scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Mobile-Based Intervention for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Jing Li ◽  
Li Sun ◽  
Yabing Hou ◽  
Liming Chen
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Usual Care Group ◽  
Management Mode ◽  
Care Group

Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a mobile-based intervention for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and compare it with the usual management mode. Method. A total of 215 patients with T2DM in a tertiary-care hospital specific to diabetes were selected as the study population. This study was conducted from January 1, 2019 to January 1, 2020. Of the 215 patients, 130 were randomly assigned to the mHealth group and 85 were assigned to the usual care group. IBM SPSS 25.0 software was used for descriptive statistics, t tests, chi-square tests, and correlation analyses. Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was the effectiveness parameter adopted. Cost-effectiveness analyses were performed, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Results. Of the 215 patients with T2DM, the proportion of male patients was 66.0%. The mean age of the patients was 47.2 (SD 9.95). Differences in baseline information were not statistically significant between the two groups ( P > 0.05 ). At the 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups, the mHealth group reported higher control rates of HbA1c than the usual care group, 67.9% versus 46.2% ( P < 0.001 ), 72.4% versus 45.4% ( P < 0.001 ), and 74.6% versus 47.1% ( P < 0.001 ), respectively. The value of HbA1c was positively related to total patient cost, material fee, Western medicine fee, and hospitalization expenses ( P < 0.05 ), with correlation coefficients of 0.202, 0.200, 0.172, and 0.183, respectively. The costs of the mHealth group and usual care group were CNY¥ 1169.76 and CNY¥ 1775.44 per patient/year, respectively. The incremental cost of the mHealth intervention was CNY¥ −605.68 per patient/year. The ICER was CNY¥ −22.02 per patient/year. Conclusion. Compared with the usual care mode, the mHealth management model for patients with T2DM improved the control rate of HbA1c, and the mHealth management mode had better cost effectiveness.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of telemedicine care for patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 204062232110425
Author(s):  
Manal Faleh AlMutairi ◽  
Ayla M. Tourkmani ◽  
Alian A. Alrasheedy ◽  
Turki J. ALHarbi ◽  
Abdulaziz M. Bin Rsheed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Diabetes Care ◽  
Hba1c Level ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Traditional Care

Background and aim: Telemedicine could be used to provide diabetes care with positive clinical outcomes. Consequently, this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine for patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (i.e. HbA1c >9). Patients and methods: This was a retrospective chart review of patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes attending an outpatient integrated care clinic. The study consisted of two arms, namely a telemedicine care model and a traditional care model with 100 patients in each. The clinical effectiveness (i.e. reduction in HbA1c) and the total cost in both arms were determined, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated. This study adopted propensity score matching. Results: The patients in the telemedicine care model had a mean reduction in their HbA1c level of 1.82 (95% CI = 1.56–2.09, p < 0.001), while those in the traditional care model had a mean reduction of 1.54 (95% CI = 1.23–1.85, p < 0.001). Consequently, the incremental effect was 0.28 (95% CI = −0.194 to 0.546). The mean total costs were SAR 4819.76 (US$1285.27) and SAR 4150.69 (US$1106.85) for patients in the telemedicine and traditional care models, respectively. Consequently, the incremental cost was SAR 669.07 (US$178.42) [95% CI = SAR 593.7 (US$158.32)–SAR 1013.64 (US$270.30)]. The ICER was estimated to be SAR 2372.52 (US$632.67) per 1% reduction in the level of HbA1c. Moreover, the telemedicine care model resulted in a higher cost and better outcome (i.e. reduction in the HbA1c level) with an 81.80% confidence level. Conclusion: Telemedicine care is cost-effective in managing type 2 patients with poorly controlled diabetes. Consequently, we believe that telemedicine care can be further expanded and incorporated into routine diabetes care.

scholarly journals Economic evaluation of outpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus assisted by a pharmaceutical care service

2011 ◽  
Vol 55 (9) ◽  
pp. 686-691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Paula de Sá Borges ◽  
Camilo Molino Guidoni ◽  
Osvaldo de Freitas ◽  
Leonardo Régis Leira Pereira
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Pharmaceutical Care ◽  
Care Service ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Care Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Pharmaceutical Care Service

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the costs related to visits and drug prescription in outpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus assisted by a pharmaceutical care service. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A prospective and experimental study was carried out. Seventy one patients were divided into two groups: control and pharmaceutical care. Patients in the pharmaceutical care group were followed up monthly by a single clinical pharmacist. RESULTS: The pharmaceutical care group had a statistically significant reduction in costs of metformin and emergency department visits, and increased costs with their family physicians. On the other hand, the control group had a statistically significant increase of 21.3% in the general costs of treatment and visits. CONCLUSION: The pharmaceutical care group maintained the same costs related to drugs and visits, while the control group showed a significant increase in general costs.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness study of antidiabetic drugs in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients from Mumbai, India

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (9) ◽  
pp. 3180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dnyanesh Limaye ◽  
Krishna Todi ◽  
Jay Shroff ◽  
Ashutosh Ramaswamy ◽  
Priyanka Kulkarni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Antidiabetic Drugs ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Validated Questionnaire ◽  
The Cost

Background: Diabetes is fast gaining the status of a potential epidemic in India, with >62 million individuals currently diagnosed with the disease. India currently faces an uncertain future in relation to the potential burden that diabetes may impose on the country. An estimated US$ 2.2 billion would be needed to sufficiently treat all cases of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in India. Many interventions can reduce the burden of this disease. However, health care resources are limited; thus, interventions for diabetes treatment should be prioritized. The present study assesses the cost-effectiveness of antidiabetic drugs in patients with T2DM from Mumbai, India.Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study was performed to assess the cost-effectiveness of antidiabetic drugs in patients with T2DM. Face-to-face interviews were conducted by using a validated questionnaire in a total of 152 (76 males, 76 females) patients with T2DM from F-North Ward, Mumbai, India. Cost-effectiveness was determined on the basis of cost of antidiabetic drug/s, efficacy, adverse drug reactions, safety of administration, frequency of administration, and bioavailability. Results: For treatment of T2DM in non-obese participants, Glimepiride+Pioglitazone costed least (`3.7) per unit of effectiveness followed by Glimepiride (`6.6), Gliclazide (`8.1), Repaglinide (`24.5), and Vildagliptin (`45.2). For treatment of T2DM in obese participants, Metformin cost least (` 6.7) per unit of effectiveness followed by Glimepiride + Metformin (`5.9) and Repaglinide (`24.5). Conclusions: In case of non-obese participants, cost effectiveness and prescribed treatments did not show a match, while for obese participants prescribed treatments were in line with cost effectiveness. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document