IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v9y2025i3d10.1007_s41669-025-00561-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Semaglutide 2.4 mg versus Liraglutide 3 mg for the Treatment of Obesity in Greece: A Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Panagiotis Papantoniou

    (University of West Attica)

  • Nikolaos Maniadakis

    (University of West Attica)

Abstract

Background Obesity is a global health issue with significant economic implications for health systems. Pharmacotherapy, including semaglutide 2.4 mg and liraglutide 3 mg, offers a treatment option for weight management; however, its cost-effectiveness requires evaluation. This study assesses the short-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide 2.4 mg versus liraglutide 3 mg in achieving clinically relevant weight loss targets at 68 weeks in Greece. Methods A short-term cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Greek third-party payer [National Organization for the Provision of Health Services (EOPYY)], comparing costs and outcomes for semaglutide 2.4 mg and liraglutide 3 mg over a 68-week horizon. Effectiveness was measured by the proportion of patients achieving weight loss targets of ≥ 5%, ≥ 10%, ≥ 15%, and ≥ 20%, using efficacy data from the STEP-8 head-to-head trial, a 68-week, randomized, double-blind study conducted in the USA, comparing semaglutide 2.4 mg versus liraglutide 3 mg in adults who were overweight or had obesity without diabetes. Only direct medical costs were included, reflecting the payer perspective, and no discounting was applied owing to the short time horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the results’ robustness. Results Semaglutide 2.4 mg had higher treatment costs (€3285.55) compared with liraglutide 3 mg (€2742.47) but demonstrated greater efficacy and a lower cost of control across all weight loss targets. The cost per patient achieving ≥ 5% weight loss was €3768.72 for semaglutide and €4718.66 for liraglutide, corresponding to a difference of €949.95 per patient. The cost difference widened at higher weight loss targets, with semaglutide showing differences of €6064.20 for ≥ 10% weight loss, €17,005.23 for ≥ 15%, and €37,296.00 for ≥ 20%. These findings were consistent across sensitivity analyses. Conclusions Semaglutide 2.4 mg is likely to be a short-term, cost-effective treatment option for adults who are overweight or have obesity without diabetes in Greece.

