Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34079308›Full record

ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2021

Glycated Albumin for Glycemic Control in T2DM Population: A Multi-Dimensional Evaluation.

Lucrezia Ferrario, Fabrizio Schettini, Angelo Avogaro, Chiara Bellia, Federico Bertuzzi, Graziella Bonetti, Antonio Ceriello, Marcello Ciaccio, Massimiliano Corsi Romanelli, Elena Dozio and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Lucrezia FerrarioCentre for Health Economics, Social and Health Care Management, Università Carlo Cattaneo - LIUC, Castellanza, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8561-898X
Fabrizio SchettiniCentre for Health Economics, Social and Health Care Management, Università Carlo Cattaneo - LIUC, Castellanza, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5551-4741
Angelo AvogaroDepartment of Medicine, University-Hospital of Padova, Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1177-0516
Chiara BelliaSection of Clinical Biochemistry and Clinical Molecular Medicine, Department of Biopathology and Medical Biotechnologies, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Federico BertuzziDiabetology Unit, Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Graziella BonettiDepartment of Medicine Services, Valcamonica Hospital, Esine, Italy.
Antonio CerielloDepartment of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Diseases, Multimedica Research Institute, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8122-3203
Marcello CiaccioSection of Clinical Biochemistry and Clinical Molecular Medicine, Department of Biopathology and Medical Biotechnologies, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Massimiliano Corsi RomanelliService of Laboratory Medicine 1-Clinical Pathology, Policlinico San Donato, Milan, Italy.
Elena DozioDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Luca FalquiDepartment of Medicine, Diabetes and Endocrinology, Multimedica Research Institute, Milan, Italy.
Angela GirelliDiabetes Care Unit, Spedali Civili Hospital, Brescia, Italy.
Antonio NicolucciCenter for Outcomes Research and Clinical Epidemiology, Pescara, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5939-6850
Gianluca PerseghinDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Università degli Studi di Milano Bicocca, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3024-0457
Mario PlebaniDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University-Hospital of Padova, Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0270-1711
Umberto ValentiniDiabetes Care Unit, Spedali Civili Hospital, Brescia, Italy.
Martina ZaninottoDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University-Hospital of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Silvana CastaldiDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1716-6624
Emanuela FogliaCentre for Health Economics, Social and Health Care Management, Università Carlo Cattaneo - LIUC, Castellanza, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1381-9069
University Carlo Cattaneo · ITUniversity of Milan · ITUniversity of Padua · ITAzienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale degli Spedali Civili di Brescia · ITMultiMedica · ITUniversity of Palermo · ITAzienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda · ITCenter for Outcomes Research and Clinical Epidemiology · ITFondazione Lanza · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate the glycated albumin (GA) introduction implications, as an add-on strategy to traditional glycemic control (Hb1Ac and fasting plasma glucose - FPG) instruments, considering insulin-naïve individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), treated with oral therapies.

methodsA Health Technology Assessment was conducted in Italy, as a multi-dimensional approach useful to validate any innovative technology. The HTA dimensions, derived from the EUnetHTA Core Model, were deployed by means of literature evidence, health economics tools and qualitative questionnaires, filled-in by 15 professionals.

resultsLiterature stated that the GA introduction could lead to a higher number of individuals achieving therapeutic success after 3 months of therapy (97.0% vs 71.6% without GA). From an economic point of view, considering a projection of 1,955,447 T2DM insulin-naïve individuals, potentially treated with oral therapy, GA introduction would imply fewer individuals requiring a therapy switch (-89.44%), with a 1.06% in costs reduction, on annual basis, thus being also the preferable solution from a cost-effectiveness perspective (cost-effectiveness value: 237.74 vs 325.53). According to experts opinions, lower perceptions on GA emerged with regard to equity aspects (0.13 vs 0.72, p-value>0.05), whereas it would improve both individuals (2.17 vs 1.33, p-value=0.000) and caregivers quality of life (1.50 vs 0.83, p-value=0.000). Even if in the short term, GA required additional investments in training courses (-0.80 vs 0.10, p-value = 0.036), in the long run, GA could become the preferable technology (0.30 vs 0.01, p-value=0.018) from an organisational perspective.

conclusionAdding GA to traditional glycaemic control instruments could improve the clinical pathway of individuals with T2DM, leading to economic and organisational advantages for both hospitals and National Healthcare Systems.

Indexed as

economic evaluationglycated albuminHealth Technology Assessmentmultidimensional approachT2DMtype 2 diabetes mellitus

Identifiers

PMID34079308
PMCPMC8166313
OpenAlexW3164723598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.