Cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide versus dulaglutide and lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control in Sweden.

Ericsson Å, Fridhammar A

Journal of medical economics23 May 2019Cited by 21 (Europe PMC)

PMID31044636DOI10.1080/13696998.2019.1614009PepBankPUB-31044636

Publisher page PubMedAsk about this study

Summary

Aims: This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide vs glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) uncontrolled on metformin or basal insulin in Sweden. Materials and methods: This cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted using the Swedish Institute of Health Economics (IHE) Diabetes Cohort Model. Analyses were conducted from the Swedish societal perspective over a time horizon of 40 years. For patients uncontrolled on metformin, dulaglutide was the comparator, and data from the SUSTAIN 7 clinical trial was used. For patients uncontrolled on basal insulin, lixisenatide was chosen as the comparator and data was obtained from a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results: The results show that, in patients with inadequate control on metformin, semaglutide 1.0 mg dominated (i.e. provided greater clinical benefit, and was less costly) dulaglutide 1.5 mg. In patients with inadequate control on basal insulin, semaglutide 1.0 mg dominated lixisenatide. The reduction in costs is largely driven by the reduction in complications seen with once-weekly semaglutide. Limitations and conclusions: It is likely that this analysis is conservative in estimating the cardiovascular (CV) cost benefits associated with treatment with once-weekly semaglutide. In patients inadequately controlled on basal insulin, the analyses vs lixisenatide were based on results from an NMA, as no head-to-head clinical trial has been conducted for this comparison. These CEA results show that once-weekly semaglutide is a cost-effective GLP-1 RA therapy for the treatment of T2D in patients inadequately controlled on metformin or basal insulin, addressing many current clinician, patient, and payer unmet needs in Sweden.

CC BYText from Europe PMC. Highlighted sentences are the source of results.

Results from this study7

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

Studies that did not test the peptide alone7

In this study, the peptide 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 the peptide.

