COST-UTILITY OF LIRAGLUTIDE VERSUS ORLISTAT FOR ADULT OBESITY MANAGEMENT IN SAUDI ARABIA A PAYER PERSPECTIVE ANALYSIS
Author(s)
Ahmed A. Alshehri, Sr.1, Fatimah Sherbeny, MS, PharmD, PhD2;
1FAMU-ISPOR Student Chapter, Tallahassee, FL, USA, 2ESAP,COPPS Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
1FAMU-ISPOR Student Chapter, Tallahassee, FL, USA, 2ESAP,COPPS Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
OBJECTIVES: Obesity poses a growing clinical and economic burden in Saudi Arabia. Pharmacologic treatments such as liraglutide 3.0 mg and orlistat 120 mg are commonly used, yet comparative cost-effectiveness evidence in the Saudi context is limited. This study evaluated the cost-utility of liraglutide versus orlistat from a Saudi healthcare payer perspective.
METHODS: A decision-analytic model simulated obesity treatment over a 6-month base case, with a supplementary 3-year scenario analysis. Health states included ≥10% weight loss, 5-<10% weight loss, <5% weight loss, and treatment discontinuation. Transition probabilities were derived from real-world evidence in Saudi Arabia for liraglutide and the XENSOR study for orlistat. Utility values were assigned by weight-loss category. Direct medical costs (2025 SAR) were sourced from the Saudi Food and Drug Authority and Council of Health Insurance. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and net monetary benefit (NMB). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed uncertainty.
RESULTS: Over 6 months, liraglutide generated higher QALYs (0.0205 vs. 0.0102) but at substantially higher cost (SAR 9,663 vs. SAR 4,538). The resulting ICER was SAR 494,357/QALY, exceeding commonly referenced Saudi willingness-to-pay thresholds (SAR 50,000-75,000/QALY). Sensitivity analyses identified liraglutide drug cost, discontinuation, and ≥10% weight-loss probability as key drivers. Probabilistic analysis demonstrated a 0% probability of cost-effectiveness at SAR 50,000/QALY.
CONCLUSIONS: From a Saudi payer perspective, liraglutide is not cost-effective compared with orlistat for general obesity management under current pricing. Selective use, price negotiation, or outcome-based reimbursement may improve value.
METHODS: A decision-analytic model simulated obesity treatment over a 6-month base case, with a supplementary 3-year scenario analysis. Health states included ≥10% weight loss, 5-<10% weight loss, <5% weight loss, and treatment discontinuation. Transition probabilities were derived from real-world evidence in Saudi Arabia for liraglutide and the XENSOR study for orlistat. Utility values were assigned by weight-loss category. Direct medical costs (2025 SAR) were sourced from the Saudi Food and Drug Authority and Council of Health Insurance. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and net monetary benefit (NMB). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed uncertainty.
RESULTS: Over 6 months, liraglutide generated higher QALYs (0.0205 vs. 0.0102) but at substantially higher cost (SAR 9,663 vs. SAR 4,538). The resulting ICER was SAR 494,357/QALY, exceeding commonly referenced Saudi willingness-to-pay thresholds (SAR 50,000-75,000/QALY). Sensitivity analyses identified liraglutide drug cost, discontinuation, and ≥10% weight-loss probability as key drivers. Probabilistic analysis demonstrated a 0% probability of cost-effectiveness at SAR 50,000/QALY.
CONCLUSIONS: From a Saudi payer perspective, liraglutide is not cost-effective compared with orlistat for general obesity management under current pricing. Selective use, price negotiation, or outcome-based reimbursement may improve value.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
EE7
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, SDC: Diabetes/Endocrine/Metabolic Disorders (including obesity)