Menzies Research Institute, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Prim Care Diabetes. 2011 Apr;5(1):9-17. doi: 10.1016/j.pcd.2010.10.001. Epub 2010 Nov 10.
To synthesise key outcomes data from cost-effectiveness studies in diabetes, in the UK setting, and describe a narrative for the evidence-base, in order to understand the direction that future health economics research in this field could be heading.
The peer-reviewed literature was searched at http://www.pubmed.com for health economics analyses in diabetes in the UK setting published between 1995 and 2008, using the keywords: "costs", "cost-effectiveness", "diabetes", "UK". Studies on screening for diabetes or prevention of diabetes were excluded, along with studies that looked purely at cost of diabetes treatment or monitoring.
There were over 350 hits on MEDLINE. A total of 23 articles were identified and reviewed. 18 studies were in type 2, two in type 1 and three studies in both types 1 and type 2 diabetes. All studies evaluated treatment from the perspective of the NHS, with the time horizons varying from 12 months to patient lifetimes. 13 studies estimated quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE). The majority of studies used health economics modelling techniques to project clinical benefit and cost outcomes beyond the context of clinical trials, with Markov-type models predominating. The United Kingdom Prospective Study of Diabetes was the most frequently cited source of clinical effectiveness and cost data. Most studies were funded by the pharmaceutical industry and evaluated more expensive products, rather than cheaper generic therapies such as human insulin and metformin monotherapy.
Treatment-to-target in patients with diabetes in the UK is generally cost-effective and sometimes cost-saving vs. standard care. Ongoing health economics analysis in diabetes is essential as new clinical data are published. Future analysis of clinical and cost outcomes in diabetes could be expected to look beyond the impact of interventions on HbA1c in isolation, as manufacturers seek to differentiate innovative products in the market. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the competitiveness in the market for interventions in diabetes will lead to future cost-effectiveness analysis taking more interest in comparisons of off-patent medication and generic, fixed-dose combination therapies.
综合英国糖尿病成本效益研究的关键结果数据,并描述证据基础的叙述,以了解该领域未来健康经济学研究的方向。
在 http://www.pubmed.com 上使用关键词“成本”、“成本效益”、“糖尿病”、“英国”,搜索 1995 年至 2008 年期间在英国发表的关于糖尿病的健康经济学分析的同行评议文献,搜索糖尿病筛查或预防的研究,以及仅关注糖尿病治疗或监测成本的研究。
MEDLINE 上有超过 350 个检索结果。共确定并审查了 23 篇文章。18 项研究为 2 型糖尿病,2 项为 1 型糖尿病,3 项为 1 型和 2 型糖尿病。所有研究均从国民保健制度(NHS)的角度评估治疗,时间范围从 12 个月到患者的寿命。13 项研究估计了质量调整生命预期(QALE)。大多数研究使用健康经济学建模技术来预测临床试验以外的临床效益和成本结果,其中马克夫型模型占主导地位。英国前瞻性糖尿病研究是最常被引用的临床疗效和成本数据来源。大多数研究由制药业资助,评估的是更昂贵的产品,而不是更便宜的通用疗法,如人胰岛素和二甲双胍单药治疗。
在英国,糖尿病患者的达标治疗通常具有成本效益,有时比标准护理更具成本效益。随着新的临床数据的发布,对糖尿病进行持续的健康经济学分析至关重要。未来对糖尿病临床和成本结果的分析可能不仅仅关注干预措施对 HbA1c 的影响,因为制造商试图在市场上区分创新产品。此外,预计糖尿病干预措施的市场竞争力将导致未来的成本效益分析更多地关注专利过期药物和通用、固定剂量联合疗法的比较。