{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.045568561872909696, 'fraction_numerical': 0.030518394648829432, 'mean_word_length': 5.36436170212766, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Short-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States.

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVE: To assess the short-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide compared with empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.