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.
METHODS: A validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate the long-term costs and outcomes. The efficacy parameters were identified and synthesized using a systematic review and meta-analysis. Baseline characteristics and cost parameters were obtained from published studies and hospital databases in Thailand. Costs were expressed in 2014 US Dollars. Outcomes were presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to estimate parameter uncertainty.
RESULTS: From a societal perspective, treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors yielded more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (0.024) at a higher cost (>66,000 Thai baht (THB) or >1,829.27 USD) per person than SFU, resulting in the ICER of >2.7 million THB/QALY (>74,833.70 USD/QALY). The cost-effectiveness results were mainly driven by differences in HbA1c reduction, hypoglycemic events, and drug acquisition cost of DPP-4 inhibitors. At the ceiling ratio of 160,000 THB/QALY (4,434.59 USD/QALY), the probability that DPP-4 inhibitors are cost-effective compared to SFU was less than 10%.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to SFU, DPP-4 inhibitor monotherapy is not a cost-effective treatment for people with T2DM and CKD in Thailand.
METHODS: Long-term costs and outcomes were projected using a validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model, version 8.5. Cohort characteristics, baseline risk factors, and costs of diabetes complications were derived from Thai data sources. Relative risk was derived from a systematic review and meta-analysis study. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was presented in 2015 US Dollars (USD). A series of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: IDet yielded slightly greater quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (8.921 vs 8.908), but incurred higher costs than IGlar (90,417.63 USD vs 66,674.03 USD), resulting in an ICER of ∼1.7 million USD per QALY. The findings were very sensitive to the cost of IDet. With a 34% reduction in the IDet cost, treatment with IDet would become cost-effective according to the Thai threshold of 4,434.59 USD per QALY.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with IDet in patients with T2DM who had uncontrolled blood glucose with oral anti-diabetic agents was not a cost-effective strategy compared with IGlar treatment in the Thai context. These findings could be generalized to other countries with a similar socioeconomics level and healthcare systems.
METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis using a Markov model to simulate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of Thai smokers aged ≥35 years receiving smoking cessation services offered from FAHSAI Clinic or usual care over a horizon of 50 years. The model used a 6-month continuous abstinence rate from a multicenter prospective study of 24 FAHSAI Clinics. A series of sensitivity analyses including probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to assess robustness of study findings. Cost data are presented in US$ for 2020.
RESULTS: The FAHSAI Clinic was dominant as it was less costly ($9537.92 vs $10964.19) and more effective (6.06 vs 5.96 QALYs) compared with usual care over the 50-year time horizon. Changes in risks of stroke and coronary heart disease among males had the largest impact on the cost-effectiveness findings. The probability that FAHSAI Clinic was cost-effective was 99.8% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $5120.
CONCLUSIONS: The FAHSAI Clinic smoking cessation program was clinically superior and cost-saving compared to usual care for Thai patients with CVD in all scenarios. A budget impact analysis is needed to estimate the financial impact of adopting this program within the Thai healthcare system.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the evidence of health interventions in addressing inequity among migrants.
METHODS: We adopted a two-stage searching approach to ensure the feasibility of this review. First, reviews of interventions for migrants were searched from five databases: PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE until June 2017. Second, full articles included in the identified reviews were retrieved. Primary studies included in the identified reviews were then evaluated as to whether they met the following criteria: experimental studies which include equity aspects as part of their outcome measurement, based on equity attributes defined by PROGRESS-Plus factors (place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender, religion, education, socio-economic status, social capital, and others). We analysed the information extracted from the selected articles based on the PRISMA-Equity guidelines and the PROGRESS-Plus factors.
RESULTS: Forty-nine reviews involving 1145 primary studies met the first-stage inclusion criteria. After exclusion of 764 studies, the remaining 381 experimental studies were assessed. Thirteen out of 381 experimental studies (3.41%) were found to include equity attributes as part of their outcome measurement. However, although some associations were found none of the included studies demonstrated the effect of the intervention on reducing inequity. All studies were conducted in high-income countries. The interventions included individual directed, community education and peer navigator-related interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence reveals that there is a paucity of studies assessing equity attributes of health interventions developed for migrant populations. This indicates that equity has not been receiving attention in these studies of migrant populations. More attention to equity-focused outcome assessment is needed to help policy-makers to consider all relevant outcomes for sound decision making concerning migrants.
METHODS: A search for economic evaluation studies was conducted from inception to 30 September 2022, on PubMed, Embase, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry by Tufts Medical Centre, EconLit and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). Eligible studies were included if they were (1) conducted among adults ages 18 years old and older who were smokers attempting to quit for the first time; (2) compared varenicline to behaviour support with bupropion or NRT, behaviour support alone and unaided cessation; and (3) performed a CEA or cost-utility analysis. The INBs were calculated and pooled across studies stratified by country income level and study perspective using the random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochrane Q statistic.
RESULTS: Of the 1433 identified studies, 18 studies were included in our review. Our findings from healthcare system/payer perspective suggested that the use of varenicline is statistically significantly cost-effective compared with bupropion (pooled INB, $830.75 [95% confidence interval, $208.23, $1453.28]), NRTs ($636.16 [$192.48, $1079.84]) and unaided cessation ($4212.35 [$1755.79, $6668.92]) in high-income countries. Similarly, varenicline is also found to be cost-effective compared to bupropion ($2706.27 [$1284.44, $4128.11]), NRTs ($3310.01 [$1781.53, $4838.50]) and behavioural support alone ($5438.22 [$4105.99, $6770.46]) in low- and middle-income countries.
CONCLUSION: Varenicline is cost-effective as a smoking cessation aid when compared with behavioural support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapies and behavioural support alone in both high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries, from the healthcare system/payer perspective in adult smokers who attempt to quit for the first time.