Our latest research, all in one place. Browse our collection of journal articles, reports and conference proceedings to see how we’re contributing to HEOR research. Remember to:
No abstract available
OBJECTIVES: Australia, Canada, and many European countries now use various forms of health technology assessment (HTA) in decision making regarding the reimbursement of drugs and other health technologies. To achieve a better understanding of the potential for use of HTA in this context, an analytical framework was developed to describe and classify existing fourth hurdle systems.
METHODS: Based on a review of published literature, and official documentation, the key aspects of a fourth hurdle system were identified at two levels: policy implementation and individual technology decision. Characteristics of the systems were grouped under four main headings: constitution and governance, objectives, use of evidence and decision processes, and accountability. The comprehensiveness and relevance of this framework was assessed by an independent group of experts in HTA. A pilot study was undertaken, using only published sources, to test the feasibility of obtaining the information needed to complete the framework.
RESULTS: The framework was found to be sufficiently broad to encompass all the issues of interest regarding the systems, but the proportion of information available from published sources was variable between sections of the framework and between countries, with average availability of 45 percent.
CONCLUSIONS: The analytical framework will help researchers and policy makers in individual countries to understand their own systems and will allow some preliminary sharing of experience between countries. More experience of its application is needed to judge whether it will provide the basis for more formal comparison of systems and whether it will determine their appropriateness for particular decision contexts.
No abstract available
AIM: To develop a novel metabolic computer model of the natural lifetime progression of type 2 diabetes that generates dynamic risk factor trajectories consistent with prespecified lifetime therapeutic strategies, in order to enhance the long-term economic and outcome modelling of type 2 diabetes and its complications.
METHODS: The main model drivers of progressive disease were changes in insulin sensitivity and islet ß-cell function derived from an analysis of follow-up results from the Belfast Diet Study. These were related to clinical measures through an adaptation of the homeostasis model assessment. Established causal relationships estimating body mass index, lipids and blood pressure from measures of glycaemia and plasma insulin were calibrated using Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (USA) data, standardizing for age, sex, ethnicity and smoking. The effects of individual interventions were calibrated using published trial evidence, in line with the current understanding of the main modes of action of each agent.
RESULTS: A comparison of the effects of common therapies using the model showed both similarities and differences. Large improvements in glycaemic control from lifestyle modifications, further enhanced by oral glucose-lowering drugs or insulin, were reproduced. Projections comparing lifetime therapeutic strategies suggest that simple guidelines may not always be valid.
CONCLUSION: This novel mathematical model using evidence from the long-term natural history of type 2 diabetes is able to project the expected effects of various antihyperglycaemic therapies. Coupled with an economic model, this metabolic model may provide a mechanism for healthcare professionals and policymakers to evaluate different long-term strategies for the management of type 2 diabetes.
No abstract available
INTRODUCTION: Recent clinical trial results have demonstrated that, in patients with type 2 diabetes, second-line treatment of rosiglitazone in combination with metformin can lead to significant improvements in the control of fasting plasma glucose/glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) after the failure of metformin monotherapy. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the use of rosiglitazone in combination with metformin in overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK, failing to maintain glycaemic control with metformin monotherapy compared with conventional care using metformin in combination with sulfonylurea.
METHODS: The Diabetes Decision Analysis of Cost - type 2 (DiDACT) model, an established long-term economic model of type 2 diabetes, which projects the relationship between treatment and HbA1c over extended periods, was used to determine the health outcomes and economic impact for matched age and sex cohorts of 1000 patients with type 2 diabetes. The perspective was that of the UK National Health Service and all costs were in UK pounds sterling.
RESULTS: Treatment with rosiglitazone in combination with metformin provides better glycaemic control over the remaining lifetime of patients than metformin and sulfonylurea combination therapy. Patients treated with rosiglitazone combination therapy were predicted to have a longer life expectancy, gaining 123 and 140 additional life years per 1000 patients in the obese and overweight cohorts, respectively. Improvements in morbidity and a delay in the start of insulin therapy resulted in a projected improvement in quality of life. These effects combine with projected improved survival to yield 131 and 209 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per 1000 patients in the obese and overweight cohorts, respectively. Discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated at £16 700 per QALY gained for the obese cohort and £11 600 per QALY gained for the overweight cohort.
CONCLUSION: The model predicts that rosiglitazone in combination with metformin is a cost-effective treatment in the UK for both obese and overweight patients failing on metformin monotherapy, compared with conventional therapy using metformin in combination with sulfonylurea.
No abstract available
