OBJECTIVE: To prospectively examine the magnitude and predictors of diabetes-attributable non-blood glucose-lowering (non-BGL) medication costs in type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Detailed data from 593 community-dwelling patients were available over 4.3 +/- 0.4 years. Diabetes-attributable costs (in year 2000 Australian dollars [A$]) were calculated by applying a range of attributable proportions for each complication for which medication was prescribed. RESULTS: Non-BGL medications accounted for 75% of all prescription medication costs over the study period, and one-third were attributable to diabetes. The median annual cost (in A$) of non-BGL medications per patient increased from A$220 to A$429 over 4 years (P < 0.001), whereas the diabetes-attributable contribution increased from A$31 (range 15-40) to A$159 (range 95-219) per patient (P < 0.001). Diabetes-attributable hospital costs remained stable during the study. Diabetes-attributable non-BGL costs were skewed and, therefore, square root transformed before regression analysis. Independent baseline determinants of square root cost/year were coronary heart disease, systolic blood pressure, total serum cholesterol, ln(serum triglycerides), ln(albumin-to-creatinine ratio), serum creatinine, education, and, negatively, male sex and fasting plasma glucose (P </= 0.043; R(2) = 29%). Projected to the Australian population, diabetes-attributable non-BGL medication costs for patients with type 2 diabetes totaled A$79 million/year. CONCLUSIONS: The median annual cost of diabetes-attributable non-BGL medications increased fivefold over 4 years. This increase was predicted by vascular risk factors and complications at baseline. Better-educated patients had higher costs, probably reflecting improved health care access. Men and patients with higher fasting plasma glucose levels had lower costs, suggesting barriers to health care and/or poor self-care. The contemporaneous containment of hospital costs may be due to the beneficial effect of increased medication use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Davis et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: