Skip to content

Study · Not a test of the peptide alone · 2020

8 results

Oral semaglutide versus injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a cost of control analysis.

Hansen BB, Nuhoho S, Ali SN, Dang-Tan T, Valentine WJ, Malkin SJP, Hunt B

Journal of medical economics7 Feb 2020Cited by 27 (Europe PMC)

PMID31990244 (opens in a new tab)DOI10.1080/13696998.2020.1722678 (opens in a new tab)PepBankPUB-31990244
Publisher pagePubMedAsk about this study
Jump to 8 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-ND. Results still quote short attributed sentences.

Results from this study8

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

Studies that did not test the peptide alone8

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.

  1. 01Computer modelNot a test of Semaglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    The model estimated weekly semaglutide cost per patient achieving HbA1c ≤6.5% at USD 15,430.

    In plain wordsThe model estimated weekly semaglutide cost of control at USD 15,430.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicableCost of HbA1c ≤6.5% control, weekly formulation
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Outcome group
    Healthcare costs and utilization · Pharmacology

    Source sentences

    Summary
    For the treatment target of HbA1c ≤6.5%, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg and oral semaglutide 14 mg were associated with the lowest costs of control, at USD 15,430 and USD 17,383 per patient achieving target, respectively.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    Cost of control was calculated by dividing the annual treatment costs associated with an intervention by the proportion of patients achieving the treatment target with an intervention, with outcomes calculated for targets of HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c <7.0% for all included GLP-1 receptor agonists.
    Summary · context
    Annual treatment costs were accounted in 2019 United States dollars (USD), based on 2019 wholesale acquisition cost.

    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. 02Computer modelNot a test of Semaglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    The model estimated oral semaglutide cost per patient achieving HbA1c ≤6.5% at USD 17,383.

    In plain wordsThe model estimated oral semaglutide cost of control at USD 17,383.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicableCost of HbA1c ≤6.5% control, oral formulation
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Outcome group
    Healthcare costs and utilization · Pharmacology

    Source sentences

    Summary
    For the treatment target of HbA1c ≤6.5%, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg and oral semaglutide 14 mg were associated with the lowest costs of control, at USD 15,430 and USD 17,383 per patient achieving target, respectively.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    Cost of control was calculated by dividing the annual treatment costs associated with an intervention by the proportion of patients achieving the treatment target with an intervention, with outcomes calculated for targets of HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c <7.0% for all included GLP-1 receptor agonists.
    Summary · context
    Annual treatment costs were accounted in 2019 United States dollars (USD), based on 2019 wholesale acquisition cost.

    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. 03Computer modelNot a test of Semaglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    The model estimated weekly semaglutide cost per patient achieving HbA1c <7.0% at USD 12,627.

    In plain wordsThe model estimated weekly semaglutide cost of control at USD 12,627.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicableCost of HbA1c <7.0% control, weekly formulation
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Outcome group
    Healthcare costs and utilization · Pharmacology

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Similarly, the cost of control was lowest with once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg at USD 12,627 per patient achieving target, followed by oral semaglutide 14 mg at USD 13,493 per patient achieving target for the target of HbA1c <7.0%.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    Cost of control was calculated by dividing the annual treatment costs associated with an intervention by the proportion of patients achieving the treatment target with an intervention, with outcomes calculated for targets of HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c <7.0% for all included GLP-1 receptor agonists.
    Summary · context
    Annual treatment costs were accounted in 2019 United States dollars (USD), based on 2019 wholesale acquisition cost.

    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. 04Computer modelNot a test of Semaglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    The model estimated oral semaglutide cost per patient achieving HbA1c <7.0% at USD 13,493.

    In plain wordsThe model estimated oral semaglutide cost of control at USD 13,493.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicableCost of HbA1c <7.0% control, oral formulation
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Outcome group
    Healthcare costs and utilization · Pharmacology

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Similarly, the cost of control was lowest with once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg at USD 12,627 per patient achieving target, followed by oral semaglutide 14 mg at USD 13,493 per patient achieving target for the target of HbA1c <7.0%.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    Cost of control was calculated by dividing the annual treatment costs associated with an intervention by the proportion of patients achieving the treatment target with an intervention, with outcomes calculated for targets of HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c <7.0% for all included GLP-1 receptor agonists.
    Summary · context
    Annual treatment costs were accounted in 2019 United States dollars (USD), based on 2019 wholesale acquisition cost.

    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.

  5. 05Computer modelNot a test of Dulaglutide (Trulicity) aloneIn silicoOther

    The model estimated higher dulaglutide costs per patient achieving HbA1c ≤6.5% than weekly and oral semaglutide.

    In plain wordsThe model estimated higher dulaglutide costs to reach HbA1c ≤6.5% than weekly and oral semaglutide.

    Peptide
    Dulaglutide (Trulicity)
    Outcome
    IncreaseCost of control for HbA1c ≤6.5%
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Weekly and oral semaglutide
    Outcome group
    Healthcare costs and utilization · Pharmacology

    Source sentences

    Summary
    All other interventions were associated with higher cost of control values for both targets.
    5 context sentences
    Summary · context
    For the treatment target of HbA1c ≤6.5%, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg and oral semaglutide 14 mg were associated with the lowest costs of control, at USD 15,430 and USD 17,383 per patient achieving target, respectively.
    Summary · context
    Similarly, the cost of control was lowest with once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg at USD 12,627 per patient achieving target, followed by oral semaglutide 14 mg at USD 13,493 per patient achieving target for the target of HbA1c <7.0%.
    Summary · context
    The present study aimed to assess the short-term cost- effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus subcutaneous once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg, once-weekly exenatide 2 mg, twice-daily exenatide 10 µg, once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg,
    Summary · context
    Cost of control was calculated by dividing the annual treatment costs associated with an intervention by the proportion of patients achieving the treatment target with an intervention, with outcomes calculated for targets of HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c <7.0% for all included GLP-1 receptor agonists.
    Summary · context
    Annual treatment costs were accounted in 2019 United States dollars (USD), based on 2019 wholesale acquisition cost.

    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).

  6. 06Computer modelNot a test of Liraglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    The model estimated higher liraglutide costs per patient achieving HbA1c ≤6.5% than weekly and oral semaglutide.

    In plain wordsThe model estimated higher liraglutide costs to reach HbA1c ≤6.5% than weekly and oral semaglutide.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    IncreaseCost of control for HbA1c ≤6.5%
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Weekly and oral semaglutide
    Outcome group
    Healthcare costs and utilization · Pharmacology

    Source sentences

    Summary
    All other interventions were associated with higher cost of control values for both targets.
    5 context sentences
    Summary · context
    For the treatment target of HbA1c ≤6.5%, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg and oral semaglutide 14 mg were associated with the lowest costs of control, at USD 15,430 and USD 17,383 per patient achieving target, respectively.
    Summary · context
    Similarly, the cost of control was lowest with once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg at USD 12,627 per patient achieving target, followed by oral semaglutide 14 mg at USD 13,493 per patient achieving target for the target of HbA1c <7.0%.
    Summary · context
    The present study aimed to assess the short-term cost- effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus subcutaneous once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg, once-weekly exenatide 2 mg, twice-daily exenatide 10 µg, once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg,
    Summary · context
    Cost of control was calculated by dividing the annual treatment costs associated with an intervention by the proportion of patients achieving the treatment target with an intervention, with outcomes calculated for targets of HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c <7.0% for all included GLP-1 receptor agonists.
    Summary · context
    Annual treatment costs were accounted in 2019 United States dollars (USD), based on 2019 wholesale acquisition cost.

    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.

  7. 07Computer modelNot a test of Dulaglutide (Trulicity) aloneIn silicoOther

    The model estimated higher dulaglutide costs per patient achieving HbA1c <7.0% than weekly and oral semaglutide.

    In plain wordsThe model estimated higher dulaglutide costs to reach HbA1c <7.0% than weekly and oral semaglutide.

    Peptide
    Dulaglutide (Trulicity)
    Outcome
    IncreaseCost of control for HbA1c <7.0%
    Study

    n: not applicable

    Comparator
    Weekly and oral semaglutide
    Outcome group
    Healthcare costs and utilization · Pharmacology

    Source sentences

    Summary
    All other interventions were associated with higher cost of control values for both targets.
    3 context sentences
    Summary · context
    Similarly, the cost of control was lowest with once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg at USD 12,627 per patient achieving target, followed by oral semaglutide 14 mg at USD 13,493 per patient achieving target for the target of HbA1c <7.0%.
    Summary · context
    Cost of control was calculated by dividing the annual treatment costs associated with an intervention by the proportion of patients achieving the treatment target with an intervention, with outcomes calculated for targets of HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c <7.0% for all included GLP-1 receptor agonists.
    Summary · context
    Annual treatment costs were accounted in 2019 United States dollars (USD), based on 2019 wholesale acquisition cost.

    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).

  8. 08Computer modelNot a test of Liraglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    The model estimated higher liraglutide costs per patient achieving HbA1c <7.0% than weekly and oral semaglutide.

    In plain wordsThe model estimated higher liraglutide costs to reach HbA1c <7.0% than weekly and oral semaglutide.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    IncreaseCost of control for HbA1c <7.0%
    Study

    n: not applicable

    Comparator
    Weekly and oral semaglutide
    Outcome group
    Healthcare costs and utilization · Pharmacology

    Source sentences

    Summary
    All other interventions were associated with higher cost of control values for both targets.
    3 context sentences
    Summary · context
    Similarly, the cost of control was lowest with once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg at USD 12,627 per patient achieving target, followed by oral semaglutide 14 mg at USD 13,493 per patient achieving target for the target of HbA1c <7.0%.
    Summary · context
    Cost of control was calculated by dividing the annual treatment costs associated with an intervention by the proportion of patients achieving the treatment target with an intervention, with outcomes calculated for targets of HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c <7.0% for all included GLP-1 receptor agonists.
    Summary · context
    Annual treatment costs were accounted in 2019 United States dollars (USD), based on 2019 wholesale acquisition cost.

    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 5Current

    27 Oct 2026, 16:36 UTC

    Study data updated · source update from Europe PMC

  2. Version 4

    22 Oct 2026, 02:26 UTC

    Study results updated

  3. Versions 2 to 3

    21 Oct 2026, 18:59 UTC

    The same notice was added 2 times, first on 9 Oct 2026, 03:06 UTC. The status did not change between them.

    Study data updated · source update from Europe PMC

  4. Version 1

    9 Oct 2026, 03:05 UTC

    First added · source update from Europe PMC

Subjects

Terms as the source lists them.

Publication types

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