Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 6 de 6
Filtrar
1.
J Manag Care Spec Pharm ; 30(10-b Suppl): S21-S29, 2024 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39347973

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of diabetes in the United States continues to drive a steady rise in health care resource utilization, especially emergency department visits and all-cause hospitalizations, and the associated costs. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on emergency department visits and all-cause hospitalizations among Medicaid beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with multiple daily insulin injections (MDIs) or basal insulin therapy (BIT) in a real-world setting. METHODS: In this retrospective, 12-month analysis, we used the Inovalon Insights claims dataset to evaluate the effects of CGM acquisition on emergency department visits and all-cause hospitalizations in the Managed Medicaid population. The analysis included 44,941 beneficiaries with T2D who were treated with MDIs (n = 35,367) or BIT (n = 9,574). Primary outcomes were changes in the number of emergency department visits and all-cause hospitalizations following 6 months after acquisition of CGM (post-index period) compared with 6 month prior to CGM acquisition (pre-index period). The first claim for CGM was the index date. Inclusion criteria were as follows: aged younger than 65 years, diagnosis of T2D, claims for short- or rapid-acting insulin (MDI group) or basal insulin (not rapid-acting) (BIT group), acquisition of a CGM device between January 1, 2017, and September 30, 2022, and continuous enrollment in their health plan throughout the pre-index and post-index periods. RESULTS: In the MDI group, all-cause inpatient hospitalization rates decreased from 3.25 to 2.29 events/patient-year (hazard ratio = 0.12; 95% CI = 0.11-0.13; P < 0.001) and emergency department visit rates decreased from 2.15 to 1.86 events/patient-year (hazard ratio = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.50-0.53; P < 0.001). In the BIT group, all-cause inpatient hospitalization rates decreased from 1.63 to 1.39 events/patient-year (hazard ratio = 0.11; 95% CI = 0.09-0.12; P < 0.001) and emergency department visit rates decreased from 1.60 to 1.43 events/patient-year (hazard ratio = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.44-0.50; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Acquisition of CGM is associated with significant reductions in emergency department visits and all-cause hospitalizations among people with T2D treated with MDIs or BIT.


Asunto(s)
Automonitorización de la Glucosa Sanguínea , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Hospitalización , Hipoglucemiantes , Insulina , Medicaid , Humanos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/sangre , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estados Unidos , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Medicaid/estadística & datos numéricos , Insulina/administración & dosificación , Insulina/uso terapéutico , Hipoglucemiantes/administración & dosificación , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Adulto , Glucemia/efectos de los fármacos , Glucemia/metabolismo , Anciano , Monitoreo Continuo de Glucosa , Visitas a la Sala de Emergencias
2.
J Manag Care Spec Pharm ; 30(9): 917-928, 2024 Sep.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39109990

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Reducing the risks of complications is a primary goal of diabetes management, with effective glycemic control a key factor. Glucose monitoring using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology is an important part of diabetes self-management, helping patients reach and maintain targeted glucose and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. Although clinical guidelines recommended CGM use, coverage by Medicaid is limited, likely because of cost concerns. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of FreeStyle Libre CGM systems, compared with capillary-based self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), in US individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus using basal insulin. METHODS: A patient-level microsimulation model was used to compare CGM with SMBG for a population of 10,000 patients. A 10-year horizon was used, with an annual discount rate of 3.0% for costs and utilities. Model population characteristics were based on US national epidemiology data. Patient outcomes were based on published clinical trials and real-world studies. Annual costs, reflective of 2023 values, included CGM and SMBG acquisition costs and the costs of treating diabetic ketoacidosis, severe hypoglycemia, and diabetes complications. The effect of CGM was modeled as a persistent 1.1% reduction in HbA1c relative to SMBG based on US real-world evidence. Disutilities were based on published clinical trials and other relevant literature. The primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the validity of the model results when accounting for a plausible variation of inputs. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, CGM was dominant to SMBG, providing more QALYs (6.18 vs 5.97) at a lower cost ($70,137 vs $71,809) over the 10-year time horizon. A $10,456 increase in glucose monitoring costs was offset by a $12,127 reduction in treatment costs. Cost savings reflected avoidance of acute diabetic events (savings owing to reductions in severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis were $271 and $2,159, respectively) and a reduced cumulative incidence of diabetes complications, particularly renal failure (saving $5,292), myocardial infarction (saving $1,996), and congestive heart failure (saving $1,061). Scenario analyses were consistent with the base case results, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CGM vs SMBG ranged from dominant to cost-effective. In probabilistic analysis, CGM was 100% likely to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: CGM is cost-effective compared with SMBG for US patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving basal insulin therapy. This suggests that state Medicaid programs could benefit from broader coverage of CGM.


Asunto(s)
Automonitorización de la Glucosa Sanguínea , Glucemia , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Medicaid , Automanejo , Humanos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/economía , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/sangre , Automonitorización de la Glucosa Sanguínea/economía , Estados Unidos , Medicaid/economía , Glucemia/efectos de los fármacos , Glucemia/metabolismo , Automanejo/economía , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Hipoglucemiantes/economía , Hemoglobina Glucada/análisis , Hemoglobina Glucada/metabolismo , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Masculino , Insulina/uso terapéutico , Insulina/economía , Insulina/administración & dosificación , Monitoreo Continuo de Glucosa , Análisis de Costo-Efectividad
3.
Diabetes Obes Metab ; 26(9): 3633-3641, 2024 Sep.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38853717

RESUMEN

AIMS: To assess the cost-utility of the FreeStyle Libre flash continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system from an Italian healthcare system perspective, when compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in people living with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving basal insulin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A patient-level microsimulation model was run using Microsoft Excel for 10 000 patients over a lifetime horizon, with 3.0% discounting for costs and utilities. Inputs were based on clinical trials and real-world evidence, with patient characteristics reflecting Italian population data. The effect of flash CGM was modelled as a persistent 0.8% reduction in glycated haemoglobin versus SMBG. Costs (€ 2023) and disutilities were applied to glucose monitoring, diabetes complications, severe hypoglycaemia, and diabetic ketoacidosis. The health outcome was measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Direct costs were €5338 higher with flash CGM than with SMBG. Flash CGM was associated with 0.51 more QALYs than SMBG, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €10 556/QALY. Scenario analysis ICERs ranged from €3825/QALY to €26 737/QALY. In probabilistic analysis, flash CGM was 100% likely to be cost effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds > €20 000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: From an Italian healthcare system perspective, flash CGM is cost effective compared with SMBG for people living with T2DM on basal insulin.


Asunto(s)
Automonitorización de la Glucosa Sanguínea , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Hipoglucemiantes , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Humanos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/sangre , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/economía , Italia , Automonitorización de la Glucosa Sanguínea/economía , Automonitorización de la Glucosa Sanguínea/instrumentación , Automonitorización de la Glucosa Sanguínea/métodos , Femenino , Masculino , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Hipoglucemiantes/economía , Persona de Mediana Edad , Insulina/uso terapéutico , Insulina/economía , Insulina/administración & dosificación , Glucemia/análisis , Glucemia/metabolismo , Anciano , Hemoglobina Glucada/análisis , Hemoglobina Glucada/metabolismo , Hipoglucemia/inducido químicamente , Hipoglucemia/economía , Hipoglucemia/prevención & control , Monitoreo Continuo de Glucosa
4.
Value Health ; 27(4): 500-507, 2024 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38307388

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy and validity of the Determination of Diabetes Utilities, Costs, and Effects (DEDUCE) model, a Microsoft-Excel-based tool for evaluating diabetes interventions for type 1 and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: The DEDUCE model is a patient-level microsimulation, with complications predicted based on the Sheffield and Risk Equations for Complications Of type 2 diabetes models for type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively. For this tool to be useful, it must be validated to ensure that its complication predictions are accurate. Internal, external, and cross-validation was assessed by populating the DEDUCE model with the baseline characteristics and treatment effects reported in clinical trials used in the Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Mount Hood Diabetes Challenges. Results from the DEDUCE model were evaluated against clinical results and previously validated models via mean absolute percentage error or percentage error. RESULTS: The DEDUCE model performed favorably, predicting key outcomes, including cardiovascular disease in type 1 diabetes and all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes. The model performed well against other models. In the Mount Hood 9 Challenge comparison, error was below the mean reported from comparator models for several outcomes, particularly for hazard ratios. CONCLUSIONS: The DEDUCE model predicts diabetes-related complications from trials and studies well when compared with previously validated models. The model may serve as a useful tool for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of diabetes technologies.


Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Comportamiento del Uso de la Herramienta , Humanos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Glucosa/uso terapéutico , Glucemia , Automonitorización de la Glucosa Sanguínea , Análisis Costo-Beneficio
5.
Diabetes Technol Ther ; 25(S3): S75-S84, 2023 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37306442

RESUMEN

Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is a life-threatening complication, which is most common in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and is a significant risk for morbidity and mortality, and it is an economic burden on individuals, health care systems, and payers. Younger children, minority ethnic groups, and those with limited insurance are at the greatest risk for presentation of DKA at T1D diagnosis. Although monitoring ketone levels is an essential part of acute illness management and for both early detection and prevention of a DKA episode, studies have reported poor adherence to ketone monitoring. Ketone monitoring is particularly important for patients treated with sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) medications, in which DKA can present with only moderately elevated glucose levels, referred to as euglycemic DKA (euDKA). A majority of people with T1D and many with type 2 diabetes (T2D), particularly those using insulin therapy, are using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) as their preferred method for measurement and management of glycemia. These devices provide a continuous stream of glucose data that enables users to take immediate action to mitigate and/or prevent severe hyperglycemic or hypoglycemic events. An international consensus of leading diabetes experts has recommended the development of continuous ketone monitoring systems, ideally a system that combines CGM technology with measurement of 3-ß-OHB into a single sensor. In this narrative review of current literature, we report on the prevalence and burden of DKA, examine challenges to detecting and diagnosing this condition, and discuss a new monitoring option for DKA prevention.


Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Cetoacidosis Diabética , Inhibidores del Cotransportador de Sodio-Glucosa 2 , Niño , Humanos , Prevalencia , Automonitorización de la Glucosa Sanguínea , Glucemia , Glucosa , Cetonas
6.
BJU Int ; 121(1): 17-28, 2018 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28921820

RESUMEN

Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is an effective treatment for men with advanced prostate cancer, but loss of bone mineral density (BMD) is a major risk factor for fractures. This review compared the efficacy of available treatments to provide prescribing guidance to healthcare professionals. This is the first review to compare the effectiveness of different osteoporotic treatments (bisphosphonates, denosumab, toremifene, and raloxifene) on BMD in patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer on ADT using network meta-analysis. Results suggest that all evaluated treatments are effective in improving BMD compared to placebo. Zoledronic acid (ZA) was found to have a greater improvement in BMD compared to other active treatments at all three studied sites, except for risedronate, which had better BMD improvement compared to ZA at the femoral neck site in one small study. Our study did not identify evidence that one drug is unequivocally more effective than another. All drugs appeared to be effective in reducing the rate of bone loss. Healthcare professionals should also consider patient preference, costs, and local availability as part of the decision process.


Asunto(s)
Antagonistas de Andrógenos/efectos adversos , Difosfonatos/administración & dosificación , Osteoporosis/tratamiento farmacológico , Fracturas Osteoporóticas/prevención & control , Neoplasias de la Próstata/tratamiento farmacológico , Absorciometría de Fotón/métodos , Anciano , Antagonistas de Andrógenos/uso terapéutico , Densidad Ósea/efectos de los fármacos , Densidad Ósea/fisiología , Conservadores de la Densidad Ósea/administración & dosificación , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Invasividad Neoplásica/patología , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Metaanálisis en Red , Osteoporosis/inducido químicamente , Osteoporosis/diagnóstico por imagen , Pronóstico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/mortalidad , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Medición de Riesgo , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA