Weight change and healthcare resource use in English patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiating a new diabetes medication class

2015 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. T. Blak ◽  
U. Rigney ◽  
C. Sternhufvud ◽  
J. Davis ◽  
N. Hammar
2019 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. S576
Author(s):  
D. Vivas Consuelo ◽  
S. González de Julián ◽  
J. Díaz-Carnicero ◽  
M.I. Saurí-Ferrer ◽  
R. Uso-Talamantes ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Hellmund ◽  
Raimund Weitgasser ◽  
Deirdre Blissett

Aims:Estimate the costs associated with flash glucose monitoring as a replacement for routine self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using intensive insulin, from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.Methods:The base-case cost calculation used the frequency of SMBG and healthcare resource use observed in the REPLACE trial. Scenario analyses considered SMBG at the flash monitoring frequencies observed in the REPLACE trial (8.3 tests per day) and a real-world analysis (16 tests per day).Results:Compared with 3 SMBG tests per day, flash monitoring would cost an additional £585 per patient per year, offset by a £776 reduction in healthcare resource use, based on reductions in emergency room visits (41%), ambulance call-outs (66%) and hospital admissions (77%) observed in the REPLACE trial. Per patient, the estimated total annual cost for flash monitoring was £191 (13.4%) lower than for SMBG. In the scenarios based on acquisition cost alone, flash monitoring was cost-neutral versus 8.3 SMBG tests per day (5% decrease) and cost-saving at higher testing frequencies.Conclusion:From a UK NHS perspective, for patients with T2DM using intensive insulin, flash monitoring is potentially cost-saving compared with routine SMBG irrespective of testing frequency. Keywords


Author(s):  
Kathleen M Fox ◽  
Susan Grandy ◽  

Objective: This investigation evaluated the satisfaction with therapy for adults with the concomitant conditions of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension (HTN). Methods: Respondents to the US S tudy to H elp I mprove E arly evaluation and management of risk factors L eading to D iabetes (SHIELD) 2009 survey reported their disease conditions, current medications, and satisfaction with therapy. Respondents reporting T2DM with concomitant HTN were identified. Current medications were catalogued, as respondents referred to their prescription bottles to record the name of each medication. Therapy satisfaction was captured with 3 separate questions as satisfaction/dissatisfaction with: 1) ability of the medication to prevent or treat your condition, 2) side effects of the medication, and 3) the medication overall; and scored using a 0 (completely dissatisfied) to 5 (completely satisfied) scale for heart disease treatment and diabetes treatment, separately. Scores of 0-2 were categorized as dissatisfied, score of 3 was neutral and scores 4-5 were satisfied. Results: A total of 911 adults with T2DM and HTN reported their satisfaction with therapy. For those who were dissatisfied with their diabetes medication (n = 63), 52.6% were also dissatisfied with their heart disease medication's ability to treat their HTN, 64.5% were dissatisfied with the side effects of their heart medications, and 61.9% were dissatisfied with their heart medication overall. For those who were dissatisfied with their heart disease medication (n = 59), 74.5% were also dissatisfied with their diabetes medication's ability to treat their diabetes, 56.6% were dissatisfied with the side effects of their diabetes medication, and 66.1% were dissatisfied with their diabetes medication overall. Conclusions: Although most respondents with T2DM and HTN were satisfied with their treatment, dissatisfaction with treatment for one condition was associated with therapy dissatisfaction in the other condition. Approximately 53%-65% of respondents who were dissatisfied with their diabetes medication were also dissatisfied with their HTN medication overall and in the ability to treat the condition and medication side effects.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Han-I. Wang ◽  
Lu Han ◽  
Rowena Jacobs ◽  
Tim Doran ◽  
Richard I. G. Holt ◽  
...  

Background Approximately 60 000 people in England have coexisting type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and severe mental illness (SMI). They are more likely to have poorer health outcomes and require more complex care pathways compared with those with T2DM alone. Despite increasing prevalence, little is known about the healthcare resource use and costs for people with both conditions. Aims To assess the impact of SMI on healthcare resource use and service costs for adults with T2DM, and explore the predictors of healthcare costs and lifetime costs for people with both conditions. Method This was a matched-cohort study using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics for 1620 people with comorbid SMI and T2DM and 4763 people with T2DM alone. Generalised linear models and the Bang and Tsiatis method were used to explore cost predictors and mean lifetime costs respectively. Results There were higher average annual costs for people with T2DM and SMI (£1930 higher) than people with T2DM alone, driven primarily by mental health and non-mental health-related hospital admissions. Key predictors of higher total costs were older age, comorbid hypertension, use of antidepressants, use of first-generation antipsychotics, and increased duration of living with both conditions. Expected lifetime costs were approximately £35 000 per person with both SMI and T2DM. Extrapolating nationally, this would generate total annual costs to the National Health Service of around £250 m per year. Conclusions Our estimates of resource use and costs for people with both T2DM and SMI will aid policymakers and commissioners in service planning and resource allocation.


2015 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Brice ◽  
Sharon Shelley ◽  
Pankaj Chaturvedi ◽  
Divina Glah ◽  
Donna Ashley ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document