• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

新型胰岛素管理服务对非胰岛素药物费用的影响。

Impact of a Novel Insulin Management Service on Non-insulin Pharmaceutical Expenses.

作者信息

Schneider John E, Parikh Anjani, Stojanovic Ivana

机构信息

Avalon Health Economics, Morristown, NJ, USA.

出版信息

J Health Econ Outcomes Res. 2018 Feb 20;6(1):53-62. doi: 10.36469/9783. eCollection 2018.

DOI:10.36469/9783
PMID:32685571
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7309958/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown that improvements in glycemic control are associated with avoidance or delayed onset of diabetes complications, improvements in health-related quality of life, and reductions in diabetes-related health care costs. Clinical practice guidelines recommend maintaining a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level less than 7%, but among type 2 diabetes patients using insulin, two-thirds have HbA1c above 7% and one-third have HbA1c above 9%.

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the use of insulin management services to enable patients to optimize insulin dosing to achieve HbA1c targets and subsequently reduce health care costs. Cost savings may be achieved through reduced complications and hospitalizations, as well as reduced outpatient, physician, and clinic costs. This study quantified the reduction in pharmaceutical expenses related to the use of an enhanced insulin management service to improve glycemic control.

METHODS

Two hundred seventeen insulin-reliant patients were enrolled in the d-Nav® Insulin Guidance Service through a participating insurance group. A prospective cost analysis was conducted using data from enrolled patients who completed the first 90 days of follow up.

RESULTS

Of the 192 patients who completed the 90-day study period, 54 (28.13%) were prescribed one or more expensive medications at baseline, but 45 (83.33%) of those patients were eligible for medication discontinuation after 90 days. At baseline, the annual cost of expensive medications per patient was $7564 (CI: $5191-$9938) and $1483 (CI: -$1463-$4429) at 90 days (p<0.001). Direct savings from medication elimination was estimated to be $145 per patient per month (PPPM) or $1736 per patient per year (PPPY) for all patients and $514 PPPM/$6172 PPPY for the target group. Patients that completed the 90-day period significantly reduced HbA1c levels from 9.37% (CI:7.72%-11.03%) at baseline to 7.71% (CI: 6.70%-8.73%) (p<0.001). A total of 170 (88.54%) patients had improved HbA1c at 90 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the insulin guidance service achieved improved glycemic control by optimizing insulin dosing, which enabled most patients using the service to reduce or eliminate the use of expensive diabetes medications. Further study is needed to assess the impact of optimized insulin dosing on other diabetes-related health care costs in a usual practice setting.

摘要

背景

研究表明,血糖控制的改善与避免或延迟糖尿病并发症的发生、健康相关生活质量的提高以及糖尿病相关医疗费用的降低有关。临床实践指南建议将糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)水平维持在7%以下,但在使用胰岛素的2型糖尿病患者中,三分之二的患者HbA1c高于7%,三分之一的患者HbA1c高于9%。

目的

本研究探讨使用胰岛素管理服务,使患者能够优化胰岛素剂量以达到HbA1c目标,进而降低医疗费用。可通过减少并发症和住院次数以及降低门诊、医生和诊所费用来实现成本节约。本研究量化了使用强化胰岛素管理服务改善血糖控制后药物费用的减少情况。

方法

通过一个参与的保险集团,217名依赖胰岛素的患者参加了d-Nav®胰岛素指导服务。使用完成前90天随访的登记患者的数据进行前瞻性成本分析。

结果

在完成90天研究期的192名患者中,54名(28.13%)在基线时被开具了一种或多种昂贵药物,但其中45名(83.33%)患者在90天后有资格停药。基线时,每位患者每年昂贵药物的费用为7564美元(CI:5191美元-9938美元),90天时为1483美元(CI:-1463美元-4429美元)(p<0.001)。所有患者因药物停用直接节省的费用估计为每位患者每月145美元(PPPM)或每位患者每年1736美元(PPPY),目标组为514 PPPM/6172 PPPY。完成90天周期的患者HbA1c水平从基线时的9.37%(CI:7.72%-11.03%)显著降至7.71%(CI:6.70%-8.73%)(p<0.001)。共有170名(88.54%)患者在90天时HbA1c有所改善。

结论

使用胰岛素指导服务通过优化胰岛素剂量实现了更好的血糖控制,这使大多数使用该服务的患者减少或停止使用昂贵的糖尿病药物。需要进一步研究以评估在常规实践环境中优化胰岛素剂量对其他糖尿病相关医疗费用的影响。

相似文献

1
Impact of a Novel Insulin Management Service on Non-insulin Pharmaceutical Expenses.新型胰岛素管理服务对非胰岛素药物费用的影响。
J Health Econ Outcomes Res. 2018 Feb 20;6(1):53-62. doi: 10.36469/9783. eCollection 2018.
2
Structured, intensive education maximising engagement, motivation and long-term change for children and young people with diabetes: a cluster randomised controlled trial with integral process and economic evaluation - the CASCADE study.结构化、强化教育最大限度地提高糖尿病患儿和青少年的参与度、积极性和长期改变:一项具有整体过程和经济评估的群组随机对照试验 - CASCADE 研究。
Health Technol Assess. 2014 Mar;18(20):1-202. doi: 10.3310/hta18200.
3
Repaglinide : a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in type 2 diabetes mellitus.瑞格列奈:对其在2型糖尿病治疗中应用的药物经济学综述
Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(6):389-411. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200422060-00005.
4
The Impact of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Canada 2018: Direct Costs and Health Services Utilization.2018年炎症性肠病对加拿大的影响:直接成本与医疗服务利用情况
J Can Assoc Gastroenterol. 2019 Feb;2(Suppl 1):S17-S33. doi: 10.1093/jcag/gwy055. Epub 2018 Nov 2.
5
Treatment Costs and Factors Associated with Glycemic Control among Patients with Diabetes in the United Arab Emirates.阿拉伯联合酋长国糖尿病患者的治疗成本及与血糖控制相关的因素
J Obes Metab Syndr. 2018 Dec;27(4):238-247. doi: 10.7570/jomes.2018.27.4.238. Epub 2018 Dec 30.
6
7
Medication adherence and the associated health-economic impact among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus converting to insulin pen therapy: an analysis of third-party managed care claims data.2型糖尿病患者转换为胰岛素笔治疗后的药物依从性及相关健康经济影响:基于第三方管理式医疗理赔数据的分析
Clin Ther. 2006 Oct;28(10):1712-25; discussion 1710-1. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2006.10.004.
8
The Clinical and Economic Impact of the V-Go Disposable Insulin Delivery Device for Insulin Delivery in Patients with Poorly Controlled Diabetes at High Risk.V-Go一次性胰岛素输送装置对控制不佳的高危糖尿病患者胰岛素输送的临床和经济影响。
Drugs Real World Outcomes. 2016 Jun 2;3(2):191-199. doi: 10.1007/s40801-016-0075-4. eCollection 2016 Jun.
9
Impact of pharmacist-involved collaborative care on the clinical, humanistic and cost outcomes of high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes (IMPACT): a randomized controlled trial.药师参与的协作式照护对2型糖尿病高危患者临床、人文及成本结局的影响(IMPACT):一项随机对照试验
J Clin Pharm Ther. 2017 Aug;42(4):475-482. doi: 10.1111/jcpt.12536. Epub 2017 Apr 27.
10
[Costs of diabetes care and treatment satisfaction in type 2 diabetes patients treated with a basal-bolus (ICT) insulin regimen in outpatient care: results of the LIVE-COM study].[门诊接受基础-餐时(ICT)胰岛素治疗方案的2型糖尿病患者的糖尿病护理成本及治疗满意度:LIVE-COM研究结果]
Med Klin (Munich). 2010 Nov;105(11):792-801. doi: 10.1007/s00063-010-1136-1. Epub 2010 Dec 7.

