Costs and its drivers for diabetes mellitus type 2 patients in France and Germany: a systematic review of economic studies.
Automated insulin delivery
Cost
Diabetes mellitus type 2
France
Germany
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Nov 2020
16 Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
10
07
2020
accepted:
03
11
2020
entrez:
17
11
2020
pubmed:
18
11
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Type 2 diabetes represents an increasingly critical challenge for health policy worldwide. It absorbs massive resources from both patients and national economies to sustain direct costs of the treatment of type 2 diabetes and its complications and indirect costs related to work loss and wages. More recently, there are innovations based on remote control and personalised programs that promise a more cost-effective diabetes management while reducing diabetes-related complications. In such a context, this work attempts to update cost analysis reviews on type 2 diabetes, focusing on France and Germany, in order to explore most significant cost drivers and cost-saving opportunities through innovations in diabetes care. Although both countries approach care delivery differently, France and Germany represent the primary European markets for diabetes technologies. A systematic review of the literature listed in MEDLINE, Embase and EconLit has been carried out. It covered interventional, observational and modelling studies on expenditures for type 2 diabetes management in France or Germany published since 2012. Included articles were analysed for annual direct, associated and indirect costs of type 2 diabetes patients. An appraisal of study quality was performed. Results were summarised narratively. From 1260 records, the final sample was composed of 24 papers selected according to predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Both France and Germany revealed a predominant focus on direct costs. Comparability was limited due to different study populations and cost categories used. Indirect costs were only available in Germany. According to prior literature, reported cost drivers are hospitalisation, prescriptions, higher HbA1c and BMI, treatment with insulin and complications, all indicators of disease severity. The diversity of available data and included costs limits the results and may explain the differences found. Complication prevention and glycaemic control are widely recognized as the most effective ways to control diabetes treatment costs. The value propositions of self-based supports, such as hybrid closed-loop metabolic systems, already implemented in type 1 diabetes management, are the key points for further debates and policymaking, which should involve the perspectives of caregivers, patients and payers.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Type 2 diabetes represents an increasingly critical challenge for health policy worldwide. It absorbs massive resources from both patients and national economies to sustain direct costs of the treatment of type 2 diabetes and its complications and indirect costs related to work loss and wages. More recently, there are innovations based on remote control and personalised programs that promise a more cost-effective diabetes management while reducing diabetes-related complications. In such a context, this work attempts to update cost analysis reviews on type 2 diabetes, focusing on France and Germany, in order to explore most significant cost drivers and cost-saving opportunities through innovations in diabetes care. Although both countries approach care delivery differently, France and Germany represent the primary European markets for diabetes technologies.
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature listed in MEDLINE, Embase and EconLit has been carried out. It covered interventional, observational and modelling studies on expenditures for type 2 diabetes management in France or Germany published since 2012. Included articles were analysed for annual direct, associated and indirect costs of type 2 diabetes patients. An appraisal of study quality was performed. Results were summarised narratively.
