ReviewPharmacoEconomics2006
Cost-effectiveness of rosiglitazone oral combination for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Germany.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health economic evaluations based on routine data in Germany: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2018Pooled it
- Cost effectiveness of saxagliptin and metformin versus sulfonylurea and metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Germany: a Cardiff diabetes model analysis.Clinical drug investigation · 2012Article
- Review
- Lifetime health consequences and cost-effectiveness of rosiglitazone in combination with metformin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Spain.PharmacoEconomics · 2006Review
- Modelling lifetime metabolic progression and cost effectiveness of treatment strategies for type 2 diabetes.PharmacoEconomics · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aims/hypothesisTo assess the cost-effectiveness of rosiglitazone in combination with other oral agents for the treatment of overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes in Germany.
methodsThe Diabetes Decision Analysis of Cost--type 2 model was adapted for clinical practice and healthcare financing rules in Germany. The model was calibrated using Cost of Diabetes in Europe Type 2 study data and national statistics. The perspective is that of the sickness funds, and includes all hospital inpatient, ambulatory, rehabilitation, and diabetes therapy, other medications, and sickness leave. The model simulates lifetime treatment histories and associated health outcomes and costs for age and sex-matched cohorts of 1000 overweight and obese patients. The measures of effectiveness used in the analysis were life-years and quality adjusted life-years (QALYs).
resultsThe combination therapy of rosiglitazone with metformin or sulfonylurea produces better glycaemic control than conventional care of metformin with sulfonylurea and insulin in most patients, extends the viability of oral therapy before requiring insulin, and typically leads to lifetime cost increases across all treatment types. The improvements in glycaemic control lead to survival gains and reductions in morbidity, because of the reduced risk of developing or progressing to later stages of complications. Improvements in morbidity and mortality generate additional QALYs. Costs and health outcomes combine to yield favourable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, which fall below international 'willingness-to-pay' thresholds in the medium term.
conclusionThe model predicts that rosiglitazone in combination with other oral agents is a cost-effective intervention for the treatment of normal weight, overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes when compared with conventional care in Germany.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.