引用本文的文献

1
7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2025.7. 糖尿病技术:2025年糖尿病照护标准
Diabetes Care. 2025 Jan 1;48(Supplement_1):S146-S166. doi: 10.2337/dc25-S007.
2
7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024.7. 糖尿病技术:2024年糖尿病护理标准
Diabetes Care. 2024 Jan 1;47(Suppl 1):S126-S144. doi: 10.2337/dc24-S007.
3
7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023.7. 糖尿病技术:2023 年糖尿病护理标准。
Diabetes Care. 2023 Jan 1;46(Suppl 1):S111-S127. doi: 10.2337/dc23-S007.
4
Insulin therapy for type 2 diabetes - are we there yet? The d-Nav® story.2型糖尿病的胰岛素治疗——我们做到了吗?d-Nav®的故事。
Clin Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018 Apr 10;4:8. doi: 10.1186/s40842-018-0056-5. eCollection 2018.

本文引用的文献

1
Why Are Diabetes Medications So Expensive and What Can Be Done to Control Their Cost?为什么糖尿病药物如此昂贵,如何控制其成本?
Curr Diab Rep. 2017 Sep;17(9):71. doi: 10.1007/s11892-017-0893-0.
2
Blood glucose levels and glycaemic burden in 76,341 patients attending primary care: Bittersweet findings from a 9-year cohort study.76341名初级保健患者的血糖水平和血糖负担:一项9年队列研究的苦乐参半的发现。
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017 May;127:89-96. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2017.02.030. Epub 2017 Feb 27.
3
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of d-Nav for People with Diabetes at High Risk of Neuropathic Foot Ulcers.糖尿病足溃疡高危人群使用d-Nav的成本效益分析。
Diabetes Ther. 2016 Sep;7(3):511-25. doi: 10.1007/s13300-016-0183-x. Epub 2016 Jul 11.
4
Dynamics in insulin requirements and treatment safety.胰岛素需求及治疗安全性的动态变化
J Diabetes Complications. 2016 Sep-Oct;30(7):1333-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2016.05.017. Epub 2016 May 21.
5
Impact of Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plan Star Ratings on Enrollment before and after Implementation of Quality-Related Bonus Payments in 2012.2012年与质量相关的奖金支付实施前后,医疗保险优势处方药计划星级评定对参保人数的影响。
PLoS One. 2016 May 5;11(5):e0154357. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154357. eCollection 2016.
6
Trends in Insulin Use and Diabetes Control in the U.S.: 1988-1994 and 1999-2012.美国胰岛素使用及糖尿病控制趋势:1988 - 1994年与1999 - 2012年
Diabetes Care. 2016 Mar;39(3):e33-5. doi: 10.2337/dc15-2229. Epub 2015 Dec 30.
7
The importance of postprandial glycemic control: optimizing add-on therapy to basal insulin.餐后血糖控制的重要性:优化基础胰岛素的联合治疗
Postgrad Med. 2016 Jan;128(1):137-44. doi: 10.1080/00325481.2016.1103640. Epub 2015 Nov 7.
8
Relationship of glycaemic control and hypoglycaemic episodes to 4-year cardiovascular outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes starting insulin.2型糖尿病患者起始胰岛素治疗时血糖控制及低血糖发作与4年心血管结局的关系
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2016 Feb;18(2):152-8. doi: 10.1111/dom.12598. Epub 2015 Dec 23.
9
A novel approach to optimise glycaemic control in insulin users.一种优化胰岛素使用者血糖控制的新方法。
BMJ Case Rep. 2015 Jul 31;2015:bcr2015209356. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2015-209356.
10
Benefits of timely basal insulin control in patients with type 2 diabetes.2型糖尿病患者及时进行基础胰岛素控制的益处。
J Diabetes Complications. 2015 Mar;29(2):295-301. doi: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2014.11.018. Epub 2014 Dec 5.