ArticleDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2026
Risk stratification using coronary artery calcium and potential benefit of semaglutide therapy: A cost-effectiveness modelling study.
Article in Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk stratification using coronary artery calcium and potential benefit of semaglutide therapy: A cost-effectiveness modelling study.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular protection beyond glucose lowering: GLP-1 receptor agonists and dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonism in contemporary cardiology.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimCoronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring is observed to improve risk stratification for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Semaglutide, a recently introduced anti-obesity drug, is very effective, but wider use is limited due to high costs. Hence, this study investigated the cost-effectiveness (CEA) of semaglutide across CAC groups. MATERIALS AND
methodsCAC scores for 38 058 CLARIFY registry participants meeting SELECT criteria were included. They were stratified into four CAC groups: 0, 1-99, 100-399, ≥400. To determine MACE (composite of myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke or all-cause mortality) risk across CAC groups, hazard ratios (HR) were estimated from multi-variable adjusted Cox proportional hazard models. Next, lifetime-horizon Markov models were created to simulate semaglutide therapy and the potential clinical benefit (reported as number needed to treat [NNT]) and CEA (estimated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]) were examined for CAC groups. Multiple scenarios to mimic real-world experience were fitted for robust sensitivity analyses.
resultsCompared to CAC = 0, MACE risk was higher for CAC ≥400 (HR: 1.97 [95% CI: 1.66-2.35]), heart failure (HR: 1.76 [95% CI: 1.36-2.28]), mortality (HR: 1.62 [95% CI: 1.21-2.17]). Modelling 3.3 years of semaglutide use resulted in potential MACE NNT values of 151 (95% CI: 108-302) and 34 (95% CI: 25-69) for CAC = 0 and CAC ≥400. Markov modelled ICER for semaglutide use reduced across CAC groups ($625 863/QALY [CAC = 0] vs. $168 666/QALY [CAC ≥400]).
conclusionsCAC scores have potential use as a tool to estimate potential clinical benefit and cost for lifetime semaglutide therapy among obese individuals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.