Skip to content

Study · Not a test of the peptide alone · 2022

5 results

Cost-effectiveness analysis of 4 GLP-1RAs in the treatment of obesity in a US setting.

Hu Y, Zheng SL, Ye XL, Shi JN, Zheng XW, Pan HS, Zhang YW, Yang XL, Huang P

Annals of translational medicine1 Feb 2022Cited by 29 (Europe PMC)

PMID35284548 (opens in a new tab)PMCIDPMC8904982 (opens in a new tab)DOI10.21037/atm-22-200 (opens in a new tab)PepBankPUB-35284548
Read at sourcePubMedAsk about this study
Jump to 5 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 study5

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

Studies that did not test the peptide alone5

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 Dulaglutide (Trulicity) aloneIn silicoOther

    In a US obesity model, the GLP-1 receptor agonists studied, including dulaglutide, produced effective weight loss versus no treatment.

    In plain wordsIn computer projections, the GLP-1 medicines studied, including dulaglutide, reduced weight compared with no treatment.

    Peptide
    Dulaglutide (Trulicity)
    Outcome
    DecreaseModelled class-level weight loss
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Decision-tree model
    Comparator
    No treatment
    Outcome group
    Body weight · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    The GLP-1RAs produced effective weight-loss results; however, not all the GLP-1RAs were cost effective compared to no treatment based on a WTP threshold of $195000/QALY.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    This study sought to assess the cost effectiveness for weight loss of 4 GLP-1RAs in adult patients with obesity in the United States.
    Summary · context
    Four GLP-1RA groups that received Liraglutide (1.8 mg QD), Semaglutide (1.0 mg QW), Dulaglutide (1.5 mg QW), or Exenatide (10 μg BID), and one no-treatment group were compared using a decision-tree model.

    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).

  2. 02Computer modelNot a test of Liraglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    In a US obesity model, the GLP-1 receptor agonists studied, including liraglutide, produced effective weight loss versus no treatment.

    In plain wordsIn computer projections, the GLP-1 medicines studied, including liraglutide, reduced weight compared with no treatment.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    DecreaseModelled class-level weight loss
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Decision-tree model
    Comparator
    No treatment
    Outcome group
    Body weight · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    The GLP-1RAs produced effective weight-loss results; however, not all the GLP-1RAs were cost effective compared to no treatment based on a WTP threshold of $195000/QALY.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    This study sought to assess the cost effectiveness for weight loss of 4 GLP-1RAs in adult patients with obesity in the United States.
    Summary · context
    Four GLP-1RA groups that received Liraglutide (1.8 mg QD), Semaglutide (1.0 mg QW), Dulaglutide (1.5 mg QW), or Exenatide (10 μg BID), and one no-treatment group were compared using a decision-tree model.

    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.

  3. 03Computer modelNot a test of Semaglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    In a US obesity model, the GLP-1 receptor agonists studied, including semaglutide, produced effective weight loss versus no treatment.

    In plain wordsIn computer projections, the GLP-1 medicines studied, including semaglutide, reduced weight compared with no treatment.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    DecreaseModelled class-level weight loss
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Decision-tree model
    Comparator
    No treatment
    Outcome group
    Body weight · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    The GLP-1RAs produced effective weight-loss results; however, not all the GLP-1RAs were cost effective compared to no treatment based on a WTP threshold of $195000/QALY.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    This study sought to assess the cost effectiveness for weight loss of 4 GLP-1RAs in adult patients with obesity in the United States.
    Summary · context
    Four GLP-1RA groups that received Liraglutide (1.8 mg QD), Semaglutide (1.0 mg QW), Dulaglutide (1.5 mg QW), or Exenatide (10 μg BID), and one no-treatment group were compared using a decision-tree model.

    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 US obesity model, semaglutide was the most cost-effective of four GLP-1 receptor agonists, with an ICER of $135467/QALY versus no treatment.

    In plain wordsIn a US obesity computer model, semaglutide was cost-effective versus no treatment and most cost-effective among four GLP-1 medicines.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicableIncremental cost-effectiveness
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Decision-tree model
    Comparator
    No treatment
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Among the 4 GLP-1RAs, Semaglutide provided a cost-effective strategy with an ICER of $135467/QALY.
    4 context sentences
    Summary · context
    The GLP-1RAs produced effective weight-loss results; however, not all the GLP-1RAs were cost effective compared to no treatment based on a WTP threshold of $195000/QALY.
    Summary · context
    Among the 4 GLP-1RAs, Semaglutide was the most cost-effective obesity medication.
    Summary · context
    This study sought to assess the cost effectiveness for weight loss of 4 GLP-1RAs in adult patients with obesity in the United States.
    Summary · context
    Four GLP-1RA groups that received Liraglutide (1.8 mg QD), Semaglutide (1.0 mg QW), Dulaglutide (1.5 mg QW), or Exenatide (10 μg BID), and one no-treatment group were compared using a decision-tree model.

    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 US obesity model, sensitivity analyses supported the reliability of the cost-effectiveness results for semaglutide.

    In plain wordsComputer sensitivity tests supported the semaglutide cost-effectiveness result compared with no treatment.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicableSensitivity analysis robustness
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Decision-tree model
    Comparator
    No treatment
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    The sensitivity analyses showed that these results are reliable.
    3 context sentences
    Summary · context
    Among the 4 GLP-1RAs, Semaglutide provided a cost-effective strategy with an ICER of $135467/QALY.
    Summary · context
    This study sought to assess the cost effectiveness for weight loss of 4 GLP-1RAs in adult patients with obesity in the United States.
    Summary · context
    Four GLP-1RA groups that received Liraglutide (1.8 mg QD), Semaglutide (1.0 mg QW), Dulaglutide (1.5 mg QW), or Exenatide (10 μg BID), and one no-treatment group were compared using a decision-tree model.

    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.

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 4Current

    22 Oct 2026, 02:25 UTC

    Study results updated

  2. 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

  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.