Skip to content

Study · Not a test of the peptide alone · 2023

10 results

Cost-utility analysis of semaglutide for type 2 diabetes after its addition to the National Medical Insurance System in China.

Hu S, Gu S, Qi C, Wang S, Qian F, Shi C, Fan G

Diabetes, obesity & metabolism23 Oct 2022Cited by 8 (Europe PMC)

PMID36193880 (opens in a new tab)DOI10.1111/dom.14881 (opens in a new tab)PepBankPUB-36193880
Publisher pagePubMedAsk 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 Chinese diabetes model, semaglutide yielded 0.04 more QALYs than dulaglutide.

    In plain wordsIn computer models, semaglutide yielded more quality-adjusted life years than dulaglutide.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    IncreaseQuality-adjusted life years
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Dulaglutide
    Outcome group
    Quality of life · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Main analysis (SEMA vs. DULA) revealed a mean difference in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.04 QALYs and costs of $1132.29.
    3 context sentences
    Summary · context
    The main research purpose is to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide (SEMA) with that of dulaglutide (DULA) for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes throughout their lifetime.
    Summary · context
    Cost-utility analysis was performed by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 2 (UKPDS OM2) from the perspective of health care providers in China.
    Summary · context
    Baseline characteristics and clinical efficacy of SEMA and DULA were sourced from the high-dose comparison in the SUSTAIN-7 trial.

    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 Dulaglutide (Trulicity) aloneIn silicoOther

    In a Chinese diabetes model, dulaglutide yielded 0.04 fewer QALYs than semaglutide.

    In plain wordsIn computer models, dulaglutide yielded fewer quality-adjusted life years than semaglutide.

    Peptide
    Dulaglutide (Trulicity)
    Outcome
    DecreaseQuality-adjusted life years
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Semaglutide
    Outcome group
    Quality of life · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Main analysis (SEMA vs. DULA) revealed a mean difference in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.04 QALYs and costs of $1132.29.
    3 context sentences
    Summary · context
    The main research purpose is to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide (SEMA) with that of dulaglutide (DULA) for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes throughout their lifetime.
    Summary · context
    Cost-utility analysis was performed by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 2 (UKPDS OM2) from the perspective of health care providers in China.
    Summary · context
    Baseline characteristics and clinical efficacy of SEMA and DULA were sourced from the high-dose comparison in the SUSTAIN-7 trial.

    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).

  3. 03Computer modelNot a test of Semaglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    In a Chinese diabetes model, semaglutide costs exceeded dulaglutide costs by $1132.29.

    In plain wordsIn computer models, semaglutide cost more than dulaglutide.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    IncreaseCosts
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Dulaglutide
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Main analysis (SEMA vs. DULA) revealed a mean difference in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.04 QALYs and costs of $1132.29.
    3 context sentences
    Summary · context
    The main research purpose is to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide (SEMA) with that of dulaglutide (DULA) for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes throughout their lifetime.
    Summary · context
    Cost-utility analysis was performed by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 2 (UKPDS OM2) from the perspective of health care providers in China.
    Summary · context
    Baseline characteristics and clinical efficacy of SEMA and DULA were sourced from the high-dose comparison in the SUSTAIN-7 trial.

    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 Dulaglutide (Trulicity) aloneIn silicoOther

    In a Chinese diabetes model, dulaglutide costs were $1132.29 lower than semaglutide costs.

    In plain wordsIn computer models, dulaglutide cost less than semaglutide.

    Peptide
    Dulaglutide (Trulicity)
    Outcome
    DecreaseCosts
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Semaglutide
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Main analysis (SEMA vs. DULA) revealed a mean difference in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.04 QALYs and costs of $1132.29.
    3 context sentences
    Summary · context
    The main research purpose is to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide (SEMA) with that of dulaglutide (DULA) for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes throughout their lifetime.
    Summary · context
    Cost-utility analysis was performed by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 2 (UKPDS OM2) from the perspective of health care providers in China.
    Summary · context
    Baseline characteristics and clinical efficacy of SEMA and DULA were sourced from the high-dose comparison in the SUSTAIN-7 trial.

    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).

  5. 05Computer modelNot a test of Semaglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    In a Chinese diabetes model, semaglutide versus dulaglutide had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $26 957.44/QALY.

    In plain wordsIn computer models, semaglutide had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $26 957.44/QALY compared with dulaglutide.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicableIncremental cost-utility ratio
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Dulaglutide
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    The incremental cost-utility ratio was $26 957.44/QALY, showing that SEMA was a better option compared with DULA.
    3 context sentences
    Summary · context
    The main research purpose is to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide (SEMA) with that of dulaglutide (DULA) for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes throughout their lifetime.
    Summary · context
    Cost-utility analysis was performed by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 2 (UKPDS OM2) from the perspective of health care providers in China.
    Summary · context
    Baseline characteristics and clinical efficacy of SEMA and DULA were sourced from the high-dose comparison in the SUSTAIN-7 trial.

