Cost-Effectiveness of Therapeutic Education to Prevent the Development and Progression of Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review

Odnoletkova, Irina; Goderis, Geert; Pil, Lore; Nobels, Frank; Aertgeerts, Bert; Annemans, Lieven; Ramaekers, Dirk

doi:10.4172/2155-6156.1000438

Cited by 33 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 47 publications

(52 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For trial-based and model-based EEs use the CHEC-extended [67][68][69] or BMJ checklist [86]. In cases where one is specifically interested in model-based EEs and if the expected number of included studies is low (e.g.…”

Section: Risk Of Bias Assessment Both Review Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(1) For multipurpose SR-EEs and SR-EEs for CPG development, if you want to use the same checklist for the appraisal of both trial-based and model-based EEs, the CHEC-extended [67][68][69] or BMJ checklist [70] are the preferred options. In cases where one is specifically interested in model-based EEs and if the expected number of included studies is low (e.g.…”

Section: Step 32: Risk Of Bias Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: a five-step approach (part 1/3)

Mastrigt

Hiligsmann

Arts

et al. 2016

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research

152

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Systematic reviews of economic evaluations are useful for synthesizing economic evidence about health interventions and for informing evidence-based decisions. Areas covered: As there is no detailed description of the methods for performing a systematic review of economic evidence, this paper aims to provide an overview of state-of-the-art methodology. This is laid out in a 5-step approach, as follows: step 1) initiating a systematic review; step 2) identifying (full) economic evaluations; step 3) data extraction, risk of bias and transferability assessment; step 4) reporting results; step 5) discussion and interpretation of findings. Expert commentary: The paper aims to help inexperienced reviewers and clinical practice guideline developers, but also to be a resource for experts in the field who want to check on current methodological developments. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Risk Of Bias Assessment Both Review Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Step 32: Risk Of Bias Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: a five-step approach (part 1/3)

Mastrigt

Hiligsmann

Arts

et al. 2016

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research

152

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A cost‐effectiveness threshold of US$50 000/QALY was applied . For quality assessment, reviewers used the Extended Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) List, in which the CHEC List was extended with one question on modelling assumptions and validation. Twenty items were scored using: Yes (1), Suboptimal (0.5), No (0) and Not Applicable.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic evaluations of interventions to manage hyperphosphataemia in adult haemodialysis patients: A systematic review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is an interesting systematic review of studies specifically addressing the economic evaluation of interventions to lower phosphate in dialysis patients. Only 12 studies provided information, all relating to phosphate binders. In general, the overall quality of these studies was suboptimal; therefore, firm conclusions were difficult to be drawn about which binders were best, although calcium-based binders seemed most cost-effective as first-line therapy. ABSTRACT:Managing hyperphosphataemia in haemodialysis patients is resourceintensive. A search for cost-effective interventions in this field is needed to inform decisions on the allocation of healthcare resources. NHSEED, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched for full economic evaluations of hyperphosphataemia-managing interventions in adult haemodialysis patients, published between 2004 and 2014, in English, French, Dutch or German. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the interventions were up-rated to 2013US$ using Purchasing Power Parity conversion rates and Consumer Price Indices. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Extended Consensus on Health Economic Criteria List. Twelve out of the 1681 retrieved records fulfilled the inclusion criteria. They reported only on one aspect of hyperphosphataemia management, which is the use of phosphate binders (calcium-based and calcium-free, in first-line and sequential use). No economic evaluations of other phosphorus-lowering interventions were found. The included articles derived from five countries and most of them were funded by pharmaceutical companies. The incremental costeffectiveness ratios of phosphate binders ranged between US$11 461 and US$157 760 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Calcium-based binders (especially calcium acetate) appear to be the optimal cost-effective first-and second-line therapy in prevalent patients, while the calcium-free binder, lanthanum carbonate, might provide good value for money, as second-line therapy, in incident patients. The studies' overall quality was suboptimal. Drawing firm conclusions was not possible due to the quality heterogeneity and inconsistent results. Future high-quality economic evaluations are needed to confirm the findings of this review and to address other interventions to manage hyperphosphataemia in this population.

show abstract

“…It is a chronic illness, which in most cases is treated for life; hence the cost associated with it is enormous 17 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2017

IJPSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:The objective of the study was to determine the cost effective drug among oral hypoglycemic agents utilized in a multispeciality hospital to treat type-2 diabetes mellitus. The prospective cost effectiveness study was conducted for 6 months period in patients who were diagnosed with type-2 diabetes mellitus and were receiving treatment specifically with oral hypoglycemic agent(s). The data obtained was introduced to Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio determination to arrive at the most cost effective drug and the prescription pattern and drug related problems in the patients were monitored. A total of 141 patients were included in the study. Glipizide among monotherapy (p<0.01), Glimepiride as add on therapy to Metformin (p<0.001), fixed dose triple combination of Glimepiride, Pioglitazone and Metformin (p<0.01) and fixed dose combination of Glimepiride and Metformin (p<0.001) were found to be more effective using statistical analysis. Most of the patients were receiving fixed dose combinations (43.6%) out of which Glimepiride and Metformin combination (34.42%) was predominant over the others. Serious drug interactions (12) and adverse drug reactions (5) were monitored. For Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Metformin among monotherapy, Glimepiride as an add on to Metformin, fixed dose triple combination of Glimepiride, Pioglitazone and Metformin can be considered as the best drug of choice with respect to cost effectiveness.

show abstract

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapeutic Education to Prevent the Development and Progression of Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review

Cited by 33 publications

References 47 publications

How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: a five-step approach (part 1/3)

How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: a five-step approach (part 1/3)

Economic evaluations of interventions to manage hyperphosphataemia in adult haemodialysis patients: A systematic review

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About