In pooled healthcare/payer economic models for obesity without diabetes in high-income countries, semaglutide had an incremental net benefit of -$3659 (95% CI -$74 379 to $67 062) versus no intervention.
In plain wordsEconomic models for obesity without diabetes estimated a negative semaglutide net benefit versus no intervention, but the confidence interval crossed zero.
- Peptide
- Semaglutide
- Outcome
- DecreaseIncremental net benefit
- Study
n: not reported in source
economic models- Comparator
- No intervention
- Outcome group
- Cost-effectiveness · Whole body
Measurements
- Incremental net benefit
- −3659 2023 US dollars
- semaglutide versus no intervention; 95% CI -$74 379 to $67 062
Source sentences
The pooled INB demonstrated that semaglutide and liraglutide were not cost-effective compared to no intervention (-$3659 [95% CI, -$74 379 to $67 062] and -$32 032 [95% CI, -$101 534 to $37 488], respectively) and lifestyle interventions (-$84 060 [95% CI, -$152 645 to -$15 475] and -$70 563 [95% CI, -$106 520 to -$34 605], respectively).
3 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Monetary units were converted to 2023 US dollars.
The outcome was INB, calculated by multiplying the willingness-to-pay threshold by the difference in effectiveness between two interventions, then subtracting the difference in costs, with a positive INB indicating cost-effectiveness.
Of 634 studies identified, 9 from high-income countries (HICs) with 23 comparisons were included.
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.