Cited by 45Diabetes Treatment and ManagementHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeDiabetes Management and Research

Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide versus dulaglutide for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK

Open access
Viljoen, Adie, Hoxer, Christina S., Johansen, Pierre, Malkin, Samuel, Hunt, Barnaby, Bain, Stephen C.·2019·Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism

Abstract

Aims: Glucagon‐like peptide‐1 (GLP‐1) receptor agonists are appealing as glucose‐lowering therapy for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as they also reduce body weight and are associated with low rates of hypoglycaemia. This analysis assessed the long‐term cost‐effectiveness of semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg vs dulaglutide 1.5 mg (two once‐weekly GLP‐1 receptor agonists) from a UK healthcare payer perspective, based on the head‐to‐head SUSTAIN 7 trial, to inform healthcare decision making. Materials and Methods: Long‐term outcomes were projected using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9.0). Baseline cohort characteristics, changes in physiological parameters and adverse event rates were derived from the 40‐week SUSTAIN 7 trial. Costs to a healthcare payer were assessed, and these captured pharmacy costs and costs of complications. Utilities were taken from published sources. Results: Once‐weekly semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg were associated with improvements in quality‐adjusted life expectancy of 0.04 and 0.10 quality‐adjusted life years, respectively, compared with dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Clinical benefits were achieved at reduced costs, with lifetime cost savings of GBP 35 with once‐weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and GBP 106 with the once‐weekly semaglutide 1 mg, resulting from fewer diabetes‐related complications due to better glycaemic control. Therefore, both doses of once‐weekly semaglutide were considered dominant vs dulaglutide 1.5 mg (improving outcomes and reducing costs). Conclusions: Compared with treatment with dulaglutide, once‐weekly semaglutide represents a cost‐effective option for treating individuals in the UK with T2DM who are not achieving glycaemic control with metformin, projected to both improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/dom.13564

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In type 2 diabetes, several studies have found absolute cost savings and cost-effectiveness for semaglutide 1.0 mg relative to other diabetes drugs.

    “Several studies in patients with type 2 diabetes (in different countries) have shown absolute cost savings with semaglutide 1.0 mg, as well as the cost effectiveness of semaglutide 1.0 mg compared to other diabetes pharmacotherapies.(58, 59)”

    From Semaglutide for the treatment of obesity (2023) · cites this paper as [58]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [6]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Type 2 diabetes in adults: management (NG28). 2015 https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng28/resources/type-2-diabetes-in-adults-management-pdf-1837338615493. Accessed December 12, 2017. 26741015
  2. [42]O'Reilly D, Hopkins R, Blackhouse G, Clarke P, Hux J, Guan J. Development of an Ontario Diabetes Economic Model (ODEM) and application to a multidisciplinary primary care diabetes management program. Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health; 2007 https://books.google.ch/books/about/Development_of_an_Ontario_Diabetes_Econo.html?id=X_lGAQAACAAJ&redir_esc=y
  3. [49]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Neuropathic pain in adults: pharmacological management in nonspecialist settings. NICE guideline (CG173). 2013 www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg173. Accessed December 12, 2017. 33180400

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Viljoen, A., Hoxer, C. S., Johansen, P., Malkin, S., Hunt, B., & Bain, S. C.
Affiliations
  • Lister Hospital (GB)
  • Novo Nordisk (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Novo Nordisk (Denmark) (DK)
  • Ossian Health Economics and Communications Basel Switzerland
  • Swansea University (GB)
Corresponding author
Hunt, Barnaby
Venue
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-11-28
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
611-621
ISSN
  • 1462-8902 (ISSN-L)
  • 1463-1326
OpenAlex
W2898542079
Cited by
45
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8
FWCI
3.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Novo Nordisk A/S
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
semaglutide, dulaglutide, type 2 diabetes, GLP-1 receptor agonists, cost-effectiveness, quality-adjusted life years, diabetes complications, glycemic control, metformin failure
MeSH terms
Semaglutide, Clinical Trials as Topic, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Drug Administration Schedule, Glucagon-Like Peptides, United Kingdom, Health Resources, Humans, Immunoglobulin Fc Fragments, Recombinant Fusion Proteins, Time Factors, Health Care Costs, Models, Economic, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Diabetes Complications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review