COST-EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS IN TREATING DIABETES MELLITUS WITH COMORBIDITY
Objective: The main objective of this study is to sort out the most common prescription patterns and their cost-effective analysis (CEA).
Methods: A prospective study design is followed to collect the data. Based on the percentage, the first three comorbidities which occupy a major part of the sample are taken into consideration. The top two used prescriptions for each comorbidity are selected and CEA is performed for those.
Results: Diabetes mellitus (DM) with hypertension (HTN) comprise the majority of the sample (37%). Two majorly used prescription patterns are sorted out and CEA is performed which revealed that prescription pattern A is more cost effective than prescription pattern B. Second major part of the sample is occupied by only cases with DM (21%) which is excluded as it does not have any commodities. After only DM, DM + infections occupy a major part (8%). Two majorly used prescription patterns are sorted out and CEA is performed which revealed that prescription pattern A is more therapeutically effective than prescription pattern B but not cost effective. The 3rd major comorbidity is DM + CVA (8%). In this case, the results demonstrated that prescription pattern A is more cost effective than prescription pattern B.
Conclusion: The major commodities of DM are HTN, infections, and coronary artery disease. The cost-effectiveness evaluation revealed that physicians are only considering the therapeutic efficacy as a major concern but not the economic burden. This study concludes the importance of considering the financial burden with relationship to their respective therapeutic efficacy provided by an individual prescription.
2. Nerat T, Locatelli I, Kos M. Type 2 diabetes: Cost-effectiveness of medication adherence and lifestyle interventions. Patient Prefer Adherence 2016;10:2039-49.
3. Zhang P, Zhang X, Brown J, Vistisen D, Sicree R, Shaw J, et al. Global healthcare expenditure on diabetes for 2010 and 2030. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2010;87:293-301.
4. Gruber W, Lander T, Leese B, Songer T, Williams R. The Economics of Diabetes and Diabetes Care: A Report of a Diabetes Health Economics Study Group. Brussels: International Diabetes Federation; 1997.
5. Tharkar S, Devarajan A, Kumpatla S, Viswanathan V. The socioeconomics of diabetes from a developing country: A population based cost of illness study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2010;89:334-40.
6. India Today Web Desk. Diabetes Epidemic: 98 Million People in India May have Type 2 Diabetes by 2030. India Today; 2019. Available from: https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/latest-studies/story/98- million-indians-diabetes-2030-prevention-1394158-2018-11-22. [Last accessed on 2018 Dec 16].
7. International Diabetes Federation. IDF SEA Members; 2017. Available from: https://www.idf.org/our-network/regions-members/south-east-asia/members/94-india.html. [Last accessed on 2019 Nov 21].
8. Ahamedi R, Dileep K, Kirubakaran JJ, Dhanaraju MD. Cost analysis of anti-diabetic drugs in India. Saudi J Med Pharm Sci 2018;4:1291-4.
9. Singla R, Bindra J, Singla A, Gupta Y, Kalra S. Adiponectin, insulin sensitivity and diabetic retinopathy in latinos with Type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2016;11:3348-55.
10. Kumar L, Gupta SK, Prakash A. Assessment of the prescription pattern of anti-diabetic drugs in Type-2 diabetes mellitus patients. Pharma Innov J 2018;7:392-4.
11. Shah K, Solanki N, Rana D, Acharya K. Evaluation of antidiabetic prescriptions, cost and adherence to treatment guidelines: A prospective, cross-sectional study at a tertiary care teaching hospital. J Basic Clin Pharm 2013;4:82-7.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The publication is licensed under CC By and is open access. Copyright is with author and allowed to retain publishing rights without restrictions.