RESULTS
RESULTS
From 1260 records, the final sample was composed of 24 papers selected according to predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Both France and Germany revealed a predominant focus on direct costs. Comparability was limited due to different study populations and cost categories used. Indirect costs were only available in Germany. According to prior literature, reported cost drivers are hospitalisation, prescriptions, higher HbA1c and BMI, treatment with insulin and complications, all indicators of disease severity. The diversity of available data and included costs limits the results and may explain the differences found.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Complication prevention and glycaemic control are widely recognized as the most effective ways to control diabetes treatment costs. The value propositions of self-based supports, such as hybrid closed-loop metabolic systems, already implemented in type 1 diabetes management, are the key points for further debates and policymaking, which should involve the perspectives of caregivers, patients and payers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33198734
doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05897-w
pii: 10.1186/s12913-020-05897-w
pmc: PMC7667793
doi:
Substances chimiques
Insulin
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1043Références
Diabetes Care. 2004 May;27(5):1047-53
pubmed: 15111519
Ann Intern Med. 2004 Jun 1;140(11):972-7
pubmed: 15172923
Lancet. 2016 Apr 9;387(10027):1513-1530
pubmed: 27061677
Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2014 Dec;10(12):711-22
pubmed: 25287289
BMC Health Serv Res. 2006 Jul 04;6:84
pubmed: 16820048
Pharmacoecon Open. 2019 Dec;3(4):433-435
pubmed: 30680675
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2008 Feb;24(2):87-92
pubmed: 18088077
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019 Nov;13(6):1112-1122
pubmed: 30917691
Presse Med. 2013 May;42(5):830-8
pubmed: 23566620
Eur J Health Econ. 2015 Apr;16(3):305-11
pubmed: 24619251
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017 Jan;11(1):123-127
pubmed: 27402240
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018 Jun;20(6):420-427
pubmed: 29923774
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Jun 11;4(3):e001410
pubmed: 31263585
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2012 Feb;95(2):194-200
pubmed: 22004943
Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Aug;33(8):811-31
pubmed: 25787932
Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(3):149-64
pubmed: 14871163
Diabetes Care. 2018 May;41(5):971-978
pubmed: 29348194
Health Aff (Millwood). 2009 Jan-Feb;28(1):26-35
pubmed: 19124849
Lancet. 2018 Feb 10;391(10120):541-551
pubmed: 29221645
Diabet Med. 2017 Jun;34(6):855-861
pubmed: 28199029
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Jan 20;14:26
pubmed: 24444378
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 21;6(11):e012527
pubmed: 27872118
Diabetes Care. 1997 Sep;20(9):1396-402
pubmed: 9283786
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;4:383-93
pubmed: 23277741
Diabet Med. 2016 Jul;33(7):877-85
pubmed: 26414087
Diabetologia. 2019 Jul;62(7):1185-1194
pubmed: 31011776
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2010 Jan;12(1):12-9
pubmed: 19788430
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2018 Feb;16(1):15-29
pubmed: 28856585
Eur J Health Econ. 2019 Jul;20(5):657-668
pubmed: 30612221
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015 May;9(3):644-50
pubmed: 25573957
Diabetes Educ. 2002 Nov-Dec;28(6):1009-20
pubmed: 12526641
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 May;7(5):344-355
pubmed: 30852132
Diabet Med. 2013 Aug;30(8):999-1008
pubmed: 23506452
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019 Mar;13(2):261-267
pubmed: 30241444
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Jun 5;20(1):511
pubmed: 32503523
Health Policy. 2018 Aug;122(8):866-877
pubmed: 30007520
Diabet Med. 2015 Jul;32(7):951-7
pubmed: 25781644
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019 Mar;13(2):268-270
pubmed: 30661392
BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Jun 14;12:160
pubmed: 22697597
Diabetes Care. 2012 Feb;35(2):319-26
pubmed: 22238276
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Dec 17;18(1):972
pubmed: 30558591
Diabetologia. 2018 Nov;61(11):2310-2318
pubmed: 29995214
Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2014 Oct;122(9):517-22
pubmed: 25148263
BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 Aug 20;10:244
pubmed: 20727137
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Aug 16;19(1):575
pubmed: 31419980
Bull World Health Organ. 2003;81(1):19-27
pubmed: 12640472
Diabetes Care. 2018 Jun;41(6):1125-1131
pubmed: 29784696
PLoS Med. 2006 Nov;3(11):e442
pubmed: 17132052
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 20;13(12):e0209197
pubmed: 30571732
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016 Mar 18;113(11):177-82
pubmed: 27118665
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Jun 26;18(1):495
pubmed: 29940936
Diabetes Metab. 2020 Jan 7;:
pubmed: 31923577
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Mar 31;20(1):268
pubmed: 32234078
Diabetologia. 2019 Jan;62(1):147-155
pubmed: 30293113
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Aug 28;19(1):605
pubmed: 31462220
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2008 Oct;10(5):377-83
pubmed: 18715214
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018 Oct;144:200-212
pubmed: 30205184
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018 Sep;12(5):1002-1006
pubmed: 29436251
PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e39513
pubmed: 23049727
Sante Publique. 2016 Dec 19;28(6):781-789
pubmed: 28155773
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2015 Jan 30;7:95-103
pubmed: 25674008
Nephron. 2016;132(3):215-26
pubmed: 26930608