    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 Dulaglutide (Trulicity) aloneIn silicoOther

    In a Chinese diabetes model, semaglutide versus dulaglutide had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $26 957.44/QALY.

    In plain wordsIn computer models, semaglutide had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $26 957.44/QALY compared with dulaglutide.

    Peptide
    Dulaglutide (Trulicity)
    Outcome
    Not applicableIncremental cost-utility comparison
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Semaglutide
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    The incremental cost-utility ratio was $26 957.44/QALY, showing that SEMA was a better option compared with DULA.
    3 context sentences
    Summary · context
    The main research purpose is to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide (SEMA) with that of dulaglutide (DULA) for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes throughout their lifetime.
    Summary · context
    Cost-utility analysis was performed by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 2 (UKPDS OM2) from the perspective of health care providers in China.
    Summary · context
    Baseline characteristics and clinical efficacy of SEMA and DULA were sourced from the high-dose comparison in the SUSTAIN-7 trial.

    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).

  7. 07Computer modelNot a test of Semaglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    In the semaglutide versus dulaglutide model, discount rate contributed most to the incremental cost-utility ratio in sensitivity analyses.

    In plain wordsIn computer models comparing semaglutide with dulaglutide, discount rate most affected the incremental cost-utility ratio.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicableDiscount rate sensitivity
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    In sensitivity analyses, the discount rate made the greatest contribution to the incremental cost-utility ratio.
    3 context sentences
    Summary · context
    The main research purpose is to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide (SEMA) with that of dulaglutide (DULA) for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes throughout their lifetime.
    Summary · context
    Cost-utility analysis was performed by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 2 (UKPDS OM2) from the perspective of health care providers in China.
    Summary · context
    Baseline characteristics and clinical efficacy of SEMA and DULA were sourced from the high-dose comparison in the SUSTAIN-7 trial.

    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 Dulaglutide (Trulicity) aloneIn silicoOther

    In the semaglutide versus dulaglutide model, discount rate contributed most to the incremental cost-utility ratio in sensitivity analyses.

    In plain wordsIn computer models comparing semaglutide with dulaglutide, discount rate most affected the incremental cost-utility ratio.

    Peptide
    Dulaglutide (Trulicity)
    Outcome
    Not applicableDiscount rate sensitivity
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    In sensitivity analyses, the discount rate made the greatest contribution to the incremental cost-utility ratio.
    3 context sentences
    Summary · context
    The main research purpose is to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide (SEMA) with that of dulaglutide (DULA) for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes throughout their lifetime.
    Summary · context
    Cost-utility analysis was performed by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 2 (UKPDS OM2) from the perspective of health care providers in China.
    Summary · context
    Baseline characteristics and clinical efficacy of SEMA and DULA were sourced from the high-dose comparison in the SUSTAIN-7 trial.

    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).

  9. 09Computer modelNot a test of Semaglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    In a Chinese diabetes model, binary search indicated approximately 6.83% scope for semaglutide cost reduction to be cost-effective versus dulaglutide.

    In plain wordsIn computer models, semaglutide costs had approximately 6.83% scope for reduction to be cost-effective compared with dulaglutide.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicablePrice reduction for cost-effectiveness
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Dulaglutide
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    In the binary search, there was still scope to reduce the SEMA cost further by approximately 6.83% to be cost-effective, taking DULA as a reference.
    3 context sentences
    Summary · context
    The main research purpose is to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide (SEMA) with that of dulaglutide (DULA) for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes throughout their lifetime.
    Summary · context
    Cost-utility analysis was performed by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 2 (UKPDS OM2) from the perspective of health care providers in China.
    Summary · context
    Baseline characteristics and clinical efficacy of SEMA and DULA were sourced from the high-dose comparison in the SUSTAIN-7 trial.

    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 Dulaglutide (Trulicity) aloneIn silicoOther

    Using dulaglutide as reference, binary search indicated approximately 6.83% scope for semaglutide cost reduction to be cost-effective.

    In plain wordsIn computer models using dulaglutide as reference, semaglutide costs had approximately 6.83% scope for reduction to be cost-effective.

    Peptide
    Dulaglutide (Trulicity)
    Outcome
    Not applicableReference comparison for semaglutide price reduction
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Semaglutide
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    In the binary search, there was still scope to reduce the SEMA cost further by approximately 6.83% to be cost-effective, taking DULA as a reference.
    3 context sentences
    Summary · context
    The main research purpose is to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide (SEMA) with that of dulaglutide (DULA) for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes throughout their lifetime.
    Summary · context
    Cost-utility analysis was performed by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 2 (UKPDS OM2) from the perspective of health care providers in China.
    Summary · context
    Baseline characteristics and clinical efficacy of SEMA and DULA were sourced from the high-dose comparison in the SUSTAIN-7 trial.

    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).

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

    22 Oct 2026, 02:25 UTC

    Study results updated

  2. Version 2

    21 Oct 2026, 18:59 UTC

    Study data updated · source update from Europe PMC

  3. Version 1

    9 Oct 2026, 03:06 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.