Comprehensive cost-effectiveness of diabetes management for the underserved in the United States: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus affects almost 10% of U.S. adults, leading to human and financial burden. Underserved populations experience a higher risk of diabetes and related complications resulting from a combination of limited disposable income, inadequate diet, and lack of insurance coverage. Without the requisite resources, underserved populations lack the ability to access healthcare and afford prescription drugs to manage their condition. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize the findings from cost-effectiveness studies of diabetes management in underserved populations. METHODS: Original, English, peer-reviewed cost-effectiveness studies of diabetes management in U.S. underserved populations were obtained from 8 databases, and PRISMA 2009 reporting guidelines were followed. Evidence was categorized as strong or weak based on a combination of GRADE and American Diabetes Association guidelines. Internal validity was assessed by the Cochrane methodology. Studies were classified by incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as very cost-effective (ICER≤US$25,000), cost-effective (US$25,000US$100,000). Reporting and quality of economic evaluations was assessed using the CHEERS guidelines and Recommendations of Second Panel for Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, respectively. FINDINGS: Fourteen studies were included. All interventions were found to be cost-effective or very cost-effective. None of the studies reported all 24 points of the CHEERS guidelines. Given the considered cost categories vary significantly between studies, assessing cost-effectiveness across studies has many limitations. Program costs were consistently analyzed, and a third of the included studies (n = 5) only examined these costs, without considering other costs of diabetes care. INTERPRETATION: Cost-effectiveness studies are not based on a standardized methodology and present incomplete or limited analyses. More accurate assessment of all direct and indirect costs could widen the gap between intervention and usual care. This demonstrates the urgent need for a more standardized and comprehensive cost-effectiveness framework for future studies.

New model of integrated care for uncontrolled type 2 diabetes in a retrospective, underserved adult population in the USA: a study protocol for an effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes prevalence is increasing in the USA, especially in underserved populations. Patient outcomes can be improved by providing access to specialty care within Federally Qualified Health Centers, possibly improving the cost-effectiveness of diabetes care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A new model of diabetes care based on multidisciplinary teams of clinical fellows, supported by an endocrinologist for underserved adult populations, is presented. The study uses a retrospective, non-randomised cohort of patients with diabetes who visited the community clinic between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2018. A quasi-experimental method to analyse the causal evidence of the effect of the new model is presented. Discontinuity regression is used to compare two interventions, the intervention by a Clinical Fellow Endocrinology Programme and usual care by a primary care physician. Patients are referred to the Clinical Fellow Endocrinology Programme in case of uncontrolled diabetes (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)≥9%). The regression discontinuity design allows the construction of a treatment group for patients with an HbA1c equal or above the threshold in comparison with a control group for patients with an HbA1c below the threshold. The patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness of the new model are analysed. Regression models will be used to assess the differences between treatment and control groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Quantitative patient data are received by the study team in a de-identified format for analysis via an institutional review board-approved protocol. The quantitative study has been approved by the Houston Methodist Research Institute Institutional Review Board, Houston, Texas, USA. Anticipated results will not only provide evidence about the impact of patient outcomes in underserved diabetic populations, but also give an idea of the cost-effectiveness of the new model and whether or not cost savings can be attained for patients, third-party payers and society. The results will help set up evidence-based policy guidelines in diabetes care. Results will be disseminated through papers, conferences and public health/policy fora.

Cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine versus PEGylated liposomal doxorubicin for recurrent or progressive ovarian cancer: comparing chemotherapy with nanotherapy.

This article examines the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy (gemcitabine) versus nanotherapy (PEGylated liposomal doxorubicin) in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Significant differences in costs were mainly due to the initial drug costs, which were €1285.28 in favor of chemotherapy. These costs were more than offset by hospitalization costs, which were €2670.21 in favor of the nanotherapy. The cost per quality-adjusted life week (QALW) for the nanotherapy was estimated to be €220.92/QALW for the base case and ranged from €170-318/QALW based on model assumptions. The clinical benefit associated with nanotherapy was achieved, yielding not only positive cost-effectiveness results, but also, surprisingly, financial savings. Although more studies are necessary, this first comprehensive analysis supports the further use of nanotherapy for ovarian cancer.

Assessing the need for quality-adjusted cost-effectiveness studies of nanotechnological cancer therapies.

New therapies, such as nanotechnology-based cancer treatments, typically entail high acquisition costs. Their use can be justified, however, by their superior cost-effectiveness. This article assesses the quality of cost-effectiveness analyses of nanotechnological cancer therapies by screening nine major studies. They conclude that nanotherapies are cost effective for the treatment of ovarian and breast cancer, as well as multiple myeloma, but not for other types of cancer. However, these studies have some serious methodological flaws. Typically, the results are not quality adjusted, although both length and quality of life are affected. Moreover, only fragmented direct medical costs are included, neglecting indirect costs that impose a significant economic burden on patients and society. Finally, cost definitions differ widely making any comparison between studies virtually impossible. This article concludes that economic research of nanotechnology-based therapeutics is still in its infancy. It warns that incomplete economic analysis may lead to inefficient policy recommendations.