Skip to content

Study · Not a test of the peptide alone · 2024

4 results

Cost-effectiveness analysis of once-weekly semaglutide vs. once-daily liraglutide administered subcutaneously in patients with overweight and obesity: a decision analysis.

Alshahawey M, Ghazy M, El Morshedy M, El Said NO

European review for medical and pharmacological sciences1 May 2024Cited by 6 (Europe PMC)

PMID38766793 (opens in a new tab)DOI10.26355/eurrev_202405_36181 (opens in a new tab)PepBankPUB-38766793
Publisher pagePubMedAsk about this study
Jump to 4 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 study4

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

Studies that did not test the peptide alone4

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 decision model for overweight and obesity, weekly 2.4 mg semaglutide added to diet and activity was the most cost-effective choice for 15% or more weight loss (ICER $7,056 per patient per 68 weeks).

    In plain wordsIn a cost model, weekly semaglutide was the most cost-effective option for reaching a large weight loss, compared with liraglutide or placebo.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicableCost-effectiveness for 15% or more weight loss
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Decision analysis model, third-payer perspective
    Comparator
    Liraglutide 3.0 mg or placebo
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Metabolic and weight

    Measurements

    ICER
    7056 $/patient/68 weeks
    semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Results showed that 2.4 mg weekly semaglutide, when added to physical activity and diet control, was the most cost-effective choice in terms of ≥15% weight loss (ICER: $ 7,056/patient/68 weeks).
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare the cost and the clinical outcomes of adding weekly 2.4 mg SC semaglutide vs. daily 3.0 mg SC liraglutide or placebo to physical activity and diet control in overweight and obese patients.

    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 Liraglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    In a decision model for overweight and obesity, daily 3.0 mg liraglutide was less cost-effective than weekly 2.4 mg semaglutide for 15% or more weight loss.

    In plain wordsIn a cost model, daily liraglutide was less cost-effective than weekly semaglutide for reaching a large weight loss.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicableCost-effectiveness for 15% or more weight loss
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Decision analysis model, third-payer perspective
    Comparator
    Semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Metabolic and weight

    Source sentences

    Summary
    This cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that employing once-weekly 2.4 mg semaglutide emerges as a remarkably cost-effective option when contrasted with once-daily 3.0 mg liraglutide in patients with overweight and obesity when added to physical activity and diet control.
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare the cost and the clinical outcomes of adding weekly 2.4 mg SC semaglutide vs. daily 3.0 mg SC liraglutide or placebo to physical activity and diet control in overweight and obese patients.

    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

    The model result for semaglutide stayed robust to a 50% rise in semaglutide unit cost and a 50% fall in liraglutide unit cost.

    In plain wordsThe cost model result for semaglutide stayed the same when drug prices and probabilities were varied.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicableRobustness of cost-effectiveness result
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Decision analysis model, third-payer perspective
    Comparator
    Liraglutide 3.0 mg or placebo
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Metabolic and weight

    Source sentences

    Summary
    The model was robust against the 50% increase in the unit cost of semaglutide and the 50% decrease in the unit cost of liraglutide, as well as the changes in probabilities by the corresponding 95% confidence intervals across the model.
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare the cost and the clinical outcomes of adding weekly 2.4 mg SC semaglutide vs. daily 3.0 mg SC liraglutide or placebo to physical activity and diet control in overweight and obese patients.

    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 Liraglutide aloneIn silicoOther

    The model result held when liraglutide unit cost fell by 50% and semaglutide unit cost rose by 50%.

    In plain wordsThe cost model result stayed the same when liraglutide and semaglutide prices were varied.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    Not applicableRobustness of cost-effectiveness result
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Decision analysis model, third-payer perspective
    Comparator
    Semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly
    Outcome group
    Cost-effectiveness · Metabolic and weight

    Source sentences

    Summary
    The model was robust against the 50% increase in the unit cost of semaglutide and the 50% decrease in the unit cost of liraglutide, as well as the changes in probabilities by the corresponding 95% confidence intervals across the model.
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare the cost and the clinical outcomes of adding weekly 2.4 mg SC semaglutide vs. daily 3.0 mg SC liraglutide or placebo to physical activity and diet control in overweight and obese patients.

    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, 03:04 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.