scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and economic evaluation

2004 ◽  
Vol 8 (13) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Czoski-Murray ◽  
E Warren ◽  
J Chilcott ◽  
C Beverley ◽  
M Psyllaki ◽  
...  
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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yilin Yoshida ◽  
Xi Cheng ◽  
Hui Shao ◽  
Vivian A. Fonseca ◽  
Lizheng Shi

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. A452 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Odnoletkova ◽  
G. Goderis ◽  
L. Pil ◽  
F. Nobels ◽  
B. Aertgeerts ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koffi Alouki ◽  
Hélène Delisle ◽  
Clara Bermúdez-Tamayo ◽  
Mira Johri

Objective. To summarize key findings of economic evaluations of lifestyle interventions for the primary prevention of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in high-risk subjects.Methods. We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed original studies published since January 2009 in English, French, and Spanish. Eligible studies were identified through relevant databases including PubMed, Medline, National Health Services Economic Evaluation, CINHAL, EconLit, Web of sciences, EMBASE, and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature. Studies targeting obesity were also included. Data were extracted using a standardized method. The BMJ checklist was used to assess study quality. The heterogeneity of lifestyle interventions precluded a meta-analysis.Results. Overall, 20 studies were retained, including six focusing on obesity control. Seven were conducted within trials and 13 using modeling techniques. T2D prevention by physical activity or diet or both proved cost-effective according to accepted thresholds, except for five inconclusive studies, three on diabetes prevention and two on obesity control. Most studies exhibited limitations in reporting results, primarily with regard to generalizability and justification of selected sensitivity parameters.Conclusion. This confirms that lifestyle interventions for the primary prevention of diabetes are cost-effective. Such interventions should be further promoted as sound investment in the fight against diabetes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document