The Role of Patients' Age on Their Preferences for Choosing Additional Blood Pressure-Lowering Drugs:A Discrete Choice Experiment in Patients with Diabetes

ObjectivesTo assess whether patients' willingness to add a blood pressure-lowering drug and the importance they attach to specific treatment characteristics differ among age groups in patients with type 2 diabetes.Materials and MethodsPatients being prescribed at least an oral glucose-lowering and a blood pressure-lowering drug completed a questionnaire including a discrete choice experiment. This experiment contained choice sets with hypothetical blood pressure-lowering drugs and a no additional drug alternative, which differed in their characteristics (i.e. effects and intake moments). Differences in willingness to add a drug were compared between patients = 75 years (aged) using Pearson chi(2)-tests. Multinomial logit models were used to assess and compare the importance attached to the characteristics.ResultsOf the 161 patients who completed the questionnaire, 151 (72%) could be included in the analyses (mean age 68 years; 42% female). Aged patients were less willing to add a drug than non-aged patients (67% versus 84% respectively; P = 0.017). In both age groups, the effect on blood pressure was most important for choosing a drug, followed by the risk of adverse drug events and the risk of death. The effect on limitations due to stroke was only significant in the non-aged group. The effect on blood pressure was slightly more important in the non-aged than the aged group (P = 0.043).ConclusionsAged patients appear less willing to add a preventive drug than non-aged patients. The importance attached to various treatment characteristics does not seem to differ much among age groups.</p

Cost-effectiveness of statins for primary prevention in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the Netherlands

AbstractBackgroundStatins are lipid-lowering drugs that reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to determine whether statin treatment for primary prevention in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes is cost-effective, taking nonadherence, baseline risk, and age into account.MethodsA cost-effectiveness analysis was performed by using a Markov model with a time horizon of 10 years. The baseline 10-year cardiovascular risk was estimated in a Dutch population of primary prevention patients with newly diagnosed diabetes from the Groningen Initiative to Analyse Type 2 Diabetes Treatment (GIANTT) database, using the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study risk engine. Statin adherence was measured as pill days covered in the IADB.nl pharmacy research database. Cost-effectiveness was measured in costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) from the health care payers’ perspective.ResultsFor an average patient aged 60 years, the base case, statin treatment was highly cost-effective at €2245 per QALY. Favorable cost-effectiveness was robust in sensitivity analysis. Differences in age and 10-year cardiovascular risk showed large differences in cost-effectiveness from almost €100,000 per QALY to almost being cost saving. Treating all patients younger than 45 years at diabetes diagnosis was not cost-effective (weighted cost-effectiveness of almost €60,000 per QALY).ConclusionsDespite the nonadherence levels observed in actual practice, statin treatment is cost-effective for primary prevention in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Because of large differences in cost-effectiveness according to different risk and age groups, the efficiency of the treatment could be increased by targeting patients with relatively higher cardiovascular risk and higher ages

Efficacy of standard and intensive statin treatment for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in diabetes patients: A meta-analysis

Aims: To estimate the efficacy of standard and intensive statin treatment in the secondary prevention of major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in diabetes patients. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in Medline over the years 1990 to September 2013. Randomized, double-blind, clinical trials comparing a standard-dose statin with placebo or a standard-dose statin with an intensive-dose statin for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in diabetes patients were selected. Trial and patient characteristics were extracted independently by two researchers. The combined effect on the composite primary endpoint was measured with a fixed-effect model. Potential publication bias was examined with a funnel plot. Results: Five trials were included in the analysis comparing standard-dose statins with placebo with a total of 4 351 participants. Four trials were included for comparing standard-dose with intensive-dose statins, including 4 805 participants. Compared with placebo, standard-dose statin treatment resulted in a significant relative risk (RR) reduction of 15% in the occurrence of any major cardiovascular or cerebrovascular event (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.91). Compared with standard-dose statin treatment, intensive-dose statin treatment resulted in an additional 9% relative risk reduction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.98). Conclusion: Treatment with standard-dose statins to prevent cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events in diabetes patients with manifest cardiovascular disease results in an estimated 15% relative risk reduction and intensive-dose statin treatment adds 9%. If proven cost-effective, more intensive statin treatment should be recommended for diabetes patients at high cardiovascular risk

Funnel plot of the meta-analysis comparing placebo with standard-dose statin treatment.

<p>Funnel plot of the meta-analysis comparing placebo with standard-dose statin treatment.</p

Funnel plot of the meta-analysis comparing standard-dose with intensive-dose statin treatment.

<p>Funnel plot of the meta-analysis comparing standard-dose with intensive-dose statin treatment.</p

Example of a choice set presented in the questionnaire.

<p>Example of a choice set presented in the questionnaire.</p

Patient inclusion flow-chart.

<p>Patient inclusion flow-chart.</p

Birth cohort appeared to confound effect estimates of guideline changes on statin utilization

Objectives: To investigate how birth cohorts can confound population-based intervention effect estimates. Study Design and Setting: Interrupted time series design was applied to study the prevalence of statin use in Dutch diabetes patients over the period 1998-2011. Effects of guideline changes on the outcome were estimated using a Poisson regression model with and without the birth cohort dimension modeled through random intercepts. Results: Both models estimated a stronger increase in prevalence of statin use after influential studies were published in 2003 for patients aged below 50 and above 70 years. The model that controlled for birth cohort also estimated an effect for patients aged 50-70 years from 2003 onward. The magnitude of the intervention effect for patients aged above 70 years when we controlled for birth cohort was reduced from 0.078 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.065, 0.091] to 0.027 (95% CI: 0.013, 0.041). Similarly, for patients aged below 50 years, the estimated guideline effect was reduced from 0.070 (95% CI: 0.048, 0.092) to 0.055 (95% CI: 0.035, 0.075). Conclusion: In this case study, the birth cohort dimension appeared to confound population-level effect estimates of guideline changes on prevalence of statin use in patients with diabetes. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved