Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of type-2 diabetes screening in pharmacies in Iran.
Cost-effectiveness
Cost-utility
Markov-model
Screening
Type-2 diabetes
Journal
Research in pharmaceutical sciences
ISSN: 1735-5362
Titre abrégé: Res Pharm Sci
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 101516968
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2023
Apr 2023
Historique:
received:
12
06
2022
revised:
27
11
2022
accepted:
05
12
2022
entrez:
6
3
2023
pubmed:
7
3
2023
medline:
7
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Several studies have shown the effectiveness of screening programs in decreasing the costs and disutility of type-2 diabetes and related complications. As there is a growth in the incidence of type-2 diabetes amongst the Iranian population, the cost-effectiveness of performing type-2 diabetes screening tests in community pharmacies of Iran was evaluated in this study from the payer's perspective. The target population consisted of two hypothetical cohorts of 1000 people 40 years of age without a prior diagnosis of diabetes, for the intervention (screening test) and no-screening groups. A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a type-2 diabetes screening test in community pharmacies in Iran. A 30-year time horizon was considered in the model. Three screening programs with 5-year intervals were considered for the intervention group. The evaluated outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for cost-utility-analysis and life-years-gained (LYG) for cost-effectiveness-analysis. To examine the robustness of the results, one-way and probabilistic-sensitivity analyses were applied to the model. The screening test represented both more effects and higher costs. The incremental effects in the base-case scenario (no-discounting) were estimated to be 0.017 and 0.0004 (approximately 0) for QALYs and LYG, respectively. The incremental cost was estimated to be 2.87 USD/patient. The estimated incremental-cost-effectiveness ratio was 164.77 USD/QALY. This study indicated that screening for type-2 diabetes in community pharmacies of Iran could be considered highly cost-effective, as it meets the WHO criteria of the annual GDP per capita ($2757 in 2020).
Sections du résumé
Background and purpose
UNASSIGNED
Several studies have shown the effectiveness of screening programs in decreasing the costs and disutility of type-2 diabetes and related complications. As there is a growth in the incidence of type-2 diabetes amongst the Iranian population, the cost-effectiveness of performing type-2 diabetes screening tests in community pharmacies of Iran was evaluated in this study from the payer's perspective. The target population consisted of two hypothetical cohorts of 1000 people 40 years of age without a prior diagnosis of diabetes, for the intervention (screening test) and no-screening groups.
Experimental approach
UNASSIGNED
A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a type-2 diabetes screening test in community pharmacies in Iran. A 30-year time horizon was considered in the model. Three screening programs with 5-year intervals were considered for the intervention group. The evaluated outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for cost-utility-analysis and life-years-gained (LYG) for cost-effectiveness-analysis. To examine the robustness of the results, one-way and probabilistic-sensitivity analyses were applied to the model.
Findings/Results
UNASSIGNED
The screening test represented both more effects and higher costs. The incremental effects in the base-case scenario (no-discounting) were estimated to be 0.017 and 0.0004 (approximately 0) for QALYs and LYG, respectively. The incremental cost was estimated to be 2.87 USD/patient. The estimated incremental-cost-effectiveness ratio was 164.77 USD/QALY.
Conclusion and implications
UNASSIGNED
This study indicated that screening for type-2 diabetes in community pharmacies of Iran could be considered highly cost-effective, as it meets the WHO criteria of the annual GDP per capita ($2757 in 2020).
Identifiants
pubmed: 36873274
doi: 10.4103/1735-5362.367799
pii: RPS-18-210
pmc: PMC9976058
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
210-218Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declared no conflict of interest in this study.
Références
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014 Feb;103(2):319-27
pubmed: 24447808
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2010;8(3):191-202
pubmed: 20408603
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 22;10(7):e0132505
pubmed: 26200913
Arch Iran Med. 2013 Mar;16(3):138-44
pubmed: 23432164
Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2015 Oct 31;7:95
pubmed: 26523154
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015 Feb;3(2):105-13
pubmed: 25466521
Health Technol Assess. 2007 Apr;11(14):1-160, iii-iv
pubmed: 17408535
Res Pharm Sci. 2017 Apr;12(2):144-153
pubmed: 28515767
Pharmacy (Basel). 2019 Mar 22;7(1):
pubmed: 30909409
Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2018 Feb;14(2):88-98
pubmed: 29219149
JAMA. 1998 Nov 25;280(20):1757-63
pubmed: 9842951
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2001 Nov;54 Suppl 1:S37-42
pubmed: 11580967
Diabetes Care. 2018 Jun;41(6):1218-1226
pubmed: 29686159
Sci Rep. 2022 Oct 25;12(1):17892
pubmed: 36284227
Diabetes Care. 2002 Jan;25(1):43-8
pubmed: 11772899
Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2003 Apr;10(2):81-95
pubmed: 12660857
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2009 Jan;83(1):18-25
pubmed: 19091437
Value Health Reg Issues. 2022 Jul;30:26-30
pubmed: 35042020
J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2014 Mar 04;13(1):42
pubmed: 24593991
Ann Glob Health. 2015 Nov-Dec;81(6):839-50
pubmed: 27108151