Use of Tirzepatide in the Management of Obesity and Overweight: Feasibility Analysis for Incorporation into the Public Health System of Mato Grosso, Brazil

Background/Objectives: Obesity is a chronic disease with high prevalence in Brazil. Tirzepatide (a dual GIP/GLP-1 agonist) has emerged as a highly effective alternative, albeit with substantial costs. This study assessed the feasibility of offering tirzepatide within the public health system of Mato Grosso, Brazil. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide in head-to-head comparisons with other anti-obesity medications. Additionally, a 5-year budget impact analysis (from the payer perspective, State Health Secretariat) and a short-term cost-effectiveness analysis (72 weeks) were performed for weight loss targets of ≥10%, ≥15%, ≥20%, and ≥25%. Two population scenarios were considered: a broad scenario (overweight with comorbidities and obesity) and a restricted scenario (BMI ≥35 with multiple comorbidities), with progressive uptake rates (10–50%). Results: A single randomized controlled trial (SURMOUNT-5, n=751) directly compared tirzepatide versus semaglutide. Tirzepatide was superior in percentage weight reduction (difference -6.5%; 95% CI -8.1 to -4.9; p<0.001), waist circumference (-5.4 cm; 95% CI -7.1 to -3.6), and BMI (-2.7 points; 95% CI -3.3 to -2.0) after 72 weeks. The annual cost per patient was US$ 5,445.96 for tirzepatide and ranged from US$ 2,855.29 (first year) to US$ 3,274.83 (subsequent years) for semaglutide. In the broad scenario, the 5-year cumulative budget impact was US$ 9.38 billion for tirzepatide and US$ 5.59 billion for semaglutide. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, semaglutide had a lower cost per responder for ≥10% and ≥15% targets; costs were similar for the ≥20% target, and tirzepatide was more efficient for the ≥25% target. Conclusions: Despite tirzepatide's superior efficacy, particularly for more aggressive weight loss targets, both technologies impose a substantial financial burden. These findings support the recommendation against state-level incorporation, especially in the broad population scenario.