Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Guideline for the Use of Pharmacoeconomic Models of Diabetes Treatment in the US Managed-Care Environment

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: The Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy has recently created guidelines for the submission of pharmacoeconomic models. Although these guidelines provide a general framework for the integration of pharmacoeconomic models in the drug selection process, amore disease-specific and practical ‘hands-on’ approach is needed for pharmacy staff and Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) committee members.

Objective: To answer the question, ‘How can pharmacoeconomic models comparing treatments for diabetes and its complications be evaluated and used to make more informed formulary decisions?’

Methods: We determined the information needs of a managed care organisation (MCO) making coverage decisions for diabetes therapies and reviewed current guidelines for the submission of pharmacoeconomic models to MCOs. We then developed a set of practical questions for evaluating models of diabetes treatment in a managed-care environment.

Results: Information needed by P&T committees in relation to new diabetes medications includes the long-term benefits of reduced micro- and macrovascular complications and changes in drug utilisation patterns, in addition to the immediate drug budget impact. Because diabetes is a complex disease, the peer-review process should be relied on as a first step to help ensure the validity of a model. Then, the end-user of a model should evaluate (i) the sources of data to inform the model, (ii) the generalisability of the model for an MCO population, and (iii) the face validity of the assumptions of the model.

Conclusion: Pharmacoeconomic models in diabetes offer potential for assisting P&T committee members in making more informed decisions. The guidelines presented here provide a practical approach for model assessment. However, additional expertise will be needed by MCOs to appropriately evaluate these models, and joint educational programmes between managed care, academia, and industry should be considered as a mechanism for improving technology assessment in diabetes care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V
Table VI
Table VII

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kopelman PG, Hitman GA. Exploding type II. Lancet 1998; 352: 5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. American Diabetes Association. Economic consequences of diabetes mellitus in the US, in 1997. Diabetes Care 1998; 21: 296–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet 1998; 352: 837–53

  4. Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT). Update. DCCT Research Group. Diabetes Care 1990; 13: 427–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Eastman RC, Javitt JC, Herman WH, et al. Model of complications of NIDDM. II. Analysis of the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of treating NIDDM with the goal of normoglycemia. Diabetes Care 1997; 20: 725–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wagner EH, Sandhu N, Newton KM, et al. Effect of improved glycemic control on health care costs and utilization. JAMA 2001; 285: 182–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sullivan SD, Lyles A, Luce B, et al. AMCP guidance for submission of clinical and economic evaluation data to support formulary listing in U.S. health plans and pharmacy benefits management organizations. J Managed Care Pharm 2001; 7: 272–82

    Google Scholar 

  8. PBAC. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the PBAC, 1999 [online]. Available from URL: http://partners.health.gov.au/hfs/haf/docs/pharmpac/part1.htm. [Accessed 2001 Jan 6]

    Google Scholar 

  9. CCOHTA. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluations of pharmaceuticals: Canada. 2nd ed. Ottawa: CCOHTA, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  10. NICE. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Appraisal of new and existing technologies: interim guidance for manufacturers and sponsors, August 1999 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.U.K./appraisals/apr_gide.htm [Accessed 2001 Jan 6]

    Google Scholar 

  11. Trueman P, Drummond M, Hutton J. Developing guidance for budget impact analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19: 609–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17: 461–77

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. ISPOR Advisory Panel Reports, Issue II: methodological issues in conducting pharmacoeconomic evaluation — Modeling studies[online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/workpaper/adpanel/mims_html [Accessed 2001 Nov 20]

  14. Brown JB, Russell A, Chan W, et al. The global diabetes model: user friendly version 3.0. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2000; 50 Suppl. 3: S15–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Palmer AJ, Brandt A, Gozzoli V, et al. Outline of a diabetes disease management model: principles and applications. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2000; 50 Suppl. 3: S47–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Brown JB, Palmer AJ, Bisgaard P, et al. The Mt. Hood challenge: cross-testing two diabetes simulation models. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2000; 50 Suppl. 3: S57–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Clarke P, Gray A, Adler A, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin in overweight patients with type II diabetes (UKPDS No. 51). Diabetologia 2001; 44: 298–304

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Pioglitazone package insert. Indianapolis (IN): Eli Lilly. Revised, May 2001

  19. Rosiglitazone package insert. Philadelphia (PA): Glaxo SmithKline. Revised, Feb 2001

  20. Phillips LS, Grunberger G, Miller E, et al. Once- and twice-daily dosing with rosiglitazone improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2001; 24 (2): 308–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Wolffenbuttel BH, Nijst L, Sels JP, et al. Effects of a new oral hypoglycaemic agent, repaglinide, on metabolic control in sulphonylurea-treated patients with NIDDM. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1993; 45 (2): 113–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Johansen K. Efficacy of metformin in the treatment of NIDDM. Meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 1999; 22: 33–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. DeFronzo RA, Goodman AM. Efficacy of metformin in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The Multicenter Metformin Study Group. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 541–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Garber AJ, Duncan TG, Goodman AM, et al. Efficacy of metformin in type II diabetes: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-response trial. Am J Med 1997; 103: 491–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Rosenstock J, Samols E, Muchmore DB, et al. Glimepiride, a new once-daily sulfonylurea. A double-blind placebo-controlled study of NIDDM patients. Glimepiride Study Group. Diabetes Care 1996; 19: 1194–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Simonson DC, Kourides IA, Feinglos M, et al. Efficacy, safety, and dose-response characteristics of glipizide gastrointestinal therapeutic system on glycemic control and insulin secretion in NIDDM. Results of two multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials. The Glipizide Gastrointestinal Therapeutic System Study Group. Diabetes Care 1997; 20: 597–606

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Average cost per patient for 30 days treatment with lowest usual daily dose, based on data provided by Scott Levin’s source™ prescription audit (SPA):March 2000 to February 2001. Med Lett 2001; 43: 29–30

  28. Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet 1998; 352: 854–65

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding for this study was provided by Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, University of Washington, Health Sciences Building, Room H-375A, Box 357630, Seattle, Washington, 98195-357630, USA

    David L. Veenstra, Scott D. Ramsey & Sean D. Sullivan

  2. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA

    Scott D. Ramsey

Authors
  1. David L. Veenstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Scott D. Ramsey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sean D. Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David L. Veenstra.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Veenstra, D.L., Ramsey, S.D. & Sullivan, S.D. A Guideline for the Use of Pharmacoeconomic Models of Diabetes Treatment in the US Managed-Care Environment. Pharmacoeconomics 20 (Suppl 1), 21–30 (2002). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200220001-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200220001-00003

Keywords

Search

Navigation