540394903
04HumanNot a test of Liraglutide aloneRandomized controlled trialEfficacy outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes in a crossover study, postprandial glucose at 90 and 120 min after supper was higher with IDegLira (insulin degludec/liraglutide) than with IDegAsp.
In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes, blood sugar after supper was higher with the combination product IDegLira than with IDegAsp.
Peptide
Liraglutide
Outcome
IncreasePostprandial glucose after supper
Study
n = 24
Comparator
IDegAsp
Outcome group
Glycemic control · Metabolic and weight
Source sentences
Summary
However, postprandial glucose levels 90 and 120 min after supper were significantly lower for IDegAsp than for IDegLira.
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Twenty-four patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomly allocated to receive either IDegLira or IDegAsp followed by IDegAsp or IDegLira, respectively.
Summary · context
A crossover study was conducted with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring.
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-3540394904
05HumanNot a test of Liraglutide aloneRandomized controlled trialSafety outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes in a crossover study, time below range did not differ significantly between IDegLira (insulin degludec/liraglutide) and IDegAsp.
In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes, time with low blood sugar did not differ significantly between IDegLira and IDegAsp.
Peptide
Liraglutide
Outcome
No significant changeTime below range
Study
n = 24
Comparator
IDegAsp
Outcome group
Glycemic control · Metabolic and weight
Source sentences
Summary
There was no significant difference in the time below range between IDegLira and IDegAsp.
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Twenty-four patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomly allocated to receive either IDegLira or IDegAsp followed by IDegAsp or IDegLira, respectively.
Summary · context
A crossover study was conducted with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring.
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-3540394905

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 2Current
12 Oct 2026, 11:11 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.

Publication types

MeSH terms

Keywords

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