ArticlePloS one2015
The short-term cost-effectiveness of once-daily liraglutide versus once-weekly exenatide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cost Effectiveness of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors, Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) Receptor Agonists, and Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 (DPP-4) Inhibitors: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of surgical and non-surgical weight loss interventions in end-stage knee osteoarthritis and obesity: a Markov State model.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis model for sotagliflozin compared with insulin monotherapy for patients with type 1 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2025Article
- Short-term cost-effectiveness analysis of tirzepatide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2023Article
- Lifetime cost-effectiveness simulation of once-weekly exenatide in type 2 diabetes: A cost-utility analysis based on the EXSCEL trial.Diabetes research and clinical practice · 2022Article
- Short-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2021Article
- Systematic Design of Trypsin Cleavage Site Mutated Exendin4-Cysteine 1, an Orally Bioavailable Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist.International journal of molecular sciences · 2017Article
- The Cost-Effectiveness of Pregabalin Versus Gabapentin for Peripheral Neuropathic Pain (pNeP) and Postherpetic Neuralgia (PHN) in China.Pain and therapy · 2016Article
- Observational
- Exenatide once-weekly injection for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Chinese patients: current perspectives.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic metabolic disease with substantial morbidity, mortality, and economic impacts. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, such as once-daily (QD) liraglutide and once-weekly (QW) exenatide, are FDA-approved treatment for T2DM. Head-to-head trials and meta-analyses comparing these agents have reported clinically meaningful improvements but small differences in glycemic control between both agents. In this study, we calculate and compare the cost-effectiveness implications of these alternative effectiveness outcomes.
methodsWe developed a decision model to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of exenatide QW 2 mg versus liraglutide QD 1.8 mg in T2DM patients, with effectiveness measured as reduction in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). In the base case, the model tracks change in HbA1c and direct medical expenditure over a 6-month time horizon. We calculated and compared the cost per 1% reduction in HbA1c of models populated with clinical data from a head-to-head randomized, controlled trial (DURATION-6) and a network meta-analysis. Expenditure inputs were derived from wholesale acquisition costs and published sources.
resultsIn the base case, 6-month expenditure for the liraglutide and exenatide strategies were $3,509 and $2,618, respectively. Using clinical data from DURATION-6 and the network meta-analysis, the liraglutide strategy had an incremental cost per 1% reduction in HbA1c of $4,773 and $27,179, respectively. The most influential model parameters were drug costs, magnitude of HbA1c reduction in patients on treatment for >1 month, and liraglutide gastrointestinal adverse event rate. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) using DURATION-6 data, the exenatide strategy was optimal at willingness-to-pay levels below $4,800 per 1% reduction in HbA1c. In a PSA using meta-analysis data, the exenatide strategy was dominant.
conclusionsOur modeled results demonstrate that the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of liraglutide QD 1.8 mg relative to exenatide QW 2 mg depend largely on the chosen source of the clinical data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.