Short-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States.
J Manag Care Spec Pharm · 2021
Last updated 2026-05-28A study compared the cost and effectiveness of oral semaglutide (14 mg) to three other diabetes drugs—empagliflozin (25 mg), sitagliptin (100 mg), and liraglutide (1.8 mg)—over 52 weeks. Oral semaglutide reduced blood sugar control (A1c) by 0.40%, 0.50%, and 0.30% more than empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide, respectively, but cost $2,660 and $3,104 more than empagliflozin and sitagliptin, while saving $2,337 compared to liraglutide.
AI summary of the abstract below.
| Journal | J Manag Care Spec Pharm, 2021 |
|---|---|
| Citations | 2 |
| Relative citation ratio | 0.11 |
| NIH percentile | 8 |
| Molecules | semaglutide |
| Conditions studied | Type 2 Diabetes |
Abstract
Oral semaglutide is the first orally administered glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) approved by the FDA. Clinical trials found that oral semaglutide 14 mg had a greater reduction in hemoglobin A1c (A1c) compared with empagliflozin 25 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg and was noninferior to liraglutide 1.8 mg. However, US cost-effectiveness data for oral semaglutide are limited and do not consider the costs of adverse events. To assess the short-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide compared with empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes. A decision analysis over a 52-week time horizon was used to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide from a US health care payer's perspective. Data on efficacy, adverse events, and discontinuation were derived from 52-week data from phase 3, head-to-head clinical trials (PIONEER 2, 3, and 4). Costs included drug and administration cost and treatment of gastrointestinal adverse events. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as the difference in cost over the difference in A1c reduction between oral semaglutide and comparators. In the base-case analysis, 52-week treatment costs with oral semaglutide were $2,660 and $3,104 higher and $2,337 less than empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide, respectively. Incremental (greater) A1c reductions were seen with oral semaglutide at 0.40%, 0.50%, and 0.30% vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide, respectively. ICERs per 1% reduction in A1c for oral semaglutide were $6,650 and $6,207 vs empagliflozin and sitagliptin, respectively. Oral semaglutide was dominant vs liraglutide (ICER of -$7,790). Oral semaglutide was dominant relative to liraglutide, offering a cost-saving GLP-1RA oral alternative. While there is not a recognized willingness-to-pay threshold for a 1% reduction in A1c, oral semaglutide may be cost-effective relative to empagliflozin and sitagliptin if a decision maker's willingness-to-pay threshold exceeds $6,650 and $6,207, respectively. No outside funding supported this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Verbatim abstract via PubMed 34185562 ↗
Related research
- Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.
- Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Adults with Overweight or Obesity.
- Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Obesity without Diabetes.
- A Placebo-Controlled Trial of Subcutaneous Semaglutide in Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis.
- Tirzepatide versus Semaglutide Once Weekly in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.
- Oral Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.
- Effects of Semaglutide on Chronic Kidney Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.
- Semaglutide in Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction and Obesity.