The clinical and economic costs associated with regional disparities in varicella vaccine coverage in Italy over 50 years (2020-2070).

Italy implemented two-dose universal varicella vaccination (UVV) regionally from 2003 to 2013 and nationally from 2017 onwards. Our objective was to analyze regional disparities in varicella outcomes resulting from disparities in vaccine coverage rates (VCRs) projected over a 50-year time-horizon (2020-2070). A previously published dynamic transmission model was updated to quantify the potential public health impact of the UVV program in Italy at the national and regional levels. Four 2-dose vaccine strategies utilizing monovalent (V) and quadrivalent (MMRV) vaccines were evaluated for each region: (A) MMRV-MSD/MMRV-MSD, (B) MMRV-GSK/MMRV-GSK, (C) V-MSD/MMRV-MSD, and (D) V-GSK/MMRV-GSK. Costs were reported in 2022 Euros. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted 3% annually. Under strategy A, the three regions with the lowest first-dose VCR reported increased varicella cases (+ 34.3%), hospitalizations (+ 20.0%), QALYs lost (+ 5.9%), payer costs (+ 22.2%), and societal costs (+ 14.6%) over the 50-year time-horizon compared to the three regions with highest first-dose VCR. Regions with low first-dose VCR were more sensitive to changes in VCR than high first-dose VCR regions. Results with respect to second-dose VCR were qualitatively similar, although smaller in magnitude. Results were similar across all vaccine strategies.

Metabolic outcomes of matched patient populations initiating exenatide BID vs. insulin glargine in an ambulatory care setting.

AIM: This observational study evaluated the clinical effectiveness of exenatide BID (exenatide) vs. insulin glargine (glargine) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in ambulatory clinical practice. METHODS: Retrospective analyses were conducted using an electronic medical record (EMR) database among adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiating exenatide or glargine between 1 November 2006 and 30 April 2009. The cohorts were propensity-score matched to control baseline demographics, clinical measures, health status and medication use. The changes from baseline to a 12-month follow-up period for A1C (primary outcome), weight, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure and lipid levels were compared between the matched cohorts using paired tests. RESULTS: Propensity-score matching between the exenatide (n = 4494) and glargine (n = 5424) cohorts led to 2683 matched pairs with comparable characteristics, including age, gender and baseline clinical values. The exenatide cohort achieved a greater mean reduction in A1C (-0.6% vs. -0.4%, p < 0.01), weight (-2.6 kg vs. -0.2 kg, p < 0.01), BMI (-0.8 kg/m(2) vs. -0.04 kg/m(2) , p < 0.01) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) (-1.8 mmHg vs. -0.1 mmHg, p < 0.01) in the follow-up period. The changes in diastolic blood pressure and lipid levels were not significantly different between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to glargine, exenatide-treated patients experienced significant reductions in A1C, weight, BMI and SBP. Acknowledging the limitations of observational research, exenatide showed greater clinical effectiveness than glargine from a large EMR database in the ambulatory care setting.