To synthesize updated evidence on the cost-effectiveness (CE) of interventions to manage diabetes, its complications, and comorbidities.
We conducted a systematic literature review of studies from ...high-income countries evaluating the CE of diabetes management interventions recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and published in English between June 2008 and July 2017. We also incorporated studies from a previous CE review from the period 1985-2008. We classified the interventions based on their strength of evidence (strong, supportive, or uncertain) and levels of CE: cost-saving (more health benefit at a lower cost), very cost-effective (≤$25,000 per life year gained LYG or quality-adjusted life year QALY), cost-effective ($25,001-$50,000 per LYG or QALY), marginally cost-effective ($50,001-$100,000 per LYG or QALY), or not cost-effective (>$100,000 per LYG or QALY). Costs were measured in 2017 U.S. dollars.
Seventy-three new studies met our inclusion criteria. These were combined with 49 studies from the previous review to yield 122 studies over the period 1985-2017. A large majority of the ADA-recommended interventions remain cost-effective. Specifically, we found strong evidence that the following ADA-recommended interventions are cost-saving or very cost-effective: In the cost-saving category are
) ACE inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy for intensive hypertension management compared with standard hypertension management,
) ACEI/ARB therapy to prevent chronic kidney disease and/or end-stage renal disease in people with albuminuria compared with no ACEI/ARB therapy,
) comprehensive foot care and patient education to prevent and treat foot ulcers among those at moderate/high risk of developing foot ulcers,
) telemedicine for diabetic retinopathy screening compared with office screening, and
) bariatric surgery compared with no surgery for individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m
). In the very cost-effective category are
) intensive glycemic management (targeting A1C <7%) compared with conventional glycemic management (targeting an A1C level of 8-10%) for individuals with newly diagnosed T2D,
) multicomponent interventions (involving behavior change/education and pharmacological therapy targeting hyperglycemia, hypertension, dyslipidemia, microalbuminuria, nephropathy/retinopathy, secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease with aspirin) compared with usual care,
) statin therapy compared with no statin therapy for individuals with T2D and history of cardiovascular disease,
) diabetes self-management education and support compared with usual care,
) T2D screening every 3 years starting at age 45 years compared with no screening,
) integrated, patient-centered care compared with usual care,
) smoking cessation compared with no smoking cessation,
) daily aspirin use as primary prevention for cardiovascular complications compared with usual care,
) self-monitoring of blood glucose three times per day compared with once per day among those using insulin,
) intensive glycemic management compared with conventional insulin therapy for T2D among adults aged ≥50 years, and
) collaborative care for depression compared with usual care.
Complementing professional treatment recommendations, our systematic review provides an updated understanding of the potential value of interventions to manage diabetes and its complications and can assist clinicians and payers in prioritizing interventions and health care resources.
Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening Ladabaum, Uri; Dominitz, Jason A.; Kahi, Charles ...
Gastroenterology (New York, N.Y. 1943),
January 2020, 2020-01-00, 20200101, Letnik:
158, Številka:
2
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing worldwide. CRC has high mortality when detected at advanced stages, yet it is also highly preventable. Given the difficulties in implementing ...major lifestyle changes or widespread primary prevention strategies to decrease CRC risk, screening is the most powerful public health tool to reduce mortality. Screening methods are effective but have limitations. Furthermore, many screen-eligible people remain unscreened. We discuss established and emerging screening methods, and potential strategies to address current limitations in CRC screening. A quantum step in CRC prevention might come with the development of new screening strategies, but great gains can be made by deploying the available CRC screening modalities in ways that optimize outcomes while making judicious use of resources.
One-fourth of colorectal neoplasias are missed during screening colonoscopies; these can develop into colorectal cancer (CRC). Deep learning systems allow for real-time computer-aided detection ...(CADe) of polyps with high accuracy. We performed a multicenter, randomized trial to assess the safety and efficacy of a CADe system in detection of colorectal neoplasias during real-time colonoscopy.
We analyzed data from 685 subjects (61.32 ± 10.2 years old; 337 men) undergoing screening colonoscopies for CRC, post-polypectomy surveillance, or workup due to positive results from a fecal immunochemical test or signs or symptoms of CRC, at 3 centers in Italy from September through November 2019. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to groups who underwent high-definition colonoscopies with the CADe system or without (controls). The CADe system included an artificial intelligence–based medical device (GI-Genius, Medtronic) trained to process colonoscopy images and superimpose them, in real time, on the endoscopy display a green box over suspected lesions. A minimum withdrawal time of 6 minutes was required. Lesions were collected and histopathology findings were used as the reference standard. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR, the percentage of patients with at least 1 histologically proven adenoma or carcinoma). Secondary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy, non-neoplastic resection rate, and withdrawal time.
The ADR was significantly higher in the CADe group (54.8%) than in the control group (40.4%) (relative risk RR, 1.30; 95% confidence interval CI, 1.14–1.45). Adenomas detected per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the CADe group (mean, 1.07 ±1.54) than in the control group (mean 0.71 ± 1.20) (incidence rate ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.15–1.86). Adenomas 5 mm or smaller were detected in a significantly higher proportion of subjects in the CADe group (33.7%) than in the control group (26.5%; RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.01–1.52), as were adenomas of 6 to 9 mm (detected in 10.6% of subjects in the CADe group vs 5.8% in the control group; RR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.09–2.86), regardless of morphology or location. There was no significant difference between groups in withdrawal time (417 ± 101 seconds for the CADe group vs 435 ± 149 for controls; P = .1) or proportion of subjects with resection of non-neoplastic lesions (26.0% in the CADe group vs 28.7% of controls; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.90–1.12).
In a multicenter, randomized trial, we found that including CADe in real-time colonoscopy significantly increases ADR and adenomas detected per colonoscopy without increasing withdrawal time. ClinicalTrials.gov no: 04079478
Display omitted
Although colonoscopy is widely used as a screening test to detect colorectal cancer, its effect on the risks of colorectal cancer and related death is unclear.
We performed a pragmatic, randomized ...trial involving presumptively healthy men and women 55 to 64 years of age drawn from population registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio either to receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (the invited group) or to receive no invitation or screening (the usual-care group). The primary end points were the risks of colorectal cancer and related death, and the secondary end point was death from any cause.
Follow-up data were available for 84,585 participants in Poland, Norway, and Sweden - 28,220 in the invited group, 11,843 of whom (42.0%) underwent screening, and 56,365 in the usual-care group. A total of 15 participants had major bleeding after polyp removal. No perforations or screening-related deaths occurred within 30 days after colonoscopy. During a median follow-up of 10 years, 259 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the invited group as compared with 622 cases in the usual-care group. In intention-to-screen analyses, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was 0.98% in the invited group and 1.20% in the usual-care group, a risk reduction of 18% (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.70 to 0.93). The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.16). The number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer was 455 (95% CI, 270 to 1429). The risk of death from any cause was 11.03% in the invited group and 11.04% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.04).
In this randomized trial, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was lower among participants who were invited to undergo screening colonoscopy than among those who were assigned to no screening. (Funded by the Research Council of Norway and others; NordICC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00883792.).
The Ideal Screening Test Is the Test That Is Done Dekker, Evelien; Spaander, Manon C.W.
Gastroenterology (New York, N.Y. 1943),
July 2023, 2023-07-00, 20230701, Letnik:
165, Številka:
1
Journal Article
The Rapid Rise in Cutaneous Melanoma Diagnoses Welch, H Gilbert; Mazer, Benjamin L; Adamson, Adewole S
The New England journal of medicine,
2021-Jan-07, Letnik:
384, Številka:
1
Journal Article
PDF
