1295-P: Economic Evaluation of Drug Combination Strategy for Type 2 Diabetes in China

Diabetes ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1295-P
Author(s):  
SHUYAN GU ◽  
YI SHEN ◽  
LIZHENG SHI ◽  
HENGJIN DONG
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sérgio Vencio ◽  
Juan P. Manosalva ◽  
Chantal Mathieu ◽  
Pieter Proot ◽  
Hernan Yupanqui Lozno ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from Latin American countries face challenges in access to healthcare, leading to under-diagnosis, under-achievement of glycemic target, and long-term complications. Early diagnosis and treatment initiation are of paramount importance in this population due to the high prevalence of risk factors such as obesity and metabolic syndrome. The VERIFY study in patients with newly diagnosed T2DM (across 34 countries), assessed the normoglycemic durability (5 years), with early combination (EC) therapy approach versus the traditional stepwise approach of initiating treatment with metformin monotherapy (MET). Here we present the results from the VERIFY study for participants from eight countries in Latin America. Methods Newly diagnosed adult patients with T2DM, HbA1c 6.5–7.5% and body-mass index (BMI) of 22–40 kg/m2 were enrolled. The primary endpoint was time to initial treatment failure (TF; HbA1c ≥ 7.0% at two consecutive scheduled visits 13 weeks apart). Time to second TF was evaluated when patients in both groups were receiving and failing on the vildagliptin combination. Safety and tolerability were also assessed for both treatment approaches during the study. Results A total of 537 eligible patients (female, 58.8%) were randomly assigned to receive either EC (n = 266) or MET (n = 271). EC significantly reduced the relative risk of time to initial TF by 47% versus MET [HR (95% CI) 0.53 (0.4, 0.7) p < 0.0001]. Overall, 46.4% versus 66.3% of patients achieved the primary endpoint in the EC and MET groups, with a median [interquartile range (IQR)] time to TF of 59.8 (27.5, not evaluable) and 33.4 (12.2, 60.1) months, respectively. The risk for time to second TF was 31% lower with EC (p < 0.0092). A higher proportion of patients receiving EC maintained durable HbA1c < 7.0%, < 6.5%, and < 6.0%. Both treatment approaches were well tolerated, and only 3.2% of participants discontinued the study due to adverse events. All hypoglycemic events (EC: n = 7 and MET: n = 3) were single, mild episodes and did not lead to study discontinuation. Conclusion Similar to the global population, long-term clinical benefits were achieved more frequently and without tolerability issues with EC versus standard-of-care MET in this Latin American sub-population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01528254.


2019 ◽  
Vol 78 (5) ◽  
pp. 412-435
Author(s):  
Michaela Olm ◽  
Renée G Stark ◽  
Nathanael Beck ◽  
Christina Röger ◽  
Reiner Leidl

Abstract Context In recent decades, obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have both become global epidemics associated with substantial healthcare needs and costs. Objective The aim of this review was to critically assess nutritional interventions for their impact on healthcare costs to community-dwelling individuals regarding T2DM or obesity or both, specifically using CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) criteria to assess the economic components of the evidence. Data Sources Searches were executed in Embase, EconLit, AgEcon, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. Study Selection Studies were included if they had a nutritional perspective, reported an economic evaluation that included healthcare costs, and focused on obesity or T2DM or both. Studies were excluded if they examined clinical nutritional preparations, dietary supplements, industrially modified dietary components, micronutrient deficiencies, or undernutrition; if they did not report the isolated impact of nutrition in complex or lifestyle interventions; or if they were conducted in animals or attempted to transfer findings from animals to humans. Data Extraction A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Using predefined search terms, 21 studies evaluating food habit interventions or taxation of unhealthy foods and beverages were extracted and evaluated using CHEERS criteria. Results Overall, these studies showed that nutrition interventions and taxation approaches could lead to cost savings and improved health outcomes when compared with current practice. All of the included studies used external sources and economic modeling or risk estimations with population-attributable risks to calculate economic outcomes. Conclusions Most evidence supported taxation approaches. The effect of nutritional interventions has not been adequately assessed. Controlled studies to directly measure economic impacts are warranted.


2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. A356 ◽  
Author(s):  
H Quitian ◽  
P Aschner ◽  
O Muñoz ◽  
PA Triana Romero ◽  
D Girón ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document