Suggested Citation

  • Panagiotis Papantoniou & Nikolaos Maniadakis, 2025. "Semaglutide 2.4 mg versus Liraglutide 3 mg for the Treatment of Obesity in Greece: A Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 487-497, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:9:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-025-00561-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-025-00561-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-025-00561-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-025-00561-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629, Decembrie.
    2. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884, Decembrie.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    2. Julie A. Campbell & Glen J. Henson & Valery Fuh Ngwa & Hasnat Ahmad & Bruce V. Taylor & Ingrid Mei & Andrew J. Palmer, 2025. "Estimation of Transition Probabilities from a Large Cohort (> 6000) of Australians Living with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) for Changing Disability Severity Classifications, MS Phenotype, and Disease-Modif," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 223-239, February.
    3. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    4. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Laura Bojke & Jonathan Karnon, 2018. "Model Structuring for Economic Evaluations of New Health Technologies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(11), pages 1309-1319, November.
    5. Salah Ghabri & Françoise F. Hamers & Jean Michel Josselin, 2016. "Exploring Uncertainty in Economic Evaluations of Drugs and Medical Devices: Lessons from the First Review of Manufacturers’ Submissions to the French National Authority for Health," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(6), pages 617-624, June.
    6. Yasuhiro Hagiwara & Takeru Shiroiwa, 2022. "Estimating Value-Based Price and Quantifying Uncertainty around It in Health Technology Assessment: Frequentist and Bayesian Approaches," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 672-683, July.
    7. Amr Makady & Ard Veelen & Páll Jonsson & Owen Moseley & Anne D’Andon & Anthonius Boer & Hans Hillege & Olaf Klungel & Wim Goettsch, 2018. "Using Real-World Data in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Practice: A Comparative Study of Five HTA Agencies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 359-368, March.
    8. Sara Kaveh & Nashmil Ghadimi & Amirhossein Zarei Alvar & Kamran Roudini & Rajabali Daroudi, 2024. "Trastuzumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in HER2-positive gastric cancer treatment in Iran: a cost-effectiveness analysis," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    9. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Gerry Richardson, 2020. "Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 665-681, July.
    10. Joseph Kwon & Ruairidh Milne & Clare Rayner & Román Rocha Lawrence & Jordan Mullard & Ghazala Mir & Brendan Delaney & Manoj Sivan & Stavros Petrou, 2024. "Impact of Long COVID on productivity and informal caregiving," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(7), pages 1095-1115, September.
    11. David Brain & Ruth Tulleners & Xing Lee & Qinglu Cheng & Nicholas Graves & Rosana Pacella, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of an innovative model of care for chronic wounds patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    12. Ezeofor Victory & Edwards T. Rhiannon & Burnside Girvan & Adair Pauline & Pine M. Cynthia, 2022. "Cost-effectiveness Analysis of the Dental RECUR Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial: Evaluating a Goal-oriented Talking Intervention to Prevent Reoccurrence of Dental Caries in Children," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 431-445, May.
    13. Astrid Van Muylder & Thomas D’Hooghe & Jeroen Luyten, 2023. "Economic Evaluation of Medically Assisted Reproduction: A Methodological Systematic Review," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 973-991, October.
    14. Sietse Mossel & Rafael Emilio Feria Cardet & Lioe-Fee Geus-Oei & Dennis Vriens & Hendrik Koffijberg & Sopany Saing, 2025. "A Systematic Literature Review of Modelling Approaches to Evaluate the Cost Effectiveness of PET/CT for Therapy Response Monitoring in Oncology," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 133-151, February.
    15. Alec Morton & Amanda I. Adler & David Bell & Andrew Briggs & Werner Brouwer & Karl Claxton & Neil Craig & Alastair Fischer & Peter McGregor & Pieter van Baal, 2016. "Unrelated Future Costs and Unrelated Future Benefits: Reflections on NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(8), pages 933-938, August.
    16. Osvaldo Ulises Garay & Marie Libérée Nishimwe & Marwân-al-Qays Bousmah & Asmaa Janah & Pierre-Marie Girard & Geneviève Chêne & Laetitia Moinot & Luis Sagaon-Teyssier & Jean-Luc Meynard & Bruno Spire &, 2019. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lopinavir/Ritonavir Monotherapy Versus Standard Combination Antiretroviral Therapy in HIV-1 Infected Patients with Viral Suppression in France (ANRS 140 DREAM)," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 505-515, December.
    17. Xiao Zang & Emanuel Krebs & Linwei Wang & Brandon D. L. Marshall & Reuben Granich & Bruce R. Schackman & Julio S. G. Montaner & Bohdan Nosyk, 2019. "Structural Design and Data Requirements for Simulation Modelling in HIV/AIDS: A Narrative Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(10), pages 1219-1239, October.
    18. Andrija S Grustam & Nasuh Buyukkaramikli & Ron Koymans & Hubertus J M Vrijhoef & Johan L Severens, 2019. "Value of information analysis in telehealth for chronic heart failure management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, June.
    19. Caroline S. Clarke & Mariya Melnychuk & Angus I. G. Ramsay & Cecilia Vindrola-Padros & Claire Levermore & Ravi Barod & Axel Bex & John Hines & Muntzer M. Mughal & Kathy Pritchard-Jones & Maxine Tran &, 2022. "Cost-Utility Analysis of Major System Change in Specialist Cancer Surgery in London, England, Using Linked Patient-Level Electronic Health Records and Difference-in-Differences Analysis," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 905-917, November.
    20. Deidda, Manuela & Geue, Claudia & Kreif, Noemi & Dundas, Ruth & McIntosh, Emma, 2019. "A framework for conducting economic evaluations alongside natural experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 353-361.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:9:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-025-00561-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.