Introduction Type 2 diabetes mellitus causes a sizable burden globally from both health and economic points of view. This study aimed to assess the budget impact of substituting sitagliptin with liraglutide versus other glucose-lowering drugs from the private health insurance perspective in Egypt over a 3-year time horizon. Methods Two budget impact models were compared with the standard of care (metformin, pioglitazone, gliclazide, insulin glargine, repaglinide, and empagliflozin) administered in addition to liraglutide or sitagliptin versus the standard of care with placebo. A gradual market introduction of liraglutide or sitagliptin was assumed, and the existing market shares for the other glucose-lowering drugs were provided and validated by the Expert Panel. The event rates were extracted from the LEADER and TECOS trials. Direct and mortality costs were measured. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Results The estimated target population of 120,574 type 2 diabetic adult patients was associated with cardio vascular risk. The budget impact per patient per month for liraglutide is EGP29 ($6.7), EGP39 ($9), and EGP49 ($11.3) in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years, respectively. The budget impact per patient per month for sitagliptin is EGP11 ($2.5), EGP14 ($3.2), and EGP18 ($4.1) in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years, respectively. Furthermore, adoption of liraglutide resulted in 203 fewer deaths and 550 avoided hospitalizations, while sitagliptin resulted in 43 increased deaths and 14 avoided hospitalizations. The treatment costs of liraglutide use are mostly offset by substantial savings due to fewer cardiovascular-related events, avoided mortality and avoided hospitalizations over 3 years. Conclusion Adding liraglutide resulted in a modest budget impact, suggesting that the upfront drug costs were offset by budget savings due to fewer cardiovascular-related complications and deaths avoided compared to the standard of care. Sitagliptin resulted in a small budget impact but was associated with increased deaths and fewer hospitalizations avoided.

Introduction As cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality in type 2 diabetes mellitus, new markers for early detection and risk stratification of diabetic macroangiopathy and microangiopathy are highly desired. Adipocytokines were considered to lead to an increased risk of vascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes by modulating vascular function and affecting the inflammatory process, thus enhancing atherosclerosis. Two of these were of particular interest, namely, visfatin and adiponectin. Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate serum visfatin, serum, and urinary adiponectin as early, sensitive surrogate markers of vascular atherosclerosis. We also correlated the levels of these markers to the degree of carotid intimal medial thickness (reflecting the atherosclerotic burden) in type 2 diabetic patients. Results Sixty diabetic patients were subdivided into two groups: group I (30 patients with carotid atherosclerosis as assessed by carotid Doppler) and group II (30 patients without carotid atherosclerosis). Twenty healthy volunteers participated as controls. Serum visfatin as well as serum and urinary adiponectin were assessed in all the study groups. We found significantly higher levels of serum visfatin among diabetics compared with the control group. Visfatin was also significantly higher in group I diabetics with atherosclerosis than those without (P<0.05). Similarly, urinary adiponectin was significantly higher in group I than in group II and in diabetics than in the control group. Serum adiponectin was higher in the control group than both the study groups. Using a regression model, visfatin proved to be the only significant predictor in the model (ß = 0.03, P<0.001). In fact, visfatin alone proved significant, explaining 63% of the variability in carotid intima-media thickness (P<0.001). Conclusion Serum visfatin is highly correlated with macrovascular complications in diabetic patients. Serum visfatin may emerge as a valuable and cheaper surrogate marker for the prediction of prevalent macrovascular complications in a type 2 diabetic population. It is a novel and easy-to-obtain method for the clinical assessment of vascular stress and cardiovascular disease risk in type 2 diabetes. Future prospective studies are needed to confirm our results.

IntroductionType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) causes a sizable burden globally both from health and economic points of view.This study aimed to assess the budget impact of substituting sitagliptin with liraglutide versus other glucose lowering drugs from the private health insurance perspective in Egypt over a 3-year time horizon. MethodsTwo budget impact models were comparedthe standard of care (metformin, pioglitazone, gliclazide, insulin glargine, repaglinide, and empagliflozin)administered in addition to liraglutide or sitagliptin versus the standard of care with placebo. A gradual market introduction of liraglutide or sitagliptin was assumed, and the existing market shares for the other glucose lowering drugs were provided and validated by Expert Panel. The event rates were extracted from the LEADER and TECOS trials. Direct and mortality costs were measured. Sensitivity analyses were performed. ResultsThe estimated target population of 120,574 T2DM adult patients were associated with CV risk. The budget impact per patient per month (PPPM) for liraglutide is EGP29 ($6.7), EGP39 ($9), and EGP49 ($11.3) in the first, second, and third year, respectively. The budget impact PPPM for sitagliptin is EGP11 ($2.5), EGP14 ($3.2), and EGP18 ($4.1) in the first, second, and third year, respectively. Furthermore, adoption of liraglutide resulted in 203 fewer deaths and 550 avoided hospitalizations, while sitagliptin resulted in 43 increased deaths and 14 avoided hospitalizations. The treatment costs of liraglutide use are mostly offset by substantial savings due to fewer CV-related events, avoided mortality and avoided hospitalizations over 3-years. Conclusion Adding liraglutide resulted in a modest budget impact, suggesting that the upfront drug costs were offset by budget savings due to fewer CV-related complications and deaths avoided compared to the standard of care. While sitagliptin resulted in a small budget impact but associated with deaths increased and less hospitalizations avoided.