Tirzepatide vs semaglutide and liraglutide for weight loss in patients with overweight or obesity without diabetes: A short-term cost-effectiveness analysis in the United States.

Liu L, Cui J, Neidecker MV, Nahata MC

Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy1 May 2025Cited by 16 (Europe PMC)

PMID40298310PMCIDPMC12039506DOI10.18553/jmcp.2025.31.5.441PepBankPUB-40298310

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 study12

6 results from studies that gave the peptide. No result from this study comes from people.

01Computer modelIn silicoOther
In a 68-week US-payer decision-tree analysis of adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity, without diabetes, subcutaneous tirzepatide was cost-effective versus subcutaneous liraglutide at $150,000 per QALY; this was predicted.
In plain wordsIn a US-payer obesity/overweight model with a weight-related condition and no diabetes, subcutaneous tirzepatide was cost-effective compared with subcutaneous liraglutide.
Peptide
Tirzepatide
Outcome
Not applicableCost-effectiveness versus subcutaneous liraglutide
Study
n: not applicable
decision tree model
Comparator
Subcutaneous liraglutide
Outcome group
Cost-effectiveness · Whole body
Studied dose
Dose not stated · subcutaneousAs given in this study.
Source sentences
Summary
In the base-case analysis, both subcutaneous tirzepatide and oral semaglutide were cost-effective vs subcutaneous liraglutide and subcutaneous semaglutide.
5 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
A decision tree model was developed using a 68-week time window with consideration of serious adverse events and treatment discontinuation from a US payer's perspective.
Summary · context
The study population were adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity but without diabetes.
Summary · context
All costs were calculated in 2024 US dollars.
Summary · context
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated based on the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
Summary · context
A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY was used.
Report a problemFND-4029831001
02Computer modelIn silicoOther
In a 68-week US-payer decision-tree analysis of adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity, without diabetes, subcutaneous tirzepatide was cost-effective versus subcutaneous semaglutide at $150,000 per QALY; this was predicted.
In plain wordsIn a US-payer obesity/overweight model with a weight-related condition and no diabetes, subcutaneous tirzepatide was cost-effective compared with subcutaneous semaglutide.
Peptide
Tirzepatide
Outcome
Not applicableCost-effectiveness versus subcutaneous semaglutide
Study
n: not applicable
decision tree model
Comparator
Subcutaneous semaglutide
Outcome group
Cost-effectiveness · Whole body
Studied dose
Dose not stated · subcutaneousAs given in this study.
Source sentences
Summary
In the base-case analysis, both subcutaneous tirzepatide and oral semaglutide were cost-effective vs subcutaneous liraglutide and subcutaneous semaglutide.
5 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
A decision tree model was developed using a 68-week time window with consideration of serious adverse events and treatment discontinuation from a US payer's perspective.
Summary · context
The study population were adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity but without diabetes.
Summary · context
All costs were calculated in 2024 US dollars.
Summary · context
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated based on the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
Summary · context
A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY was used.
Report a problemFND-4029831002
03Computer modelIn silicoOther
In a 68-week US-payer decision-tree analysis of adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity, without diabetes, oral semaglutide was cost-effective versus subcutaneous liraglutide at $150,000 per QALY; this was predicted.
In plain wordsIn a US-payer obesity/overweight model with a weight-related condition and no diabetes, oral semaglutide was cost-effective compared with subcutaneous liraglutide.
Peptide
Semaglutide
Outcome
Not applicableCost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus subcutaneous liraglutide
Study
n: not applicable
decision tree model
Comparator
Subcutaneous liraglutide
Outcome group
Cost-effectiveness · Whole body
Studied dose
Dose not stated · oralAs given in this study.
Source sentences
Summary
In the base-case analysis, both subcutaneous tirzepatide and oral semaglutide were cost-effective vs subcutaneous liraglutide and subcutaneous semaglutide.
5 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
A decision tree model was developed using a 68-week time window with consideration of serious adverse events and treatment discontinuation from a US payer's perspective.
Summary · context
The study population were adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity but without diabetes.
Summary · context
All costs were calculated in 2024 US dollars.
Summary · context
