Siaw M Y L, Malone D C, Ko Y, Lee J Y-C
Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
J Clin Pharm Ther. 2018 Dec;43(6):775-783. doi: 10.1111/jcpt.12700. Epub 2018 Apr 25.
Economic evidence of multidisciplinary collaborative care on glycaemic improvement in uncontrolled diabetic patients is limited. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary collaborative care versus usual care and the secondary objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of these two care approaches in relation to varying glycaemic control of patients.
An economic evaluation based on a six-month randomized controlled trial involving high-risk uncontrolled diabetic Asian patients with polypharmacy and multiple comorbidities was conducted from a healthcare institution perspective. The control arm received usual care, while the intervention arm received multidisciplinary care with regular clinical pharmacist follow-up in addition to usual care. The study outcomes included glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change and total direct outpatient medical costs for diabetes-related care. The cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted for both arms and those stratified according to baseline HbA1c (Group 1:HbA1c 7.1%-7.9%, Group 2:HbA1c ≥8.0%). The incremental cost per glycaemic improvement (HbA1c improvement of 0.1% and above) per patient was examined followed by uncertainty evaluation via probabilistic sensitivity analyses. A range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds (US$165.21 to US$5000.00 per glycaemic improvement) was used in analysis.
Overall, the intervention arm had greater improvement in HbA1c (I: mean -0.4% [95% CI -0.6 to -0.2] vs C: mean -0.1% [95% CI -0.2 to 0.1]; P = .014) and lower mean total direct outpatient medical costs per patient in comparison with the control arm (I: US$516.77 ± 222.10 vs C: US$607.78 ± 268.39; P < .001). The intervention arm was the dominant strategy across varying baseline HbA1c with higher probability of Group 2 being cost-effective at higher WTP threshold.
The multidisciplinary collaborative care arm was cost-effective in managing Asian patients with varying baseline HbA1c control. The multidisciplinary collaborative care also showed greater probability of being cost-effective among Asian patients with poorly uncontrolled glycaemia.
关于多学科协作护理对血糖控制不佳的糖尿病患者血糖改善情况的经济学证据有限。因此,本研究的主要目的是评估多学科协作护理与常规护理相比的成本效益,次要目的是评估这两种护理方法在不同血糖控制水平患者中的成本效益。
从医疗机构的角度,基于一项为期六个月的随机对照试验进行经济学评估,该试验纳入了患有多种合并症且用药复杂的高危血糖控制不佳的亚洲糖尿病患者。对照组接受常规护理,干预组除常规护理外,还接受多学科护理及临床药师定期随访。研究结果包括糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)变化以及糖尿病相关护理的直接门诊总医疗费用。对两组以及根据基线HbA1c分层的组(第1组:HbA1c 7.1%-7.9%,第2组:HbA1c≥8.0%)进行成本效益分析。检查每位患者每改善一定血糖水平(HbA1c改善0.1%及以上)的增量成本,随后通过概率敏感性分析进行不确定性评估。分析中使用了一系列支付意愿(WTP)阈值(每改善一定血糖水平165.21美元至5000.00美元)。
总体而言,与对照组相比,干预组的HbA1c改善幅度更大(干预组:均值-0.4%[95%CI -0.6至-0.2],对照组:均值-0.1%[95%CI -0.2至0.1];P = 0.014),且每位患者的直接门诊总医疗费用均值更低(干预组:516.77美元±222.10美元,对照组:607.78美元±268.39美元;P < 0.001)。在不同基线HbA1c水平下,干预组均为优势策略,在较高的WTP阈值下,第2组更有可能具有成本效益。
多学科协作护理组在管理不同基线HbA1c控制水平的亚洲患者方面具有成本效益。多学科协作护理在血糖控制不佳的亚洲患者中也更有可能具有成本效益。