ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2021
Cost-Effectiveness of Oral Antidiabetic Drugs: A Prospective Multicenter Study of Real-World Patients.
Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This real-world, multicenter, prospective study aims to analyze the cost-effectiveness of prevalent oral antidiabetic drugs, including traditional Chinese medicine and its compounds, used in China. Type 2 diabetes patients initiated on one or several of the most prevalent antidiabetic drugs were recruited on the baseline and followed up over one year with no restriction on drug discontinuation, switching, and add-on. Different drugs were evaluated on their efficacy, adverse effect (AE), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and cost. Treatments were defined as the intent-to-treat in the primary analysis and on-treatment in the sensitivity analyses. A rich set of patients' baseline characteristics was collected and controlled using the multivariate linear model in the primary analysis and inverse probability weighting and double selection-a machine learning algorithm-in the sensitivity analyses. Estimates of "raw" outcomes, which are not adjusted by covariates and calculated as subgroup means, show that the use of Xiaoke Pill alone and in combination is among the most effective therapies with 50% and 54% of patients reaching the control target of HbA1c < 6.5%. In terms of cost, Xiaoke Pill and gliclazide, which cost participants 4,350 and 5,150 RMB per year on average, are among the least costly therapies. After adjusting patient characteristics, monotherapy and combination therapy using the Xiaoke Pill again display the best control rates, of 45% and 43% against 33% of metformin. Regarding cost, the Xiaoke Pill costs a patient 5,340 RMB per year, in sharp contrast with 8,550 RMB for metformin and 10,330 RMB for acarbose. Our study suggests that the use of Xiaoke Pill-alone or in combination-is associated with better glycemic control and lower cost than some allopathic medications such as metformin or acarbose and shows a similar incidence of hypoglycemia.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.