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated based on the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
Summary · context
A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY was used.
Report a problemFND-4029831003
04Computer modelIn silicoOther
In a 68-week US-payer decision-tree analysis of adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity, without diabetes, oral semaglutide was cost-effective versus subcutaneous semaglutide at $150,000 per QALY; this was predicted.
In plain wordsIn a US-payer obesity/overweight model with a weight-related condition and no diabetes, oral semaglutide was cost-effective compared with subcutaneous semaglutide.
Peptide
Semaglutide
Outcome
Not applicableCost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus subcutaneous semaglutide
Study
n: not applicable
decision tree model
Comparator
Subcutaneous semaglutide
Outcome group
Cost-effectiveness · Whole body
Studied dose
Dose not stated · oralAs given in this study.
Source sentences
Summary
In the base-case analysis, both subcutaneous tirzepatide and oral semaglutide were cost-effective vs subcutaneous liraglutide and subcutaneous semaglutide.
5 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
A decision tree model was developed using a 68-week time window with consideration of serious adverse events and treatment discontinuation from a US payer's perspective.
Summary · context
The study population were adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity but without diabetes.
Summary · context
All costs were calculated in 2024 US dollars.
Summary · context
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated based on the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
Summary · context
A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY was used.
Report a problemFND-4029831004
05Computer modelIn silicoOther
In a 68-week US-payer decision-tree model of adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity, without diabetes, subcutaneous tirzepatide was cost-effective versus oral semaglutide (ICER $34,212 per QALY); this was predicted.
In plain wordsIn a US-payer obesity/overweight model with a weight-related condition and no diabetes, subcutaneous tirzepatide was cost-effective versus oral semaglutide.
Peptide
Tirzepatide
Outcome
Not applicableIncremental cost-effectiveness versus oral semaglutide
Study
n: not applicable
decision tree model
Comparator
Oral semaglutide
Outcome group
Cost-effectiveness · Whole body
Studied dose
Dose not stated · subcutaneousAs given in this study.
Source sentences
Summary
Compared with oral semaglutide, subcutaneous tirzepatide was cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $34,212 per QALY gained.
5 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
A decision tree model was developed using a 68-week time window with consideration of serious adverse events and treatment discontinuation from a US payer's perspective.
Summary · context
The study population were adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity but without diabetes.
Summary · context
All costs were calculated in 2024 US dollars.
Summary · context
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated based on the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
Summary · context
A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY was used.
Report a problemFND-4029831005
06Computer modelIn silicoOther
In a 68-week US-payer decision-tree model of adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity, without diabetes, subcutaneous tirzepatide had 98% predicted cost-effectiveness probability versus other medications at $150,000 per QALY.
In plain wordsIn a US-payer obesity/overweight model with a weight-related condition and no diabetes, tirzepatide had 98% predicted cost-effectiveness probability versus other medicines.
Peptide
Tirzepatide
Outcome
Not applicableProbability of cost-effectiveness
Study
n: not applicable
decision tree model
Comparator
Other medications
Outcome group
Cost-effectiveness · Whole body
Studied dose
Dose not stated · subcutaneousAs given in this study.
Measurements
probability
98%
willingness to pay of $150,000 per QALY
Source sentences
Summary
The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that subcutaneous tirzepatide was most likely to remain cost-effective, with a 98% probability at a willingness to pay of $150,000 per QALY compared with other medications.
5 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
A decision tree model was developed using a 68-week time window with consideration of serious adverse events and treatment discontinuation from a US payer's perspective.
Summary · context
The study population were adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity but without diabetes.
Summary · context
All costs were calculated in 2024 US dollars.
Summary · context
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated based on the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
Summary · context
A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY was used.
Report a problemFND-4029831006

Studies that did not test the peptide alone6

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.

07Computer modelNot a test of Liraglutide aloneIn silicoOther
In a 68-week US-payer decision-tree model of adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity, without diabetes, comparative cost-effectiveness results across tirzepatide, semaglutide and liraglutide regimens were highly sensitive to medication costs; no signed sensitivity coefficient was reported.
In plain wordsIn a US-payer obesity/overweight model with a weight-related condition and no diabetes, pooled drug cost-effectiveness comparisons were highly sensitive to medication costs.
Peptide
Liraglutide
Outcome
Not applicableCost-effectiveness sensitivity to medication costs
Study
n: not applicable
US-payer decision tree model
Outcome group
Cost-effectiveness · Whole body
Source sentences
Summary
Sensitivity analyses indicated the results were highly sensitive to medication costs and the effectiveness of medications.
5 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
A decision tree model was developed using a 68-week time window with consideration of serious adverse events and treatment discontinuation from a US payer's perspective.
Summary · context
The study population were adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity but without diabetes.
Summary · context
All costs were calculated in 2024 US dollars.
Summary · context
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated based on the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
Summary · context
A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY was used.
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.
Report a problemFND-4029831007
08Computer modelNot a test of Liraglutide aloneIn silicoOther
In a 68-week US-payer decision-tree model of adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity, without diabetes, comparative cost-effectiveness results across tirzepatide, semaglutide and liraglutide regimens were highly sensitive to medication effectiveness; no signed sensitivity coefficient was reported.
In plain wordsIn a US-payer obesity/overweight model with a weight-related condition and no diabetes, pooled drug cost-effectiveness comparisons were highly sensitive to medication effectiveness.
Peptide
Liraglutide
Outcome
Not applicableCost-effectiveness sensitivity to medication effectiveness
Study
n: not applicable
US-payer decision tree model
Outcome group
Cost-effectiveness · Whole body
Source sentences
Summary
Sensitivity analyses indicated the results were highly sensitive to medication costs and the effectiveness of medications.
5 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
A decision tree model was developed using a 68-week time window with consideration of serious adverse events and treatment discontinuation from a US payer's perspective.
Summary · context
The study population were adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity but without diabetes.
Summary · context
All costs were calculated in 2024 US dollars.
Summary · context
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated based on the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
Summary · context
A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY was used.
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.
Report a problemFND-4029831008
09Computer modelNot a test of Semaglutide aloneIn silicoOther
In a 68-week US-payer decision-tree model of adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity, without diabetes, comparative cost-effectiveness results across tirzepatide, semaglutide and liraglutide regimens were highly sensitive to medication costs; no signed sensitivity coefficient was reported.
In plain wordsIn a US-payer obesity/overweight model with a weight-related condition and no diabetes, pooled drug cost-effectiveness comparisons were highly sensitive to medication costs.
Peptide
Semaglutide
Outcome
Not applicableCost-effectiveness sensitivity to medication costs
Study
n: not applicable
US-payer decision tree model
Outcome group
Cost-effectiveness · Whole body
Source sentences
Summary
Sensitivity analyses indicated the results were highly sensitive to medication costs and the effectiveness of medications.
5 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
A decision tree model was developed using a 68-week time window with consideration of serious adverse events and treatment discontinuation from a US payer's perspective.
Summary · context
The study population were adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity but without diabetes.
Summary · context
All costs were calculated in 2024 US dollars.
Summary · context
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated based on the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
Summary · context
A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY was used.
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.
Report a problemFND-4029831009
10Computer modelNot a test of Semaglutide aloneIn silicoOther
In a 68-week US-payer decision-tree model of adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity, without diabetes, comparative cost-effectiveness results across tirzepatide, semaglutide and liraglutide regimens were highly sensitive to medication effectiveness; no signed sensitivity coefficient was reported.
In plain wordsIn a US-payer obesity/overweight model with a weight-related condition and no diabetes, pooled drug cost-effectiveness comparisons were highly sensitive to medication effectiveness.
Peptide
Semaglutide
Outcome
Not applicableCost-effectiveness sensitivity to medication effectiveness
Study
n: not applicable
US-payer decision tree model
Outcome group
Cost-effectiveness · Whole body
Source sentences
Summary
Sensitivity analyses indicated the results were highly sensitive to medication costs and the effectiveness of medications.
5 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
A decision tree model was developed using a 68-week time window with consideration of serious adverse events and treatment discontinuation from a US payer's perspective.
Summary · context
The study population were adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity but without diabetes.
Summary · context
All costs were calculated in 2024 US dollars.
Summary · context
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated based on the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
Summary · context
A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY was used.
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.
Report a problemFND-4029831010
11Computer modelNot a test of Tirzepatide aloneIn silicoOther
In a 68-week US-payer decision-tree model of adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity, without diabetes, comparative cost-effectiveness results across tirzepatide, semaglutide and liraglutide regimens were highly sensitive to medication costs; no signed sensitivity coefficient was reported.
In plain wordsIn a US-payer obesity/overweight model with a weight-related condition and no diabetes, pooled drug cost-effectiveness comparisons were highly sensitive to medication costs.
Peptide
Tirzepatide
Outcome
Not applicableCost-effectiveness sensitivity to medication costs
Study
n: not applicable
US-payer decision tree model
Outcome group
Cost-effectiveness · Whole body
Source sentences
Summary
Sensitivity analyses indicated the results were highly sensitive to medication costs and the effectiveness of medications.
5 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
A decision tree model was developed using a 68-week time window with consideration of serious adverse events and treatment discontinuation from a US payer's perspective.
Summary · context
The study population were adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity but without diabetes.
Summary · context
All costs were calculated in 2024 US dollars.
Summary · context
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated based on the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
Summary · context
A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY was used.
In this study, Tirzepatide 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 Tirzepatide.
Report a problemFND-4029831011
12Computer modelNot a test of Tirzepatide aloneIn silicoOther
In a 68-week US-payer decision-tree model of adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity, without diabetes, comparative cost-effectiveness results across tirzepatide, semaglutide and liraglutide regimens were highly sensitive to medication effectiveness; no signed sensitivity coefficient was reported.
In plain wordsIn a US-payer obesity/overweight model with a weight-related condition and no diabetes, pooled drug cost-effectiveness comparisons were highly sensitive to medication effectiveness.
Peptide
Tirzepatide
Outcome
Not applicableCost-effectiveness sensitivity to medication effectiveness
Study
n: not applicable
US-payer decision tree model
Outcome group
Cost-effectiveness · Whole body
Source sentences
Summary
Sensitivity analyses indicated the results were highly sensitive to medication costs and the effectiveness of medications.
5 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
A decision tree model was developed using a 68-week time window with consideration of serious adverse events and treatment discontinuation from a US payer's perspective.
Summary · context
The study population were adults with obesity or overweight with at least 1 weight-related comorbidity but without diabetes.
Summary · context
All costs were calculated in 2024 US dollars.
Summary · context
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated based on the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
Summary · context
A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY was used.
In this study, Tirzepatide 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 Tirzepatide.
Report a problemFND-4029831012

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.

Version 4Current
12 Oct 2026, 11:11 UTC
Study results updated
Versions 2 to 3
9 Oct 2026, 03:07 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
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.