MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed in 10 databases from inception until February 2018. All economic evaluations assessing the economic evaluation of telemedicine in diabetes were eligible for inclusion. We subsequently evaluated the study quality in terms of effectiveness measures, cost measure, economic model, as well as time horizon.
RESULTS: Of the 1877 studies identified, 14 articles were included in our final review. The healthcare providers' fees are a major predictor for total cost. In particular, the use of telemedicine for retinal screening was beneficial and cost-effective for diabetes management, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between $113.48/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and $3,328.46/QALY (adjusted to 2017 inflation rate). Similarly, the use of telemonitoring and telephone reminders was cost-effective in diabetes management.
CONCLUSIONS: Among all telemedicine strategies examined, teleophthalmology was the most cost-effective intervention. Future research is needed to provide evidence on the long-term experience of telemedicine and facilitate resource allocation.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The prevalence of diabetes, defined as self-reported or fasting glycemia ≥7 mmol/L, was documented in 119,666 adults from three high-income (HIC), seven upper-middle-income (UMIC), four lower-middle-income (LMIC), and four low-income (LIC) countries. Relationships between diabetes and its risk factors within these country groupings were assessed using multivariable analyses.
RESULTS: Age- and sex-adjusted diabetes prevalences were highest in the poorer countries and lowest in the wealthiest countries (LIC 12.3%, UMIC 11.1%, LMIC 8.7%, and HIC 6.6%; P < 0.0001). In the overall population, diabetes risk was higher with a 5-year increase in age (odds ratio 1.29 [95% CI 1.28-1.31]), male sex (1.19 [1.13-1.25]), urban residency (1.24 [1.11-1.38]), low versus high education level (1.10 [1.02-1.19]), low versus high physical activity (1.28 [1.20-1.38]), family history of diabetes (3.15 [3.00-3.31]), higher waist-to-hip ratio (highest vs. lowest quartile; 3.63 [3.33-3.96]), and BMI (≥35 vs. <25 kg/m(2); 2.76 [2.52-3.03]). The relationship between diabetes prevalence and both BMI and family history of diabetes differed in higher- versus lower-income country groups (P for interaction < 0.0001). After adjustment for all risk factors and ethnicity, diabetes prevalences continued to show a gradient (LIC 14.0%, LMIC 10.1%, UMIC 10.9%, and HIC 5.6%).
CONCLUSIONS: Conventional risk factors do not fully account for the higher prevalence of diabetes in LIC countries. These findings suggest that other factors are responsible for the higher prevalence of diabetes in LIC countries.
RESULTS: Typically increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues across Europe including both Western and Central and Eastern European countries reflects perceived patient benefits despite higher prices. However, activities by the originator company to switch patients to more concentrated insulin glargine coupled with lowering prices towards biosimilars have limited biosimilar uptake, with biosimilars not currently launched in a minority of European countries. A number of activities were identified to address this. Enhancing the attractiveness of the biosimilar insulin market is essential to encourage other biosimilar manufacturers to enter the market as more long-acting insulin analogues lose their patents to benefit all key stakeholder groups.
CONCLUSIONS: There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars among European countries despite lower costs. This can be addressed.