01Computer modelNot a test of Semaglutide aloneIn silicoOther
In modelling of Swedish T2D patients uncontrolled on metformin, semaglutide provided greater clinical benefit than dulaglutide.
In plain wordsA computer model predicted greater clinical benefit with semaglutide than dulaglutide for T2D uncontrolled on metformin in Sweden.
Peptide
Semaglutide
Outcome
IncreaseModelled clinical benefit
Study
n: not reported in source
IHE Diabetes Cohort Model
Comparator
Dulaglutide 1.5 mg
Outcome group
Cost-effectiveness · Whole body
Source sentences
Summary
The results show that, in patients with inadequate control on metformin, semaglutide 1.0 mg dominated (i.e. provided greater clinical benefit, and was less costly) dulaglutide 1.5 mg.
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
This cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted using the Swedish Institute of Health Economics (IHE) Diabetes Cohort Model. Analyses were conducted from the Swedish societal perspective over a time horizon of 40 years. For patients uncontrolled on metformin, dulaglutide was the comparator, and data from the SUSTAIN 7 clinical trial was used.
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.
Show in the study text Report a problemFND-3104463601
02Computer modelNot a test of Semaglutide aloneIn silicoOther
In modelling of Swedish T2D patients uncontrolled on metformin, semaglutide was less costly than dulaglutide.
In plain wordsA computer model predicted lower costs with semaglutide than dulaglutide for T2D uncontrolled on metformin in Sweden.
Peptide
Semaglutide
Outcome
DecreaseModelled costs
Study
n: not reported in source
IHE Diabetes Cohort Model
Comparator
Dulaglutide 1.5 mg
Outcome group
Cost-effectiveness · Whole body
Source sentences
Summary
The results show that, in patients with inadequate control on metformin, semaglutide 1.0 mg dominated (i.e. provided greater clinical benefit, and was less costly) dulaglutide 1.5 mg.
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
This cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted using the Swedish Institute of Health Economics (IHE) Diabetes Cohort Model. Analyses were conducted from the Swedish societal perspective over a time horizon of 40 years. For patients uncontrolled on metformin, dulaglutide was the comparator, and data from the SUSTAIN 7 clinical trial was used.
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.
Show in the study text Report a problemFND-3104463602
03Computer modelNot a test of Dulaglutide (Trulicity) aloneIn silicoOther
In modelling of Swedish T2D patients uncontrolled on metformin, dulaglutide provided less clinical benefit than semaglutide.
In plain wordsA computer model predicted less clinical benefit with dulaglutide than semaglutide for T2D uncontrolled on metformin in Sweden.
Peptide
Dulaglutide (Trulicity)
Outcome
DecreaseModelled clinical benefit
Study
n: not reported in source
IHE Diabetes Cohort Model
Comparator
Semaglutide 1.0 mg
Outcome group
Cost-effectiveness · Whole body
Source sentences
Summary
The results show that, in patients with inadequate control on metformin, semaglutide 1.0 mg dominated (i.e. provided greater clinical benefit, and was less costly) dulaglutide 1.5 mg.
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
This cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted using the Swedish Institute of Health Economics (IHE) Diabetes Cohort Model. Analyses were conducted from the Swedish societal perspective over a time horizon of 40 years. For patients uncontrolled on metformin, dulaglutide was the comparator, and data from the SUSTAIN 7 clinical trial was used.
In this study, Dulaglutide (Trulicity) 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 Dulaglutide (Trulicity).
Show in the study text Report a problemFND-3104463603
04Computer modelNot a test of Dulaglutide (Trulicity) aloneIn silicoOther
In modelling of Swedish T2D patients uncontrolled on metformin, dulaglutide was more costly than semaglutide.
In plain wordsA computer model predicted higher costs with dulaglutide than semaglutide for T2D uncontrolled on metformin in Sweden.
Peptide
Dulaglutide (Trulicity)
Outcome
IncreaseModelled costs
Study
n: not reported in source
IHE Diabetes Cohort Model
Comparator
Semaglutide 1.0 mg
Outcome group
Cost-effectiveness · Whole body
Source sentences
Summary
The results show that, in patients with inadequate control on metformin, semaglutide 1.0 mg dominated (i.e. provided greater clinical benefit, and was less costly) dulaglutide 1.5 mg.
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
This cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted using the Swedish Institute of Health Economics (IHE) Diabetes Cohort Model. Analyses were conducted from the Swedish societal perspective over a time horizon of 40 years. For patients uncontrolled on metformin, dulaglutide was the comparator, and data from the SUSTAIN 7 clinical trial was used.
In this study, Dulaglutide (Trulicity) 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 Dulaglutide (Trulicity).
Show in the study text Report a problemFND-3104463604
05Computer modelNot a test of Semaglutide aloneIn silicoOther
In modelling of Swedish T2D patients uncontrolled on basal insulin, semaglutide provided greater clinical benefit than lixisenatide.
In plain wordsA computer model predicted greater clinical benefit with semaglutide than lixisenatide for T2D uncontrolled on basal insulin in Sweden.
Peptide
Semaglutide
Outcome
IncreaseModelled clinical benefit versus lixisenatide
Study
n: not reported in source
IHE Diabetes Cohort Model
Comparator
Lixisenatide
Outcome group
Cost-effectiveness · Whole body
Source sentences
Summary
In patients with inadequate control on basal insulin, semaglutide 1.0 mg dominated lixisenatide.
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
This cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted using the Swedish Institute of Health Economics (IHE) Diabetes Cohort Model.
Summary · context
For patients uncontrolled on basal insulin, lixisenatide was chosen as the comparator and data was obtained from a network meta-analysis (NMA).
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.
Show in the study text Report a problemFND-3104463605
06Computer modelNot a test of Semaglutide aloneIn silicoOther
In the Swedish T2D model, reduced complications largely drove cost reductions with semaglutide.
In plain wordsA computer model linked lower costs with semaglutide largely to fewer complications for T2D in Sweden.
Peptide
Semaglutide
Outcome
DecreaseComplication-driven cost reduction
Study
n: not reported in source
IHE Diabetes Cohort Model
Outcome group
Cost-effectiveness · Whole body
Source sentences
Summary
The reduction in costs is largely driven by the reduction in complications seen with once-weekly semaglutide.
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
This cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted using the Swedish Institute of Health Economics (IHE) Diabetes Cohort Model. Analyses were conducted from the Swedish societal perspective over a time horizon of 40 years. For patients uncontrolled on metformin, dulaglutide was the comparator, and data from the SUSTAIN 7 clinical trial was used.
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.
Show in the study text Report a problemFND-3104463606
07Computer modelNot a test of Semaglutide aloneIn silicoOther
In modelling of Swedish T2D patients uncontrolled on basal insulin, semaglutide was less costly than lixisenatide.
In plain wordsA computer model predicted lower costs with semaglutide than lixisenatide for T2D uncontrolled on basal insulin in Sweden.
Peptide
Semaglutide
Outcome
DecreaseModelled costs versus lixisenatide
Study
n: not reported in source
IHE Diabetes Cohort Model
Comparator
Lixisenatide
Outcome group
Cost-effectiveness · Whole body
Source sentences
Summary
In patients with inadequate control on basal insulin, semaglutide 1.0 mg dominated lixisenatide.
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
This cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted using the Swedish Institute of Health Economics (IHE) Diabetes Cohort Model.
Summary · context
For patients uncontrolled on basal insulin, lixisenatide was chosen as the comparator and data was obtained from a network meta-analysis (NMA).
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.
Show in the study text Report a problemFND-3104463607

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 4Current
27 Oct 2026, 16:36 UTC
Study data updated · source update from Europe PMC
Version 3
22 Oct 2026, 02:26 UTC
Study results updated
Version 2
21 Oct 2026, 18:59 UTC
Study data updated · source update from Europe PMC
Version 1
9 Oct 2026, 03:06 UTC
First added · source update from Europe PMC