Skip to content

Study · Not a test of the peptide alone · 2021

10 results

Short-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States.

Cui J, Klepser DG, McAdam-Marx C

Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy1 Jul 2021Cited by 2 (Europe PMC)

PMID34185562 (opens in a new tab)PMCIDPMC10391238 (opens in a new tab)DOI10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.7.840 (opens in a new tab)PepBankPUB-34185562
Source linkPubMedAsk about this study
Jump to 10 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: Publisher copyright. Results still quote short attributed sentences.

Results from this study10

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

Studies that did not test the peptide alone10

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

    In a model of US adults with type 2 diabetes, 52-week treatment with oral semaglutide cost $2,660 more than empagliflozin.

    In plain wordsIn a cost model, a year of oral semaglutide cost $2,660 more than empagliflozin.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    Increase52-week treatment cost versus empagliflozin
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    52-week decision analysis, US payer perspective
    Comparator
    Empagliflozin 25 mg
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Metabolic and weight

    Source sentences

    Summary
    In the base-case analysis, 52-week treatment costs with oral semaglutide were $2,660 and $3,104 higher and $2,337 less than empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide, respectively.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    A decision analysis over a 52-week time horizon was used to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide from a US health care payer's perspective.
    Summary · context
    Data on efficacy, adverse events, and discontinuation were derived from 52-week data from phase 3, head-to-head clinical trials (PIONEER 2, 3, and 4).

    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

    In a model of US adults with type 2 diabetes, 52-week treatment with oral semaglutide cost $3,104 more than sitagliptin.

    In plain wordsIn a cost model, a year of oral semaglutide cost $3,104 more than sitagliptin.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    Increase52-week treatment cost versus sitagliptin
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    52-week decision analysis, US payer perspective
    Comparator
    Sitagliptin 100 mg
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Metabolic and weight

    Source sentences

    Summary
    In the base-case analysis, 52-week treatment costs with oral semaglutide were $2,660 and $3,104 higher and $2,337 less than empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide, respectively.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    A decision analysis over a 52-week time horizon was used to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide from a US health care payer's perspective.
    Summary · context
    Data on efficacy, adverse events, and discontinuation were derived from 52-week data from phase 3, head-to-head clinical trials (PIONEER 2, 3, and 4).

    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

    In a model of US adults with type 2 diabetes, 52-week treatment with oral semaglutide cost $2,337 less than liraglutide.

    In plain wordsIn a cost model, a year of oral semaglutide cost $2,337 less than liraglutide.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    Decrease52-week treatment cost versus liraglutide
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    52-week decision analysis, US payer perspective
    Comparator
    Liraglutide 1.8 mg
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Metabolic and weight

    Source sentences

    Summary
    In the base-case analysis, 52-week treatment costs with oral semaglutide were $2,660 and $3,104 higher and $2,337 less than empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide, respectively.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    A decision analysis over a 52-week time horizon was used to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide from a US health care payer's perspective.
    Summary · context
    Data on efficacy, adverse events, and discontinuation were derived from 52-week data from phase 3, head-to-head clinical trials (PIONEER 2, 3, and 4).

    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

    In a model built on trial data, oral semaglutide gave a 0.40% greater A1c reduction than empagliflozin.

    In plain wordsIn a cost model built on trial data, oral semaglutide lowered A1c by 0.40% more than empagliflozin.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    DecreaseIncremental A1c reduction versus empagliflozin
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    52-week decision analysis, US payer perspective
    Comparator
    Empagliflozin 25 mg
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Metabolic and weight

    Measurements

    incremental A1c reduction
    0.4%
    vs empagliflozin

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Incremental (greater) A1c reductions were seen with oral semaglutide at 0.40%, 0.50%, and 0.30% vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide, respectively.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    A decision analysis over a 52-week time horizon was used to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide from a US health care payer's perspective.
    Summary · context
    Data on efficacy, adverse events, and discontinuation were derived from 52-week data from phase 3, head-to-head clinical trials (PIONEER 2, 3, and 4).

    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 Semaglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    In a model built on trial data, oral semaglutide gave a 0.50% greater A1c reduction than sitagliptin.

    In plain wordsIn a cost model built on trial data, oral semaglutide lowered A1c by 0.50% more than sitagliptin.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    DecreaseIncremental A1c reduction versus sitagliptin
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    52-week decision analysis, US payer perspective
    Comparator
    Sitagliptin 100 mg
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Metabolic and weight

    Measurements

    incremental A1c reduction
    0.5%
    vs sitagliptin

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Incremental (greater) A1c reductions were seen with oral semaglutide at 0.40%, 0.50%, and 0.30% vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide, respectively.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    A decision analysis over a 52-week time horizon was used to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide from a US health care payer's perspective.
    Summary · context
    Data on efficacy, adverse events, and discontinuation were derived from 52-week data from phase 3, head-to-head clinical trials (PIONEER 2, 3, and 4).

