The Cost-effectiveness of Subcutaneous Semaglutide 2.4 mg Injection for Chronic Weight Management in Canada: A Societal Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 2.4mg injection as adjunct to reduced-calorie meals and increased physical activity (diet and exercise, D&E), in adult patients with obesity (body mass index [BMI] of ≥30 kg/m2) or overweight (BMI 27-30 kg/m2) in the presence of ≥1 weight-related comorbidity, by comparing it with D&E alone or D&E in combination with liraglutide 3.0mg, orlistat, or naltrexone 32mg/bupropion (NB32). METHODS: The safety and efficacy of semaglutide 2.4mg and D&E were sourced from the STEP 1 and STEP 2 trials, while a network meta-analysis informed the relative efficacy vs. other comparators. The Core Obesity Model was used to extrapolate costs and health outcomes (both discounted at 1.5% annually) over 40 years for a cohort with starting age 50 years and starting BMI 37.5 kg/m2, taking D&E alone or in combination with other pharmacotherapies for 1 year. Costs were analyzed from a societal perspective, including publicly and privately funded health expenses, patient co-payments, and indirect costs. RESULTS: Semaglutide 2.4mg reduced weight and reverted prediabetes prevalence more than alternative therapies. This translated into delays in the occurrence of weight-related complications, and gains in life-expectancy between 0.081 years vs. D&E (maximum gain) and 0.030 years vs. liraglutide 3.0mg (minimum gain), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) between 0.103 vs. D&E and 0.039 vs. liraglutide 3.0mg, at additional costs. The incremental cost-utility ratios were 29,677 Canadian dollars (CAD)/QALY gained vs. D&E, CAD12,369/QALY gained vs. liraglutide 3.0mg, CAD25,663/QALY gained vs. orlistat and CAD25,003/QALY gained vs. NB32. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed a high likelihood of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg injection being considered cost-effective, at willingness-to-pay thresholds of CAD50,000/QALY and beyond. CONCLUSION: Based on this analysis, the use of semaglutide 2.4mg injection can be considered a cost-effective alternative compared with D&E alone, or D&E in combination with other pharmacotherapies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".