Search

Purpose Evidence suggests that clinical outcomes for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus can be improved through multifactorial treatment. The key challenges in the successful treatment of type 2 diabetes include maintaining tight glycemic control, minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia, controlling cardiovascular risk factors, and reducing or controlling weight. The aim of the present analysis was to evaluate the cost per patient achieving a composite clinical end point (glycosylated hemoglobin <7%, with no weight gain and no hypoglycemic events) in patients with type 2 diabetes in Quebec, Quebec, Canada, receiving liraglutide 1.2 mg, liraglutide 1.8 mg, thiazolidinedione, sulfonylurea, insulin glargine, sitagliptin, or exenatide. Methods The proportion of patients achieving control was taken from a meta-analysis that was based on the Phase III trial program of liraglutide. Treatment costs, estimated from a health care payer perspective, were calculated on the basis of the trials included in the meta-analysis and captured the study drug, needles, self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) test strips, SMBG lancets, and other antidiabetes medications received. Cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per patient achieving the composite end point (cost of control) was evaluated with an economic model developed in Microsoft Excel. No discounting was applied to cost or clinical outcomes because these were not projected beyond a 1-year time horizon. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Findings Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with the lowest number needed to treat, with 3 patients needing to be treated to bring 1 patient to the composite end point. Pioglitazone was associated with the highest number needed to treat, with 17 patients requiring treatment to bring 1 patient to the composite end point. Evaluation of only annual pharmacy costs indicated that liraglutide 1.8 mg was the most costly treatment at Can$2780 per patient per year. Pioglitazone and glimepiride were associated with the lowest direct annual costs. Combining the clinical efficacy data with the annual cost of medications produced cost of control values of Can$6070 (liraglutide 1.2 mg), Can$6949 (liraglutide 1.8 mg), Can$7237 (glimepiride), Can$7704 (exenatide), Can$8297 (insulin glargine), Can$8741 (pioglitazone), and Can$9270 (sitagliptin) per patient achieving the composite end point. Implications Liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg were associated with the lowest cost of control values, driven by the high proportion of patients achieving the composite end point, which offset the higher medication costs. A relatively low cost of control value was achieved for glimepiride, driven by low acquisition costs, despite relatively few patients achieving the composite end point. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To determine whether (1) desirable health outcomes (e.g., symptom resolution) would be achieved with a new national drug-management program implemented by the Canadian Forces (CF); (2) CF members would be satisfied with the services offered by the civilian pharmacists; and (3) cost implications of the new program would be favorable.Design: Open, nonrandomized, longitudinal program evaluation and cost analysis study.Setting: Canada.Participants: 583 CF members who did not have access to a military pharmacy in selected geographic areas of Canada and 65 community pharmacy providers.Intervention: A new drug-management program, which allowed members to obtain nonprescription medications from civilian pharmacies without first obtaining a prescription from a physician at no additional cost, was evaluated in a pilot study.Main Outcome Measures: A cost-analysis model conducted from the CF Health Services and Department of National Defense perspectives and telephone survey assessing health outcomes and members' satisfaction with the program.Results: Based on 563 transactions that occurred during the pilot study period, 96% of the CF members reported being very to somewhat satisfied with the service received under the new drug-management program, and a majority stated that desirable health outcomes were achieved. The one area of concern cited about the new program was the low percentage of members who recalled being instructed by civilian pharmacists to see a physician if their symptoms did not abate. The cost analysis showed the new program was more economical than previous physician-based system.Conclusion: The provision of nonprescription medications by civilian pharmacists to members who had no access to a base pharmacy was both cost-efficient and associated with a high level of satisfaction. Future evaluations should include prospective monitoring of drug use patterns as well as assessments of the quality of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]