4.7 Article

Cost-utility analyses of intensive blood glucose and tight blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 72)

期刊

DIABETOLOGIA
卷 48, 期 5, 页码 868-877

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00125-005-1717-3

关键词

cost-utility analysis; hypertensive; metformin; overweight patients; quality-adjusted life years; type 2 diabetes; United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims/hypothesis: This study estimated the economic efficiency (1) of intensive blood glucose control and tight blood pressure control in patients with type 2 diabetes who also had hypertension, and (2) of metformin therapy in type 2 diabetic patients who were overweight. Methods: We conducted cost-utility analysis based on patient-level data from a randomised clinical controlled trial involving 4,209 patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes conducted in 23 hospital-based clinics in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland as part of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS). Three different policies were evaluated: intensive blood glucose control with sulphonylurea/insulin; intensive blood glucose control with metformin for overweight patients; and tight blood pressure control of hypertensive patients. Incremental cost : effectiveness ratios were calculated based on the net cost of healthcare resources associated with these policies and on effectiveness in terms of quality-adjusted life years gained, estimated over a lifetime from within-trial effects using the UKPDS Outcomes Model. Results: The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years gained (in year 2004 UK prices) for intensive blood glucose control was pound 6,028, and for blood pressure control was pound 369. Metformin therapy was cost-saving and increased quality-adjusted life expectancy. Conclusions/interpretation: Each of the three policies evaluated has a lower cost per quality-adjusted life year gained than that of many other accepted uses of healthcare resources. The results provide an economic rationale for ensuring that care of patients with type 2 diabetes corresponds at least to the levels of these interventions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据