METHOD: A 12-month single blinded multicenter randomized control trial was designed to investigate the measured variables [Glycated Hemoglobin (HbA1c), Renal function, Albumin Creatinine Ratio (ACR) etc.]. The trial was randomized into 2 experimental parallel arms (ascorbic acid vs acetylsalicylic acid) were blinded with study supplements in combination with metformin and findings were compared to control arm with metformin alone and blinded with placebo. Withdrawal criteria was defined to maintain the equity and balance in the participants in the whole trial.
FINDING: Patients with metformin and ascorbic acid (parallel arm I) was twice more likely to reduce HbA1c than metformin alone (control arm) in a year (OR 2.31 (95% CI 1.87-4.42) p
METHODS: A validated computer simulation model (the IMS CORE Diabetes Model) was used to estimate the long-term projection of costs and clinical outcomes. The model was populated with published characteristics of Thai patients with type 2 diabetes. Baseline risk factors were obtained from Thai cohort studies, while relative risk reduction was derived from a meta-analysis study conducted by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health. Only direct costs were taken into account. Costs of diabetes management and complications were obtained from hospital databases in Thailand. Both costs and outcomes were discounted at 3 % per annum and presented in US dollars in terms of 2014 dollar value. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed.
RESULTS: IGlar is associated with a slight gain in quality-adjusted life years (0.488 QALYs), an additional life expectancy (0.677 life years), and an incremental cost of THB119,543 (US$3522.19) compared with NPH insulin. The ICERs were THB244,915/QALY (US$7216.12/QALY) and THB176,525/life-year gained (LYG) (US$5201.09/LYG). The ICER was sensitive to discount rates and IGlar cost. At the acceptable willingness to pay of THB160,000/QALY (US$4714.20/QALY), the probability that IGlar was cost effective was less than 20 %.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to treatment with NPH insulin, treatment with IGlar in type 2 diabetes patients who had uncontrolled blood glucose with oral anti-diabetic drugs did not represent good value for money at the acceptable threshold in Thailand.
Methodology: We used a retrospective, matched before and after study design to prevent biased levels of effort by students conducting the home visits over two years. Information was obtained through reports written by IMU students. Convenient sampling was used to select outpatients undergoing treatment 'as usual' from a health clinic and were subsequently matched as controls.
Results: There was a significant decrease in the mean HbA1c among 57 patients with diabetes who were CFCS subjects [from 8.4% (68 mmol/mol) to 7.3% (57 mmol/mol) p<0.001], while the mean HbA1c levels among 107 matched control subjects rose significantly from 7.9% (63 mmol/mol) to 8.3% (67 mmol/mol) (p=0.019) over a similar period. The two groups were controlled for most biological and socioeconomic variables except for comorbidities, diabetic complications and medication dose changes between groups.
Conclusion: Behavioural intervention in the form of home visits conducted by medical students is an effective tool with a dual purpose, first as a student educational initiative, and second as a strategy to improve outcomes for patients with diabetes.