Skip to main content

Table 4 Cumulative incidence of long-term complications for liraglutide, sitagliptin and exenatide BID*

From: Cost-effectiveness analysis of liraglutide versus sitagliptin or exenatide in patients with inadequately controlled Type 2 diabetes on oral antidiabetic drugs in Greece

Complication Liraglutide 1.2 mg Sitagliptin Difference Liraglutide 1.8 mg Exenatide BID Difference
Eye disease, %       
 Background retinopathy 17.18 (1.26) 19.26 (1.29) −2.08 18.64 (1.24) 20.91 (1.27) −2.27
 Proliferative retinopathy 0.51 (0.22) 0.67 (0.27) −0.15 0.61 (0.25) 0.78 (0.27) −0.17
 Severe vision loss 6.78 (0.76) 7.51 (0.83) −0.73 6.59 (0.78) 7.46 (0.86) −0.87
 Macular edema 13.59 (1.11) 15.44 (1.14) −1.85 12.95 (1.04) 14.88 (1.08) −1.93
 Cataract 10.62 (0.96) 11.11 (1.02) −0.49 10.27 (1.02) 10.85 (1.05) −0.58
Renal disease, %       
 Microalbuminuria 24.22 (1.35) 27.02 (1.44) −2.80 28.95 (1.43) 31.87 (1.55) −2.92
 Gross proteinuria 5.07 (0.71) 6.38 (0.78) −1.30 6 (0.78) 7.26 (0.81) −1.26
 End-stage renal disease 0.58 (0.23) 0.83 (0.29) −0.26 0.65 (0.26) 0.90 (0.3) −0.26
Diabetic foot & neuropathy, %       
 Foot ulcer 30.91 (1.42) 32.97 (1.48) −2.07 28.36 (1.35) 30.21 (1.4) −1.85
 Amputation 10.06 (1.05) 10.54 (1.01) −0.48 8.63 (0.98) 9.13 (1.01) −0.51
 Neuropathy 47.51 (1.75) 52.27 (1.69) −4.76 45.74 (1.61) 50.13 (1.71) −4.39
Cardiovascular disease, %       
 Congestive heart failure 13.23 (1.05) 14.29 (1.08) −1.06 13.54 (1.09) 14.31 (1.15) −0.78
 Peripheral vascular disease 9.34 (0.90) 10.82 (1) −1.49 8.69 (0.88) 10.43 (0.94) −1.73
 Angina 13.01 (1.11) 13.52 (1.11) −0.51 12.05 (1.02) 12.87 (1.08) −0.82
 Stroke 8.79 (0.95) 9.24 (0.91) −0.46 8.69 (0.94) 9.45 (0.92) −0.76
 Myocardial infarction 17.16 (1.19) 17.83 (1.22) −0.68 16.31 (1.17) 17.55 (1.25) −1.24
Hypoglycaemia, %       
 Major hypoglycaemia 0.11 (0.01) 0 (0) 0.11 0 (0) 0.22 (0.02) −0.22
 Minor hypoglycaemia 23.63 (0.48) 22.88 (0.45) 0.75 31.66 (0.50) 34.49 (0.46) −2.84
  1. *Values shown are mean (SD) cumulative incidences over patient lifetimes from the base case modelling simulation expressed as a percentage of patients experiencing events.