Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The management of type 2 diabetes not only requires effective medications to regulate blood glucose levels, but also needs to consider the economic implications. Liraglutide, dulaglutide, and semaglutide, three widely-used glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, have shown significant efficacy in diabetes treatment. This review aimed to systematically assess the cost-effectiveness of liraglutide in comparison to dulaglutide or oral semaglutide for treating type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane. Studies published up to December 31, 2024 were retrieved. Two independent reviewers carefully screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, and any disagreements were resolved with the involvement of a third reviewer. Data extraction was carried out following a pre-designed form. RESULTS: 12 studies were included, evaluating liraglutide vs. dulaglutide (n = 8) and liraglutide vs. oral semaglutide (n = 6). The minimum consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards score for the studies was 0.75. The included studies exhibited similar results in cost-effective. Oral semaglutide would be more effective and cost-saving in the US, Netherlands, Spain, and the UK. According to the available studies, liraglutide vs. dulaglutide or oral semaglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes is considered not to be cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Cost-effectiveness also plays a vital role in the inclusion of these drugs in healthcare reimbursement policies. The literature suggested that dulaglutide or oral semaglutide may be more cost-effective than liraglutide.