Limits...
Resource use and costs of exenatide bid or insulin in clinical practice: the European CHOICE study.

Kiiskinen U, Matthaei S, Reaney M, Mathieu C, Ostenson CG, Krarup T, Theodorakis M, Kiljański J, Salaun-Martin C, Sapin H, Guerci B - Clinicoecon Outcomes Res (2013)

Bottom Line: Improvements in glycemic control were observed over the course of the study in both cohorts (P < 0.001 for both), but mean weight was reduced in the exenatide bid cohort (P < 0.001) and increased in the insulin cohort (P < 0.001) by 24 months.Much of the higher mean cost of exenatide bid, compared with insulin, therapy was compensated for by lower mean costs of other health service utilization.Costs associated with exenatide bid or insulin initiation varied across countries, highlighting the need to avoid generalization of resource use and cost implications of a particular therapy when estimated in specific country settings.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Eli Lilly, Helsinki, Finland; , Germany.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: CHOICE (CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy) assessed patterns of exenatide bid and initial insulin therapy usage in clinical practice in six European countries and evaluated outcomes during the study.

Methods: CHOICE was a 24-month, prospective, noninterventional observational study. Clinical and resource use data were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy (exenatide bid or insulin) and at regular intervals for 24 months. Costs were evaluated from the national health care system perspective at 2009 prices.

Results: A total of 2515 patients were recruited. At the 24-month analysis, significant treatment change had occurred during the study in 42.2% of 1114 eligible patients in the exenatide bid cohort and 36.0% of 1274 eligible patients in the insulin cohort. Improvements in glycemic control were observed over the course of the study in both cohorts (P < 0.001 for both), but mean weight was reduced in the exenatide bid cohort (P < 0.001) and increased in the insulin cohort (P < 0.001) by 24 months. Across all countries, total per patient health care costs for the 24 months post baseline were €3997.9 in the exenatide bid cohort and €3265.5 in the insulin cohort (€1791.9 versus €2465.5 due to costs other than those of injectable therapy). When baseline direct cost and patients' and disease characteristics were controlled for, mean direct costs differed by country (P < 0.0001), irrespective of treatment initiated, and the mean cost difference between treatments varied by country (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion: Much of the higher mean cost of exenatide bid, compared with insulin, therapy was compensated for by lower mean costs of other health service utilization. Costs associated with exenatide bid or insulin initiation varied across countries, highlighting the need to avoid generalization of resource use and cost implications of a particular therapy when estimated in specific country settings.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Mean number of health care professional contacts per 6 months by country during treatment with (A) exenatide bid or (B) insulin therapy in clinical practice.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3713896&req=5

f1-ceor-5-355: Mean number of health care professional contacts per 6 months by country during treatment with (A) exenatide bid or (B) insulin therapy in clinical practice.

Mentions: In the exenatide bid cohort, the percentage of patients visiting or consulting HCPs was >97% both before and after treatment initiation in all countries except Greece, where it was 87.4% at baseline and 92.7% after initiation. The mean number of contacts with HCPs throughout the study, for all countries and by country, is reported in Table 3 and Figure 1A; Denmark had the fewest mean (SD) contacts over the entire 24-month observation period (10.6 [6.9]). The highest 24-month mean (SD) HCP utilization was observed in Germany (32.4 [17.8]).


Resource use and costs of exenatide bid or insulin in clinical practice: the European CHOICE study.

Kiiskinen U, Matthaei S, Reaney M, Mathieu C, Ostenson CG, Krarup T, Theodorakis M, Kiljański J, Salaun-Martin C, Sapin H, Guerci B - Clinicoecon Outcomes Res (2013)

Mean number of health care professional contacts per 6 months by country during treatment with (A) exenatide bid or (B) insulin therapy in clinical practice.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3713896&req=5

f1-ceor-5-355: Mean number of health care professional contacts per 6 months by country during treatment with (A) exenatide bid or (B) insulin therapy in clinical practice.
Mentions: In the exenatide bid cohort, the percentage of patients visiting or consulting HCPs was >97% both before and after treatment initiation in all countries except Greece, where it was 87.4% at baseline and 92.7% after initiation. The mean number of contacts with HCPs throughout the study, for all countries and by country, is reported in Table 3 and Figure 1A; Denmark had the fewest mean (SD) contacts over the entire 24-month observation period (10.6 [6.9]). The highest 24-month mean (SD) HCP utilization was observed in Germany (32.4 [17.8]).

Bottom Line: Improvements in glycemic control were observed over the course of the study in both cohorts (P < 0.001 for both), but mean weight was reduced in the exenatide bid cohort (P < 0.001) and increased in the insulin cohort (P < 0.001) by 24 months.Much of the higher mean cost of exenatide bid, compared with insulin, therapy was compensated for by lower mean costs of other health service utilization.Costs associated with exenatide bid or insulin initiation varied across countries, highlighting the need to avoid generalization of resource use and cost implications of a particular therapy when estimated in specific country settings.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Eli Lilly, Helsinki, Finland; , Germany.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: CHOICE (CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy) assessed patterns of exenatide bid and initial insulin therapy usage in clinical practice in six European countries and evaluated outcomes during the study.

Methods: CHOICE was a 24-month, prospective, noninterventional observational study. Clinical and resource use data were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy (exenatide bid or insulin) and at regular intervals for 24 months. Costs were evaluated from the national health care system perspective at 2009 prices.

Results: A total of 2515 patients were recruited. At the 24-month analysis, significant treatment change had occurred during the study in 42.2% of 1114 eligible patients in the exenatide bid cohort and 36.0% of 1274 eligible patients in the insulin cohort. Improvements in glycemic control were observed over the course of the study in both cohorts (P < 0.001 for both), but mean weight was reduced in the exenatide bid cohort (P < 0.001) and increased in the insulin cohort (P < 0.001) by 24 months. Across all countries, total per patient health care costs for the 24 months post baseline were €3997.9 in the exenatide bid cohort and €3265.5 in the insulin cohort (€1791.9 versus €2465.5 due to costs other than those of injectable therapy). When baseline direct cost and patients' and disease characteristics were controlled for, mean direct costs differed by country (P < 0.0001), irrespective of treatment initiated, and the mean cost difference between treatments varied by country (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion: Much of the higher mean cost of exenatide bid, compared with insulin, therapy was compensated for by lower mean costs of other health service utilization. Costs associated with exenatide bid or insulin initiation varied across countries, highlighting the need to avoid generalization of resource use and cost implications of a particular therapy when estimated in specific country settings.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus