Skip to main content
Top
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 1/2024

22-09-2023 | Myocardial Infarction | Systematic Review

A Systematic Review of Methodologies Used in Models of the Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus

Authors: Marina Antoniou, Céu Mateus, Bruce Hollingsworth, Andrew Titman

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Diabetes mellitus is a chronic and complex disease, increasing in prevalence and consequent health expenditure. Cost-effectiveness models with long time horizons are commonly used to perform economic evaluations of diabetes’ treatments. As such, prediction accuracy and structural uncertainty are important features in cost-effectiveness models of chronic conditions.

Objectives

The aim of this systematic review is to identify and review published cost-effectiveness models of diabetes treatments developed between 2011 and 2022 regarding their methodological characteristics. Further, it also appraises the quality of the methods used, and discusses opportunities for further methodological research.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase to identify peer-reviewed papers reporting cost-effectiveness models of diabetes treatments, with time horizons of more than 5 years, published in English between 1 January 2011 and 31 of December 2022. Screening, full-text inclusion, data extraction, quality assessment and data synthesis using narrative synthesis were performed. The Philips checklist was used for quality assessment of the included studies. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021248999).

Results

The literature search identified 30 studies presenting 29 unique cost-effectiveness models of type 1 and/or type 2 diabetes treatments. The review identified 26 type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) models, 3 type 1 DM (T1DM) models and one model for both types of diabetes. Fifteen models were patient-level models, whereas 14 were at cohort level. Parameter uncertainty was assessed thoroughly in most of the models, whereas structural uncertainty was seldom addressed. All the models where validation was conducted performed well. The methodological quality of the models with respect to structure was high, whereas with respect to data modelling it was moderate.

Conclusions

Models developed in the past 12 years for health economic evaluations of diabetes treatments are of high-quality and make use of advanced methods. However, further developments are needed to improve the statistical modelling component of cost-effectiveness models and to provide better assessment of structural uncertainty.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Xie J, et al. Global burden of type 2 diabetes in adolescents and young adults, 1990–2019: systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. BMJ. 2022;379:E072385.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Xie J, et al. Global burden of type 2 diabetes in adolescents and young adults, 1990–2019: systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. BMJ. 2022;379:E072385.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Saeedi P, et al. Global and regional diabetes prevalence estimates for 2019 and projections for 2030 and 2045: Results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, 9th edition. Diabetes Res Clin Prac. 2019;157:107843.CrossRef Saeedi P, et al. Global and regional diabetes prevalence estimates for 2019 and projections for 2030 and 2045: Results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, 9th edition. Diabetes Res Clin Prac. 2019;157:107843.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Williams R, et al. Global and regional estimates and projections of diabetes-related health expenditure: Results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, 9th edition. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2020;162:108072.PubMedCrossRef Williams R, et al. Global and regional estimates and projections of diabetes-related health expenditure: Results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, 9th edition. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2020;162:108072.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Briggs AHD, et al. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-6. Value Health. 2012;15(6):835–42.PubMedCrossRef Briggs AHD, et al. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-6. Value Health. 2012;15(6):835–42.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Brisson M, Edmunds WJ. Impact of model, methodological, and parameter uncertainty in the economic analysis of vaccination programs. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(5):434–46.PubMedCrossRef Brisson M, Edmunds WJ. Impact of model, methodological, and parameter uncertainty in the economic analysis of vaccination programs. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(5):434–46.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Bojke LM, et al. Characterizing structural uncertainty in decision analytic models: a review and application of methods. Value Health. 2009;12(5):739–49.PubMedCrossRef Bojke LM, et al. Characterizing structural uncertainty in decision analytic models: a review and application of methods. Value Health. 2009;12(5):739–49.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Frederix G, et al. The impact of structural uncertainty on cost-effectiveness models for adjuvant endocrine breast cancer treatments: the need for disease-specific model standardization and improved guidance. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(1):47–61.PubMedCrossRef Frederix G, et al. The impact of structural uncertainty on cost-effectiveness models for adjuvant endocrine breast cancer treatments: the need for disease-specific model standardization and improved guidance. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(1):47–61.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Le QA. Structural uncertainty of Markov models for advanced breast cancer: a simulation study of lapatinib. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(5):629–40.PubMedCrossRef Le QA. Structural uncertainty of Markov models for advanced breast cancer: a simulation study of lapatinib. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(5):629–40.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Silva-Illanes N, Espinoza M. Critical analysis of Markov models used for the economic evaluation of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review. Value Health. 2018;21(7):858–73.PubMedCrossRef Silva-Illanes N, Espinoza M. Critical analysis of Markov models used for the economic evaluation of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review. Value Health. 2018;21(7):858–73.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Von Schéele B, et al. Relationship between modeling technique and reported outcomes: case studies in models for the treatment of schizophrenia. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(2):235–57.CrossRef Von Schéele B, et al. Relationship between modeling technique and reported outcomes: case studies in models for the treatment of schizophrenia. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(2):235–57.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Kim LG, Thompson SG. Uncertainty and validation of health economic decision models. Health Econ. 2010;19(1):43–55.PubMedCrossRef Kim LG, Thompson SG. Uncertainty and validation of health economic decision models. Health Econ. 2010;19(1):43–55.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Palmer AJ, et al. Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications: a report on the Fourth Mount Hood Challenge Meeting. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(6):1638–46.CrossRef Palmer AJ, et al. Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications: a report on the Fourth Mount Hood Challenge Meeting. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(6):1638–46.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Palmer AJBM. Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications: a report on the fifth mount hood challenge meeting. Value Health. 2013;16(4):670–85.PubMedCrossRef Palmer AJBM. Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications: a report on the fifth mount hood challenge meeting. Value Health. 2013;16(4):670–85.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Tew M, et al. Exploring structural uncertainty and impact of health state utility values on lifetime outcomes in diabetes economic simulation models: findings from the Ninth Mount Hood Diabetes Quality-of-Life Challenge. Med Decis Making. 2022;42(5):599–611.PubMedCrossRef Tew M, et al. Exploring structural uncertainty and impact of health state utility values on lifetime outcomes in diabetes economic simulation models: findings from the Ninth Mount Hood Diabetes Quality-of-Life Challenge. Med Decis Making. 2022;42(5):599–611.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Tarride J-E, et al. A review of methods used in long-term cost-effectiveness models of diabetes mellitus treatment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(4):255–77.PubMedCrossRef Tarride J-E, et al. A review of methods used in long-term cost-effectiveness models of diabetes mellitus treatment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(4):255–77.PubMedCrossRef
17.
18.
go back to reference Charokopou M, et al. Methods applied in cost-effectiveness models for treatment strategies in type 2 diabetes mellitus and their use in Health Technology Assessments: a systematic review of the literature from 2008 to 2013. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32(2):207–18.PubMedCrossRef Charokopou M, et al. Methods applied in cost-effectiveness models for treatment strategies in type 2 diabetes mellitus and their use in Health Technology Assessments: a systematic review of the literature from 2008 to 2013. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32(2):207–18.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Henriksson M, et al. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness models in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(6):569–85.PubMedCrossRef Henriksson M, et al. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness models in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(6):569–85.PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Usman M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of intensive interventions compared to standard care in individuals with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and critical appraisal of decision-analytic models. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2020;161:108073–108073.PubMedCrossRef Usman M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of intensive interventions compared to standard care in individuals with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and critical appraisal of decision-analytic models. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2020;161:108073–108073.PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Asche CV, Hippler SE, Eurich DT. Review of models used in economic analyses of new oral treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(1):15–27.PubMedCrossRef Asche CV, Hippler SE, Eurich DT. Review of models used in economic analyses of new oral treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(1):15–27.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Ogurtsova K, et al. External validation of type 2 diabetes computer simulation models: definitions, approaches, implications and room for improvement-a protocol for a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):267–267.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Ogurtsova K, et al. External validation of type 2 diabetes computer simulation models: definitions, approaches, implications and room for improvement-a protocol for a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):267–267.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
25.
go back to reference Karagiannidou M, et al. Systematic literature review of methodologies and data sources of existing economic models across the full spectrum of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia from apparently healthy through disease progression to end of life care: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open. 2018;8(6):E020638-e020638.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Karagiannidou M, et al. Systematic literature review of methodologies and data sources of existing economic models across the full spectrum of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia from apparently healthy through disease progression to end of life care: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open. 2018;8(6):E020638-e020638.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Philips Z, et al. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(4):355–71.PubMedCrossRef Philips Z, et al. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(4):355–71.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Caro JJMFF, et al. Modeling good research practices—overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-1. Value Health. 2012;15(6):796–803.PubMedCrossRef Caro JJMFF, et al. Modeling good research practices—overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-1. Value Health. 2012;15(6):796–803.PubMedCrossRef
28.
29.
go back to reference Popay J, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: a product from the ESRC Methods Progreamme. J Epidemiol Commut Health 2006;59(Suppl.1):A7. Popay J, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: a product from the ESRC Methods Progreamme. J Epidemiol Commut Health 2006;59(Suppl.1):A7.
30.
go back to reference Hayes AJ, et al. UKPDS Outcomes Model 2: a new version of a model to simulate lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using data from the 30 year United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study: UKPDS 82. Diabetologia. 2013;56(9):1925–33.PubMedCrossRef Hayes AJ, et al. UKPDS Outcomes Model 2: a new version of a model to simulate lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using data from the 30 year United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study: UKPDS 82. Diabetologia. 2013;56(9):1925–33.PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Lundqvist A, et al. Validation of the IHE cohort model of type 2 diabetes and the impact of choice of macrovascular risk equations. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(10):E110235-e110235.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Lundqvist A, et al. Validation of the IHE cohort model of type 2 diabetes and the impact of choice of macrovascular risk equations. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(10):E110235-e110235.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Viriato D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of metformin plus vildagliptin compared with metformin plus sulphonylurea for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a Portuguese healthcare system perspective. J Med Econ. 2014;17(7):499–507.PubMedCrossRef Viriato D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of metformin plus vildagliptin compared with metformin plus sulphonylurea for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a Portuguese healthcare system perspective. J Med Econ. 2014;17(7):499–507.PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Van der Heijden AAWA, et al. Policy evaluation in diabetes prevention and treatment using a population-based macro simulation model: the MICADO model. Diabet Med. 2015;32(12):1580–7.PubMedCrossRef Van der Heijden AAWA, et al. Policy evaluation in diabetes prevention and treatment using a population-based macro simulation model: the MICADO model. Diabet Med. 2015;32(12):1580–7.PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Wolowacz S, et al. Development and validation of a cost-utility model for type 1 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2015;32(8):1023–35.PubMedCrossRef Wolowacz S, et al. Development and validation of a cost-utility model for type 1 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2015;32(8):1023–35.PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Ye W, et al. The Michigan Model for Coronary Heart Disease in Type 2 Diabetes: development and validation. