[Costs of diabetes care and treatment satisfaction in type 2 diabetes patients treated with a basal-bolus (ICT) insulin regimen in outpatient care: results of the LIVE-COM study].

Medizinische Klinik Pub Date : 2010-11-01 Epub Date: 2010-12-07 DOI:10.1007/s00063-010-1136-1
Ralph Achim Bierwirth, Thomas Kohlmann, Jörn Moock, Rolf Holle, Wolfgang Landgraf
{"title":"[Costs of diabetes care and treatment satisfaction in type 2 diabetes patients treated with a basal-bolus (ICT) insulin regimen in outpatient care: results of the LIVE-COM study].","authors":"Ralph Achim Bierwirth,&nbsp;Thomas Kohlmann,&nbsp;Jörn Moock,&nbsp;Rolf Holle,&nbsp;Wolfgang Landgraf","doi":"10.1007/s00063-010-1136-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Costs for diabetes treatment burden statutory health care systems. Aim of the LIVE-COM study (Long Acting Insulin Glargine versus Insulin Detemir Cost Evaluation Comparison) was to assess resource utilization and costs of diabetes care as well as patient reported outcomes in a random sample of type 2 diabetes patients treated with either insulin glargine (GLA) or detemir (DET) as part of a basal-bolus regimen in a primary care setting.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>LIVE-COM is a non-interventional, cross-sectional study performed between April and September 2008 in 138 randomly selected centers of primary care physicians in Germany. From 1731 type 2 diabetes patients (GLA: n = 1150; DET: n = 581) with statutory health insurance status and pretreatment with either GLA or DET for at least 6 months as part of a basal-bolus therapy, total direct costs of diabetes care (for insulins, oral antidiabetic drugs, test strips, needles, lancets, Hypokits®) were calculated from total recorded expenditures, for a period of six months, from the perspective of statutory health insurance. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using validated questionnaires (SF-12, DTSQs, ITEQ).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean total costs per patient over six months were lower with GLA based therapy compared with DET based therapy (972 euro ± 374 euro vs. 1135 euro ± 477 euro, p < 0.001). Adjusted by ANCOVA: 932 euro (95% CI: 905, 957 euro) vs. 1.061 euro (95% CI: 1025, 1099 euro, p < 0.001). The adjusted mean single costs for basal insulin (223 euro vs. 246 euro), bolus insulin (241 euro vs. 289 euro), test strips (347 euro vs. 393 euro) and needles (67 euro vs. 80 euro) were significantly lower in the GLA group (p < 0.001, each), whereas costs of OAD (36 euro vs. 35 euro), lancets (14 euro vs. 15 euro) and Hypokits® (1.9 euro vs. 1.0 euro) did not differ significantly. Glycemic parameters (HbA1c, fasting blood glucose) were better on GLA based therapy (p < 0.01) and associated with lower daily total insulin doses (68 U vs. 79 U). Furthermore, slightly better results in patient-reported outcomes were found in GLA patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In a head-to-head comparison over six months a glargine vs. detemir based basal-bolus therapy in type 2 diabetes patients was associated with lower total costs of diabetes care Δ: -128 euro/patient) mainly caused by savings of consumables. Further health services research with larger sample sizes should be conducted to obtain a more comprehensive analysis of economic aspects of insulin analogs or other innovative drugs in routine practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":18420,"journal":{"name":"Medizinische Klinik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00063-010-1136-1","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medizinische Klinik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00063-010-1136-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2010/12/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background and purpose: Costs for diabetes treatment burden statutory health care systems. Aim of the LIVE-COM study (Long Acting Insulin Glargine versus Insulin Detemir Cost Evaluation Comparison) was to assess resource utilization and costs of diabetes care as well as patient reported outcomes in a random sample of type 2 diabetes patients treated with either insulin glargine (GLA) or detemir (DET) as part of a basal-bolus regimen in a primary care setting.

Patients and methods: LIVE-COM is a non-interventional, cross-sectional study performed between April and September 2008 in 138 randomly selected centers of primary care physicians in Germany. From 1731 type 2 diabetes patients (GLA: n = 1150; DET: n = 581) with statutory health insurance status and pretreatment with either GLA or DET for at least 6 months as part of a basal-bolus therapy, total direct costs of diabetes care (for insulins, oral antidiabetic drugs, test strips, needles, lancets, Hypokits®) were calculated from total recorded expenditures, for a period of six months, from the perspective of statutory health insurance. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using validated questionnaires (SF-12, DTSQs, ITEQ).

Results: Mean total costs per patient over six months were lower with GLA based therapy compared with DET based therapy (972 euro ± 374 euro vs. 1135 euro ± 477 euro, p < 0.001). Adjusted by ANCOVA: 932 euro (95% CI: 905, 957 euro) vs. 1.061 euro (95% CI: 1025, 1099 euro, p < 0.001). The adjusted mean single costs for basal insulin (223 euro vs. 246 euro), bolus insulin (241 euro vs. 289 euro), test strips (347 euro vs. 393 euro) and needles (67 euro vs. 80 euro) were significantly lower in the GLA group (p < 0.001, each), whereas costs of OAD (36 euro vs. 35 euro), lancets (14 euro vs. 15 euro) and Hypokits® (1.9 euro vs. 1.0 euro) did not differ significantly. Glycemic parameters (HbA1c, fasting blood glucose) were better on GLA based therapy (p < 0.01) and associated with lower daily total insulin doses (68 U vs. 79 U). Furthermore, slightly better results in patient-reported outcomes were found in GLA patients.

Conclusion: In a head-to-head comparison over six months a glargine vs. detemir based basal-bolus therapy in type 2 diabetes patients was associated with lower total costs of diabetes care Δ: -128 euro/patient) mainly caused by savings of consumables. Further health services research with larger sample sizes should be conducted to obtain a more comprehensive analysis of economic aspects of insulin analogs or other innovative drugs in routine practice.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[2型糖尿病患者在门诊接受基础胰岛素治疗方案的糖尿病护理成本和治疗满意度:LIVE-COM研究的结果]。
背景和目的:糖尿病治疗费用负担法定卫生保健系统。LIVE-COM研究(长效甘精胰岛素与地替米胰岛素成本评估比较)的目的是评估糖尿病护理的资源利用和成本,以及患者报告的结果,随机抽样的2型糖尿病患者接受甘精胰岛素(GLA)或地替米胰岛素(DET)治疗,作为初级保健机构基础方案的一部分。患者和方法:LIVE-COM是一项非介入性横断面研究,于2008年4月至9月在德国138个随机选择的初级保健医生中心进行。1731例2型糖尿病患者(GLA: n = 1150;DET: n = 581)具有法定健康保险状态,并且GLA或DET预处理至少6个月作为基础丸治疗的一部分,糖尿病护理的总直接成本(胰岛素,口服降糖药,试纸,针头,针头,Hypokits®)从法定健康保险的角度从记录的总支出中计算,为期6个月。采用有效问卷(SF-12、DTSQs、ITEQ)评估患者报告的结果。结果:GLA为基础的治疗与DET为基础的治疗相比,每个患者6个月的平均总成本更低(972欧元±374欧元vs 1135欧元±477欧元,p < 0.001)。经ANCOVA调整:932欧元(95% CI: 905,957欧元)vs 1.061欧元(95% CI: 1025, 1099欧元,p < 0.001)。GLA组基础胰岛素(223欧元对246欧元)、胰岛素丸(241欧元对289欧元)、试纸(347欧元对393欧元)和针头(67欧元对80欧元)的调整后平均单次成本显著低于GLA组(p < 0.001),而OAD(36欧元对35欧元)、lancets(14欧元对15欧元)和Hypokits®(1.9欧元对1.0欧元)的成本没有显著差异。GLA组的血糖参数(HbA1c、空腹血糖)较好(p < 0.01),且每日总胰岛素剂量较低(68 U对79 U)。此外,GLA组患者报告的结果略好。结论:在一项为期6个月的头对头比较中,甘精甘精与地替米尔为基础的基础灌注治疗与2型糖尿病患者较低的糖尿病护理总成本(Δ: -128欧元/患者)相关,主要原因是耗品的节省。应进一步开展更大样本量的卫生服务研究,以便对胰岛素类似物或其他创新药物在日常实践中的经济方面进行更全面的分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medizinische Klinik
Medizinische Klinik 医学-医学:内科
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
[Liver--gallbladder]. [Iron deficiency]. [Frontotemporal dementia]. [Hepatic encephalopathy]. [ON CHILD ABUSE].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1