Cost-effectiveness of tirzepatide versus semaglutide for patients with obesity or overweight in the US: evidence from the SURMOUNT-5 head-to-head phase-3 trial.
Tirzepatide may be a more cost-effective treatment option than semaglutide for obesity management, with reported savings of $41,688 per patient and 0.506 QALYs gained.
Where it sits
this study against the rest of the semaglutide corpusSummary and findings
This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of tirzepatide versus semaglutide in individuals with obesity or overweight, using data from the SURMOUNT-5 trial. The analysis reported cost savings of $41,688 per patient and 0.506 QALYs gained with tirzepatide. No therapeutic claims are made.
Abstract
<h4>Purpose</h4>This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness (from the United States [US] societal perspective) of tirzepatide at its maximum-tolerated-dose (MTD) compared to semaglutide (MTD), both administered adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity. The analysis focused on individuals with obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m<sup>2</sup>), or overweight (BMI ≥27 to <30 kg/m<sup>2</sup> + ≥1 obesity-related complication), using data from the head-to-head Phase-3 SURMOUNT-5 trial (patients without type 2 diabetes [T2D]).<h4>Patients and methods</h4>This patient-level simulation modeling study assessed the cost and long-term clinical outcomes of tirzepatide (MTD) versus semaglutide (MTD), using data from the SURMOUNT-5 trial population. The modeled population were at risk of developing obesity-related complications including cardiovascular disease (CVD) and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), amongst others. These outcomes were modeled using cardiometabolic parameters including weight, systolic blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and total cholesterol, by assessing their impact on healthcare and wider societal costs, quality of life, and mortality. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; cost/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) and incremental net health benefit (iNHBs) were calculated, and uncertainty was assessed through sensitivity and scenario analyses.<h4>Results</h4>Tirzepatide (MTD) was estimated to be less costly and more efficacious compared to semaglutide (MTD) with per patient cost savings of $41,688, 0.506 QALYs gained and positive iNHB of 0.784, indicating a net health benefit for tirzepatide. The model predicted that per 1,000 patients, 70 fewer patients will develop T2D, 10 fewer will develop CVD with tirzepatide (MTD) and patients spend 3.07 more years living with moderate/severe OSA when treated with semaglutide (MTD).<h4>Conclusion</h4>Based on this simulation model, using head-to-head SURMOUNT-5 trial data, tirzepatide (MTD) had lower total costs and higher QALYs compared to semaglutide (MTD). This supports that tirzepatide (MTD) is a cost-effective treatment option for individuals with obesity or overweight compared to semaglutide (MTD).