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015;17(10):701–11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Ye W, et al. The Michigan Model for Coronary Heart Disease in Type 2 Diabetes: development and validation. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015;17(10):701–11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Valentine WJP, et al. The prime diabetes model: novel methods for estimating long-term clinical and cost outcomes in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Value Health. 2016;20(7):985–91.CrossRef Valentine WJP, et al. The prime diabetes model: novel methods for estimating long-term clinical and cost outcomes in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Value Health. 2016;20(7):985–91.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Willis M, Asseburg C, He J. Validation of economic and health outcomes simulation model of type 2 diabetes mellitus (ECHO-T2DM). J Med Econ. 2013;16(8):1007–21.PubMedCrossRef Willis M, Asseburg C, He J. Validation of economic and health outcomes simulation model of type 2 diabetes mellitus (ECHO-T2DM). J Med Econ. 2013;16(8):1007–21.PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Willis M, et al. Validation of the economic and health outcomes model of type 2 diabetes mellitus (ECHO-T2DM). Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(3):375–96.PubMedCrossRef Willis M, et al. Validation of the economic and health outcomes model of type 2 diabetes mellitus (ECHO-T2DM). Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(3):375–96.PubMedCrossRef
39.
go back to reference Kwon CS, Seoane-Vazquez E, Rodriguez-Monguio R. Cost-effectiveness analysis of metformin+dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors compared to metformin+sulfonylureas for treatment of type 2 diabetes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):78–78.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Kwon CS, Seoane-Vazquez E, Rodriguez-Monguio R. Cost-effectiveness analysis of metformin+dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors compared to metformin+sulfonylureas for treatment of type 2 diabetes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):78–78.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
go back to reference Laiteerapong N, et al. Individualized glycemic control for U.S. Adults with type 2 diabetes a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(3):170–8.PubMedCrossRef Laiteerapong N, et al. Individualized glycemic control for U.S. Adults with type 2 diabetes a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(3):170–8.PubMedCrossRef
41.
go back to reference Nguyen E, et al. Cost-utility of empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk. J Diabetes Complic. 2018;32(2):210–5.CrossRef Nguyen E, et al. Cost-utility of empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk. J Diabetes Complic. 2018;32(2):210–5.CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Shao H, et al. Novel risk engine for diabetes progression and mortality in USA: Building, Relating, Assessing, and Validating Outcomes (BRAVO). Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(9):1125–34.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Shao H, et al. Novel risk engine for diabetes progression and mortality in USA: Building, Relating, Assessing, and Validating Outcomes (BRAVO). Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(9):1125–34.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
43.
go back to reference Wu B, et al. Development and validation of a Health Policy Model of Type 2 diabetes in Chinese setting. J Comp Eff Res. 2018;7(8):749–63.PubMedCrossRef Wu B, et al. Development and validation of a Health Policy Model of Type 2 diabetes in Chinese setting. J Comp Eff Res. 2018;7(8):749–63.PubMedCrossRef
44.
go back to reference Abramson A, et al. Quantifying the value of orally delivered biologic therapies: a cost-effectiveness analysis of oral semaglutide. J Pharm Sci. 2019;108(9):3138–45.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Abramson A, et al. Quantifying the value of orally delivered biologic therapies: a cost-effectiveness analysis of oral semaglutide. J Pharm Sci. 2019;108(9):3138–45.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
45.
go back to reference Chin KL, et al. Cost-effectiveness of first-line versus delayed use of combination dapagliflozin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):3256–3256.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Chin KL, et al. Cost-effectiveness of first-line versus delayed use of combination dapagliflozin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):3256–3256.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
46.
go back to reference Kansal A, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of empagliflozin treatment in people with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial. Diabet Med. 2019;36(11):1494–502.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Kansal A, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of empagliflozin treatment in people with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial. Diabet Med. 2019;36(11):1494–502.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
go back to reference Kazemian P, et al. Development and validation of PREDICT-DM: a new microsimulation model to project and evaluate complications and treatments of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(6):344–55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Kazemian P, et al. Development and validation of PREDICT-DM: a new microsimulation model to project and evaluate complications and treatments of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(6):344–55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
go back to reference Pollock RF, et al. Long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in the UK: evidence from the basal-bolus subgroup of the DEVOTE Trial (DEVOTE 16). Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019;17(5):615–27.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Pollock RF, et al. Long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in the UK: evidence from the basal-bolus subgroup of the DEVOTE Trial (DEVOTE 16). Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019;17(5):615–27.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