    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.

  6. 06Computer modelNot a test of Semaglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    In a model built on trial data, oral semaglutide gave a 0.30% greater A1c reduction than liraglutide.

    In plain wordsIn a cost model built on trial data, oral semaglutide lowered A1c by 0.30% more than liraglutide.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    DecreaseIncremental A1c reduction versus liraglutide
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    52-week decision analysis, US payer perspective
    Comparator
    Liraglutide 1.8 mg
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Metabolic and weight

    Measurements

    incremental A1c reduction
    0.3%
    vs liraglutide

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Incremental (greater) A1c reductions were seen with oral semaglutide at 0.40%, 0.50%, and 0.30% vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide, respectively.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    A decision analysis over a 52-week time horizon was used to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide from a US health care payer's perspective.
    Summary · context
    Data on efficacy, adverse events, and discontinuation were derived from 52-week data from phase 3, head-to-head clinical trials (PIONEER 2, 3, and 4).

    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.

  7. 07Computer modelNot a test of Semaglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    In a model of US adults with type 2 diabetes, the ICER of oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin was $6,650 per 1% reduction in A1c.

    In plain wordsIn a cost model, oral semaglutide cost $6,650 more than empagliflozin for each 1% extra A1c reduction.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicableICER per 1% A1c reduction versus empagliflozin
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    52-week decision analysis, US payer perspective
    Comparator
    Empagliflozin 25 mg
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Metabolic and weight

    Source sentences

    Summary
    ICERs per 1% reduction in A1c for oral semaglutide were $6,650 and $6,207 vs empagliflozin and sitagliptin, respectively.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    A decision analysis over a 52-week time horizon was used to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide from a US health care payer's perspective.
    Summary · context
    Data on efficacy, adverse events, and discontinuation were derived from 52-week data from phase 3, head-to-head clinical trials (PIONEER 2, 3, and 4).

    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.

  8. 08Computer modelNot a test of Semaglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    In a model of US adults with type 2 diabetes, the ICER of oral semaglutide versus sitagliptin was $6,207 per 1% reduction in A1c.

    In plain wordsIn a cost model, oral semaglutide cost $6,207 more than sitagliptin for each 1% extra A1c reduction.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicableICER per 1% A1c reduction versus sitagliptin
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    52-week decision analysis, US payer perspective
    Comparator
    Sitagliptin 100 mg
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Metabolic and weight

    Source sentences

    Summary
    ICERs per 1% reduction in A1c for oral semaglutide were $6,650 and $6,207 vs empagliflozin and sitagliptin, respectively.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    A decision analysis over a 52-week time horizon was used to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide from a US health care payer's perspective.
    Summary · context
    Data on efficacy, adverse events, and discontinuation were derived from 52-week data from phase 3, head-to-head clinical trials (PIONEER 2, 3, and 4).

    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.

  9. 09Computer modelNot a test of Semaglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    In a model of US adults with type 2 diabetes, oral semaglutide was dominant versus liraglutide (ICER of -$7,790).

    In plain wordsIn a cost model, oral semaglutide cost less and lowered A1c more than liraglutide.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicableICER versus liraglutide
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    52-week decision analysis, US payer perspective
    Comparator
    Liraglutide 1.8 mg
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Metabolic and weight

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Oral semaglutide was dominant vs liraglutide (ICER of -$7,790).
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    A decision analysis over a 52-week time horizon was used to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide from a US health care payer's perspective.
    Summary · context
    Data on efficacy, adverse events, and discontinuation were derived from 52-week data from phase 3, head-to-head clinical trials (PIONEER 2, 3, and 4).

    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.

  10. 10Computer modelNot a test of Liraglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    In a model of US adults with type 2 diabetes, liraglutide was dominated by oral semaglutide, which cost less and gave a greater A1c reduction.

    In plain wordsIn a cost model, liraglutide cost more and lowered A1c less than oral semaglutide.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicableCost-effectiveness of liraglutide as comparator of oral semaglutide
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    52-week decision analysis, US payer perspective
    Comparator
    Oral semaglutide 14 mg
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Metabolic and weight

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Oral semaglutide was dominant relative to liraglutide, offering a cost-saving GLP-1RA oral alternative.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    A decision analysis over a 52-week time horizon was used to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide from a US health care payer's perspective.
    Summary · context
    Data on efficacy, adverse events, and discontinuation were derived from 52-week data from phase 3, head-to-head clinical trials (PIONEER 2, 3, and 4).

    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 3Current

    12 Oct 2026, 11:11 UTC

    Study results updated

  2. Version 2

    9 Oct 2026, 03:06 UTC

    Study data updated · source update from Europe PMC

  3. Version 1

    9 Oct 2026, 03:05 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.