49.
go back to reference Su ZT, et al. The use of computer simulation modeling to estimate complications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: comparative validation of the cornerstone diabetes simulation model. Pharmacoecon Open. 2020;4(1):37–44.PubMedCrossRef Su ZT, et al. The use of computer simulation modeling to estimate complications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: comparative validation of the cornerstone diabetes simulation model. Pharmacoecon Open. 2020;4(1):37–44.PubMedCrossRef
50.
51.
go back to reference Wu B, Shi L. Cost-utility of ticagrelor plus aspirin in diabetic patients with stable coronary artery disease. Eu Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2020;7:529–38. Wu B, Shi L. Cost-utility of ticagrelor plus aspirin in diabetic patients with stable coronary artery disease. Eu Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2020;7:529–38.
52.
go back to reference Bagepally BS, et al. Cost-utility analysis of dapagliflozin compared to sulfonylureas for type 2 diabetes as second-line treatment in indian healthcare payer’s perspective. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2021;13:897–907.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Bagepally BS, et al. Cost-utility analysis of dapagliflozin compared to sulfonylureas for type 2 diabetes as second-line treatment in indian healthcare payer’s perspective. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2021;13:897–907.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
53.
go back to reference Bekele M, Norheim OF, Hailu A. Cost-effectiveness of saxagliptin compared with glibenclamide as a second-line therapy added to metformin for type 2 diabetes mellitus in Ethiopia. MDM Policy Pract. 2021;6(1):238146832110057–23814683211005772.CrossRef Bekele M, Norheim OF, Hailu A. Cost-effectiveness of saxagliptin compared with glibenclamide as a second-line therapy added to metformin for type 2 diabetes mellitus in Ethiopia. MDM Policy Pract. 2021;6(1):238146832110057–23814683211005772.CrossRef
54.
go back to reference Deerochanawong C, et al. Cost-utility analysis of dapagliflozin as an add-on to standard treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes and high risk of cardiovascular disease in Thailand. Diabetes Ther. 2021;12(7):1947–63.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Deerochanawong C, et al. Cost-utility analysis of dapagliflozin as an add-on to standard treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes and high risk of cardiovascular disease in Thailand. Diabetes Ther. 2021;12(7):1947–63.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
55.
go back to reference Tanaka S, et al. Developing a health economic model for Asians with type 2 diabetes based on the Japan Diabetes Complications Study and the Japanese Elderly Diabetes Intervention Trial. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2021;9(1):E002177.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Tanaka S, et al. Developing a health economic model for Asians with type 2 diabetes based on the Japan Diabetes Complications Study and the Japanese Elderly Diabetes Intervention Trial. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2021;9(1):E002177.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
56.
go back to reference Abushanab D, et al. First-line treatment with empagliflozin and metformin combination versus standard care for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease in Qatar. A cost-effectiveness analysis. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2022;47(6):100852–100852.PubMedCrossRef Abushanab D, et al. First-line treatment with empagliflozin and metformin combination versus standard care for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease in Qatar. A cost-effectiveness analysis. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2022;47(6):100852–100852.PubMedCrossRef
57.
go back to reference Huang K, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin plus standard treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes and high risk of cardiovascular disease in China. Front Pub Health. 2022;10:936703–936703.CrossRef Huang K, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin plus standard treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes and high risk of cardiovascular disease in China. Front Pub Health. 2022;10:936703–936703.CrossRef
58.
go back to reference Peng ZY, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors among patients with type 2 diabetes with and without established cardiovascular diseases: a model-based simulation analysis using 10-year real-world data and targeted literature review. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2022;24(7):1328–37.PubMedCrossRef Peng ZY, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors among patients with type 2 diabetes with and without established cardiovascular diseases: a model-based simulation analysis using 10-year real-world data and targeted literature review. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2022;24(7):1328–37.PubMedCrossRef
59.
go back to reference Steg PG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor in patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease: a European economic evaluation of the THEMIS trial. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2022;8(8):777–85.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Steg PG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor in patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease: a European economic evaluation of the THEMIS trial. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2022;8(8):777–85.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
60.
go back to reference Virgili G, et al. Utilities and qalys in health economic evaluations: glossary and introduction. Intern Emerg Med. 2010;5(4):349–52.PubMedCrossRef Virgili G, et al. Utilities and qalys in health economic evaluations: glossary and introduction. Intern Emerg Med. 2010;5(4):349–52.PubMedCrossRef
61.
go back to reference Tanaka S, et al. Developing a health economic model for asians with type 2 diabetes based on the Japan Diabetes Complications Study and the Japanese Elderly Diabetes Intervention Trial. Diabetes (New York, N.Y.). 2018;67(Supplement_1):2319-PUB. Tanaka S, et al. Developing a health economic model for asians with type 2 diabetes based on the Japan Diabetes Complications Study and the Japanese Elderly Diabetes Intervention Trial. Diabetes (New York, N.Y.). 2018;67(Supplement_1):2319-PUB.
62.
go back to reference Holman RR, et al. 10-Year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(15):1577–89.PubMedCrossRef Holman RR, et al. 10-Year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(15):1577–89.PubMedCrossRef
63.
go back to reference Turner R. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet (British ed). 1998;352(9131):837–53. Turner R. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet (British ed). 1998;352(9131):837–53.
64.
go back to reference Kengne AP, et al. Contemporary model for cardiovascular risk prediction in people with type 2 diabetes. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2011;18(3):393–8.PubMedCrossRef Kengne AP, et al. Contemporary model for cardiovascular risk prediction in people with type 2 diabetes. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2011;18(3):393–8.PubMedCrossRef
65.
go back to reference Zethelius B, et al. A new model for 5-year risk of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes, from the Swedish National Diabetes Register (NDR). Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011;93(2):276–84.PubMedCrossRef Zethelius B, et al. A new model for 5-year risk of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes, from the Swedish National Diabetes Register (NDR). Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011;93(2):276–84.PubMedCrossRef
66.
go back to reference Eastman RC, et al. Model of complications of NIDDM. I. Model construction and assumptions. Diabetes Care. 1997;20(5):725–34.PubMedCrossRef Eastman RC, et al. Model of complications of NIDDM. I. Model construction and assumptions. Diabetes Care. 1997;20(5):725–34.PubMedCrossRef
67.
go back to reference Bagust A, et al. An economic model of the long-term health care burden of Type II diabetes. Diabetologia. 2001;44(12):2140–55.PubMedCrossRef Bagust A, et al. An economic model of the long-term health care burden of Type II diabetes. Diabetologia. 2001;44(12):2140–55.PubMedCrossRef
68.
go back to reference Fried LP, et al. The Cardiovascular Health Study: design and rationale. Ann Epidemiol. 1991;1(3):263–76.PubMedCrossRef Fried LP, et al. The Cardiovascular Health Study: design and rationale. Ann Epidemiol. 1991;1(3):263–76.PubMedCrossRef
69.
go back to reference Basu S, et al. Development and validation of Risk Equations for Complications Of type 2 Diabetes (recode) using individual participant data from randomised trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5(10):788–98.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Basu S, et al. Development and validation of Risk Equations for Complications Of type 2 Diabetes (recode) using individual participant data from randomised trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5(10):788–98.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
70.
go back to reference Buse JBMDP. Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Trial: design and methods. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99(12):S21–33.CrossRef Buse JBMDP. Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Trial: design and methods. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99(12):S21–33.CrossRef
71.
go back to reference Bender R, Augustin T, Blettner M. Generating survival times to simulate Cox proportional hazards models. Statist Med. 2005;24(11):1713–23.CrossRef Bender R, Augustin T, Blettner M. Generating survival times to simulate Cox proportional hazards models. Statist Med. 2005;24(11):1713–23.CrossRef
72.
go back to reference Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford University Press; 2006.CrossRef Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford University Press; 2006.CrossRef
73.
go back to reference Davies C, et al. The “hazards” of extrapolating survival curves. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(3):369–80.PubMedCrossRef Davies C, et al. The “hazards” of extrapolating survival curves. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(3):369–80.PubMedCrossRef
74.
go back to reference Hardern C, et al. EX2 structural uncertainty in survival extrapolation: exploring the IMPACT of FOUR MODEL averaging methods and adjusting for DATA maturity. Value Health. 2020;23:S402–S402.CrossRef Hardern C, et al. EX2 structural uncertainty in survival extrapolation: exploring the IMPACT of FOUR MODEL averaging methods and adjusting for DATA maturity. Value Health. 2020;23:S402–S402.CrossRef
75.
go back to reference Dakin HA, et al. Accurately reflecting uncertainty when using patient-level simulation models to extrapolate clinical trial data. Med Decis Making. 2020;40(4):460–73.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Dakin HA, et al. Accurately reflecting uncertainty when using patient-level simulation models to extrapolate clinical trial data. Med Decis Making. 2020;40(4):460–73.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
76.
go back to reference Haji Ali Afzali H, Karnon J. Exploring structural uncertainty in model-based economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(5):435–43.CrossRef Haji Ali Afzali H, Karnon J. Exploring structural uncertainty in model-based economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(5):435–43.CrossRef
77.
go back to reference Kearns B, et al. How uncertain is the survival extrapolation? A study of the impact of different parametric survival models on extrapolated uncertainty about hazard functions, lifetime mean survival and cost effectiveness. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(2):193–204.PubMedCrossRef Kearns B, et al. How uncertain is the survival extrapolation? A study of the impact of different parametric survival models on extrapolated uncertainty about hazard functions, lifetime mean survival and cost effectiveness. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(2):193–204.PubMedCrossRef
78.
go back to reference Negrín MA, Nam J, Briggs AH. Bayesian solutions for handling uncertainty in survival extrapolation. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(4):367–76.PubMedCrossRef Negrín MA, Nam J, Briggs AH. Bayesian solutions for handling uncertainty in survival extrapolation. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(4):367–76.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
A Systematic Review of Methodologies Used in Models of the Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus
Authors
Marina Antoniou
Céu Mateus
Bruce Hollingsworth
Andrew Titman
Publication date
22-09-2023
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 1/2024
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-023-01312-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

PharmacoEconomics 1/2024 Go to the issue

Acknowledgement to Referees

Acknowledgement to Referees